[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 41 (Wednesday, March 20, 2013)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1967-S1975]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AND VETERANS AFFAIRS, AND
FULL-YEAR CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2013
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the
Senate will resume consideration of H.R. 933.
The clerk will report the bill.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (H.R. 933) to make appropriations for the Department
of Defense, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and other
departments and agencies for the fiscal year ending September
30, 2013, and for other purposes.
Pending:
Reid (for Mikulski-Shelby) modified amendment No. 26, in
the nature of a substitute.
Toomey amendment No. 115 (to amendment No. 26), to increase
by $60,000,000 the amount appropriated for operation and
maintenance for the Department of Defense for programs,
projects, and activities in the continental United States,
and to provide an offset.
Durbin amendment No. 123 (to amendment No. 115), to change
the enactment date.
Recognition of the Majority Leader
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority leader is recognized.
Schedule
Mr. REID. Mr. President, following leader remarks, the Senate will
resume consideration of the continuing appropriations legislation. The
time until 11:15 a.m. today will be divided and controlled equally
between the two leaders or their designees.
At 11:15 a.m. there will be three rollcall votes in relation to the
continuing resolution: the Toomey amendment, which is a 60-vote
threshold; adoption of the Mikulski-Shelby substitute amendment; and a
cloture vote on H.R. 933, the underlying bill.
Budget Debate
Mr. REID. Mr. President, for the last few years my Republican
colleagues have been hollering, yelling, and screaming that the Senate
has not passed a budget. They have done so in spite of the fact that
Republicans in both Chambers voted for the Budget Control Act which set
spending levels for the last 2 years. It was a law. Every reasonable
political observer admits that the Budget Control Act, which had the
force of law, was a budget, period. No, it was not a resolution. It was
a law, which is much stronger than any resolution we do here.
As I indicated, they have yelled and screamed. Still, Republicans
pine for the days of the so-called regular order when the Senate would
vote on a budget resolution that would set spending priorities for the
fiscal year. Republicans--we were told, we heard, we saw--were
desperate to have a budget debate. They were desperate. They have had
charts out here. They were desperate for an amendment. They wanted a
vote-arama. They had charts, speeches, and demonstrations to prove it.
They have had press conference after press conference after press
conference. They even had a calendar they brought out almost daily
tallying the days since the Senate passed a budget resolution--not a
law, which was already in effect, but a resolution.
Yesterday I was amazed, flabbergasted, and stunned when Republicans
blocked attempts to begin debate on the budget resolution. In fact, the
ranking member of the Budget
[[Page S1968]]
Committee said: Let's put it off for a while. Let's wait until after
Easter.
Can you imagine that? They have been pining for regular order, and we
now have a chance to have a debate. They said: No, we can't do that.
Can't do it. There was a chance, and they were not interested in doing
it.
My friend, the junior Senator from Kansas, objected to a request
debating the budget unless we vote on his proposed amendment to the
continuing resolution. He is concerned about air traffic towers in
Kansas because of these across-the-board cuts.
I say to all of my colleagues--I say to the Senator from Kansas--we
are all concerned about the impact of these budget cuts. They are
senseless, they are ridiculous, and we should do away with them. We
have already cut $2.5 trillion from the debt. We can continue to do it
but do it in a responsible and reasonable way, not a meat-cleaver way.
More than 100 families in Nevada--almost immediately--are going to
lose access to low-income housing because of the sequester. I met with
the housing authority people yesterday. Some might say: Oh, that is not
such a big deal. It is a big deal for those 100 families. Nationwide,
70,000 little boys and girls are going to lose their ability to go to
Head Start. Some may ask: What is that? Head Start will allow them to
get started in life.
These cuts--and I have only mentioned a few of them--are painful for
millions of Americans, and it is only going to get worse. They are
arbitrary.
We are all concerned. The concern for the sequester is not focused on
the Senate delegation from Kansas, it is all over. Instead of whining
about it, let's do something about it. Let's get rid of it. That is why
the Senate Democratic budget proposal actually reverses the sequester.
That is one way of doing it, but there are other ways.
The policy outlined in Senator Murray's budget will save hundreds of
thousands of jobs, safeguard communities by keeping police, air traffic
controllers, and meat inspectors on the job. Reversing the sequester
would alleviate Senator Moran's concern about air traffic controllers
in Kansas. The Senate cannot debate a thoughtful way to replace the
sequester if the Republicans will not even let us debate our budget
proposal.
We know Republicans and Democrats will not agree on every aspect of
the budget which sets priorities for how the government spends money
and how it saves money. Republicans have one plan for Medicare. Their
plan is to turn it into a voucher program which will change Medicare
forever. Democrats have another plan. The Democrats' plan is to
preserve and protect Medicare for our children and grandchildren.
Republicans have a plan for taxes. Listen to this one: They want to
lower taxes for the rich and let the middle class foot the bill.
Democrats have another plan. We believe the wealthiest individuals and
corporations should contribute a little bit more to reduce the deficit.
Surprisingly, the intelligent American people agree with us--Democrats,
Independents, and Republicans--by almost a 60-percent margin. The only
Republicans in America who disagree are those who serve in Congress.
Republicans have one plan to reduce the deficit which will rely on
harsh austerity that shortchanges the elderly, veterans, middle class,
poor, and others. The Democrats have another plan. We have a balanced
approach that couples smart spending cuts with new revenue from closing
loopholes that benefit the wealthiest Americans.
We have our differences, and that is fine. But Democrats are willing
to discuss these differences; we are willing to debate the issues.
Let's debate the issues. The Republicans have said for months and
months: Let's debate the budget. Why can't we debate the budget?
Because they will not let us.
This is senseless. We have 60 hours of doing nothing--nothing. The
American people are on our side. This is a debate we can win, but at
least let's have the debate.
Will the Chair announce the business of the day.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the time
until 11:15 a.m. will be equally divided and controlled between the two
leaders or their designees.
Who yields time?
Mr. REID. Mr. President, we are not in a quorum call, are we?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. We are not.
Who yields time?
If no one yields time, the time will be divided equally.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask
unanimous consent that the time during the quorum call be equally
divided.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, I wish to discuss with my colleagues here
in the Senate an amendment I have filed to the continuing resolution
that is now pending before the Senate. It is amendment No. 55. I have
spoken about this issue on the floor previously this week but want to
reiterate the merits of this amendment and ask my colleagues for their
support.
Amendment No. 55 deals with this issue of air traffic control towers.
Under the administration's plan in implementing sequestration, the plan
is to close, on April 7--just a few days from now--173 air traffic
control towers across the country. The amendment I wish to offer avoids
that. The administration would no longer be able to do that. I believe
they should not for numerous reasons, but what we do, in order to
accomplish that, is to transfer $50 million from two accounts, one
dealing with research at the Department of Transportation and one
dealing with unencumbered balances.
This is an example of what we have talked about before: that we can
make better decisions than across-the-board cuts. In fact, the
amendment I wish to offer deals with an issue that is not even an
across-the-board cut.
In closing the contract towers, in eliminating the Contract Tower
Program, the administration is cutting that program 75 percent.
Sequestration is described to us as, in most circumstances, an across-
the-board 5-percent cut. The amendment I wish to offer continues the 5-
percent cut. That would occur for the air traffic Contract Tower
Program, so that they would be treated like other programs at the
Department of Transportation and throughout government, that they are
not singled out for elimination of a program, resulting in a 75-percent
reduction in that program's funding, not just the more minor 5 percent.
So the administration's decision to close contract towers is far from
balanced, and in choosing this program, in my view, has taken the
opportunity to damage the safety and security of the flying public of
America.
I want to talk about that in a moment. But there was also the
suggestion that this is a provincial argument on my part, that it is
something I care specifically about for Kansas, my home State.
Certainly there is not anything wrong with caring about our home
States. That is what we do here, and it is part of our responsibility.
But this is far from just being a Kansas issue. Many States and Members
of the Senate are more greatly affected by this cut, this elimination,
than my home State.
In fact, this amendment has the sponsorship of 26 Republican and
Democratic cosponsors. More Democratic Senators here are cosponsors of
this amendment than Republican Senators. It is Senators Roberts,
Inhofe, Blumenthal, Blunt, Johanns, Kirk, Manchin, Hagan, Klobuchar,
Baucus, Tester, Enzi, Vitter, Boozman, Pryor, Merkley, Wyden, Kaine,
Warner, Ayotte, Shaheen, Risch, Crapo, Murphy, Rockefeller, and Wicker.
It does not sound very provincial to me. In fact, 42 States will have
their air traffic control towers eliminated. This amendment is broadly
supported by the aviation industry. If there is an aspect of this that
is unique to Kansas, it is that we manufacture many general aviation
aircraft. We are the air capital of the world. But this amendment,
while being supported by the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, by
National Business Aviation
[[Page S1969]]
Association, the National Air Transportation Association, is also
supported by the American Association of Airport Executives and the
National Air Traffic Controllers Association.
Again, it is not a very provincial amendment when sponsored by so
many of my colleagues, affecting 40-some--43 States of the United
States, and broadly supported by the aviation industry as a reasonable,
commonsense solution to a problem we face.
I have been adamant about bringing this amendment to the floor. I am
a member of the Appropriations Committee. I will have the opportunity--
in fact, I serve on the subcommittee that deals with the Department of
Transportation. I should and hope to have the opportunity to deal with
this and other issues related to the Department of Transportation in
the normal appropriations process that, hopefully, will follow the
passage of a budget. So I ought to be in a position to be helpful to
the cause I believe in at a point later in time.
But here is the problem: The air traffic control towers will close on
April 7. We will never get to an appropriations process between now,
here at the end of March, and April 7. So the Appropriations Committee
and, ultimately, the Senate, the House of Representatives, and the
President will never have the ability to restore a program that is gone
April 7.
So while I have tried to put myself in a position to be helpful to
the cause in the long run, there is no long-run battle to be fought
because the control towers are gone in just a matter of a few short
days.
This amendment matters. This is my last opportunity. If and when
cloture is invoked later today on the underlying bill, there is no
opportunity for amendments to be considered. So my colleagues who
indicate to me so strongly that they support my amendment, this is the
only opportunity we have to have success.
This clearly is not about my success in an amendment. Although I
would love to have the opportunity for this amendment to be voted on,
it may or may not pass. But the Senate ought to work its will in making
that determination. With the broad support of the industry, with the
broad support of my colleagues here in the Senate, one would think this
is an amendment which is at least worthy of a vote. That has not been
the case.
So it is important for me to again reiterate to my colleagues that if
you invoke cloture this afternoon or later this morning, if you invoke
cloture, there is no other opportunity for us to address this issue,
this problem. So let me again request the opportunity.
I lay awake last night from 3:30 on trying to figure out what it is I
can say to my colleagues to get their attention about why this is so
important. There are lots of things that can be said. We have so little
time before this is either a program that existed in the past and will
no longer exist in the future--the consequences are so dramatic that I
would again ask my colleagues for their assistance in at least bringing
the amendment to the floor so that the Senate can make a decision, yes
or no, about the merits of the amendment.
This is about safety. There was an article I just happened to read
today in reading my clips from Kansas. This is in a Kansas paper, but
it is an AP story from Chicago. The article is entitled ``Trouble in
the Air,'' and here is what the AP reporter writes about the planned
shutdown. The article says:
The planned shutdown of nearly 240 air traffic control
towers across the country under federal budget cuts will
strip away an extra layer of safety during takeoffs and
landings, leaving pilots to manage the most critical stages
of flight on their own.
But airport directors and pilots say there is little doubt
that the removal of this second pair of eyes on the ground
increases risk and will slow the progress that has made the
U.S. air system the safest in the world.
It's not just private pilots in small planes who stand to
be affected. Many of the airports in question are serviced by
major airlines, and the cuts could leave towers unmanned
during overnight hours that some big-city airports such as
Chicago's Midway and General Mitchell Airport in Milwaukee.
The plans have prompted airlines to review whether the
changes might pose problems for commercial service that could
mean canceling or rescheduling flights.
Without the help of controllers, risk ``goes up
exponentially,'' said Mark Hanna, director of the Abraham
Lincoln Capital Airport in Springfield, Ill., which could see
its tower close.
But many in the aviation sector are frustrated by the
political brinkmanship in Washington that has affected such a
sensitive area of aviation. Jim Montman, manager of the Santa
Fe Municipal Airport, which is on the list for tower
closures, said the absence of controllers raised the risk of
midair collisions ``or some sort of incident where somebody
lands on the wrong runway. . . . That critical link is
gone.''
Pilots are trained to watch for other aircraft and announce
their position over the radio during approaches, landings and
takeoffs. But past crashes, however rare, have exposed
weaknesses in that system. On November 19, 1996, a 19-seat
United Express flight landing in Quincy, Ill., collided with
another twin-engine turboprop that was taking off. They
slammed into each other at the intersection of two runways,
killing all 14 people aboard the two planes. The National
Transportation Safety Board concluded the probable cause was
a failure of the pilot in the outbound flight to monitor the
radio frequency for air traffic and to properly scan for
other planes. ``If a tower was there, it's highly likely that
the accident would have been prevented,'' said Hanna, who
became the director of the Quincy airport about two years
after the crash.
The 238 air traffic control facilities that could be closed
were chosen because they are at airports with fewer than
150,000 flight operations per year. They are located in every
state.
Again, the point of this amendment is not whether or not I find the
right words to convince my colleagues to allow this amendment to come
to a vote. As much as I struggled through the morning hours trying to
figure out what those might be, the real issue is not about my words or
my personal success in getting this amendment considered, but it is
about the safety of Americans.
I cannot figure out why this amendment cannot be made in order.
Again, broad support--broad support with Republicans and Democrats. I
have had many Senators, including very senior Senators from the
Democratic side of the aisle, come to me and express amazement that
this amendment, so broadly supported, so important, cannot be
considered. I cannot come up with an explanation. I do not know why
this is the case.
Every Senator I have talked to about this amendment tells me they do
not oppose it, it ought to be voted on, they support it. Yet for some
reason the Senate is incapable of agreeing to even a vote on an
important and critical amendment that promotes the safety of the
American people. I can only guess--and it is always difficult to
attribute motives, but as I talk to my colleagues, the only explanation
I ever get that has any semblance of truth is that there is a point to
be made here. By denying the amendment's passage, we prove that
sequestration cannot work; we cannot cut money from budgets.
Again, I did not vote for sequestration. So when the majority leader
says this morning about the hatchet being taken to programs and it is
all bad--I did not vote for sequestration. I believe in the
appropriations process that allows us to make these decisions to
increase funding for some things, decrease funding for other things,
and eliminate programs. Yet sequestration, in my view, has an effect
upon all programs equally, whether they are effective or ineffective,
whether they are valuable or invaluable. We treat them the same.
So I am not here on the cause of sequestration, but apparently there
are those in this city, in Washington, DC, who want to make the point
that if the air traffic control towers are eliminated, it will
demonstrate once and for all--I don't know; to Republican Senators, to
Senators in general, to Congress, to the American people--that there is
no opportunity to cut budgets.
If people want to make that point and if they can convince people
that it is true that there is no opportunity to eliminate $85 billion
in spending, that is fine with me. That is what this place exists for,
is for us to have the debate about whether we can reduce spending,
increase spending, what our Tax Code ought to be, what the value is of
government services and programs and how they ought to be funded. But
if it is true that the reason this amendment is not being considered is
because we want to prove a point--that there is no money to be cut,
that sequestration is a bad idea, that reducing spending is a bad idea,
that we have to raise taxes--if that is the point that is trying to be
made here in the process of denying this amendment's consideration,
then
[[Page S1970]]
it is a very dangerous way to try to prove a point.
Prove your point in argument and debate about the merits of spending,
about the merits of the program. Prove your point in the Appropriations
Committee, in which we take testimony and hear from people about what
is important to them, priorities, what their needs are, what their
wants are, what has value, what does not. But do not try to make the
political point about this topic by reducing the safety of people who
fly in and out of communities across the country. As the article said,
this reduces the nature of our air traveling safety from the best in
the world to something less than that.
So make the point. Have the debate and argument about the value of
sequestration, about the value of what money we spend and do not spend.
But let's not try to prove the point by reducing the chances that the
American people, when they travel, are safe and secure in our airways.
I do not know, and I hope this is never the case--this point may
never be proven about the safety, but once there is an accident and
someone dies and a plane crashes, the question will always be, what if
there had been an air traffic control tower there? What if we had left
the program in place?
These communities that have the air traffic control towers have spent
years in developing a plan to put them in place, have worked with the
FAA and the Department of Transportation over decades to bring their
airports and airport safety, flying safety to high standards. An issue
here is that this is going to disappear overnight. So you can be an
airport manager, an airport authority, a member of an airport board
anyplace in the country with 200-plus air traffic control towers, and
you have worked hard over years, decades, to get the standards in place
and to have the air traffic control process at your airport. In one
day, April 7, one night, the lights go off in the tower. They no longer
exist. All the work you have tried to accomplish on behalf of your
community and those who fly in and out of your airport disappears in
one stroke.
So I speak with a level of passion about this issue, for really the
purpose of which I think we are here to do, which is to advance the
common good of the American people. It is not a provincial amendment.
It is not something that just Moran and Kansas need. There are many
States much more affected by this. But the truth is that every
American, every person who flies will have less safety and security in
the skies as a result of this issue, as a result of the decision made
by the Department of Transportation to eliminate this program.
So, once again, I intend to ask later in the morning, when our
leaders are on the floor, for unanimous consent to bring this amendment
forward before the time expires. In my time in Congress--I have only
been in the Senate a little more than 2 years--I have not been trying
to be obstreperous. I have not tried to be difficult to deal with. I
believe in the opportunity to reach out and work together. I followed
the rules. I did what everybody tells me to do: Go find people who
support this amendment who are Democrats and Republicans, bring them
together.
And as the leader said earlier in the week--I guess it is now last
week--earlier last week about how we are going to get back to regular
order, we are going to have amendments offered, I hope we can dispose
of them quickly, we have an opportunity to do that with this amendment.
It is not controversial. It is not partisan. It is about something that
ought to be of importance to all Americans, certainly to every Senator.
Later in the morning when the leaders are present, I will ask
unanimous consent once again that we consider this amendment. I know
there are others who want to offer amendments. I see my colleagues from
Arkansas and Missouri on the floor. I know they have an amendment--I
think it is No. 82--with which they want to offer the opportunity to
address a problem by taking money from one account and putting it in
another account in order to keep meatpacking plants operational, that
we have the meat inspectors present at the plants. Boy, that is an
important issue too. That is about the safety and security of
Americans. It is about food safety. I hope no one objects to the
amendment Senators Pryor and Blunt are going to offer this morning.
That is another amendment which is very similar in nature, about
deciding that we are smarter to spend money here than here.
As the Pryor-Blunt amendment comes before the floor, I would ask my
colleagues, just as I would ask them to grant unanimous consent, I hope
no one objects to their request for unanimous consent that their
amendment be considered. I would ask that no one object to the
amendment I intend to offer. I certainly will not object to the Blunt-
Pryor amendment. I wish it was leverage to get my amendment considered,
but it is too dangerous to play that game. That is what we do here in
Washington, DC, is strike a deal. In this case, when we strike that
deal, we are leaving people behind whose lives are going to be
adversely affected.
I certainly will not stand in the way of people who work in the
meatpacking industry and the consumers of meat products across our
country, in the way of trying to solve a problem that is clearly there.
I hope their amendment receives unanimous consent, and I hope it passes
by this Senate's will. I would ask the same thing. When the appropriate
time comes, I will ask for the same thing on an amendment that is about
the safety and security of American people.
I thank the Presiding Officer for his indulgence and at least his
appearance of listening to me.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. MORAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. (Ms. Heitkamp). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. MORAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the next quorum
call be equally divided between the Republicans and Democrats, the
majority and the minority.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MORAN. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Ms. AYOTTE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
MS. AYOTTE. Madam President, I come to the floor to speak about an
amendment I made to the continuing resolution. This is a continuing
resolution for appropriations bills which are pending on the floor
right now, and we are spending over $1 trillion.
I filed an amendment, amendment No. 127, which would have struck the
funding of $380 million for a missile to nowhere. This is funding for a
program called the Medium Extended Air Defense System, otherwise known
as MEADS. Up to this time, we have expended $3 billion for this system.
Yet we will never receive a result our Army or our military can use.
This is why it is a missile to nowhere.
The chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Senator Carl
Levin, has said of the funding for this MEADS program: With regard to
the committee, we feel strongly that it is a waste of money.
In the 2012 Defense authorization, the Senate Armed Services
Committee made very clear this was going to be the last appropriation
for this missile to nowhere. In the 2013 authorization, on a unanimous
bipartisan basis before the Senate Armed Services Committee, the
committee voted to say no more money for a missile to nowhere.
Right now, our military is facing great challenges with
sequestration. We have heard this from our military leaders. These are
difficult choices they must make to cut training for our troops and cut
needed flying hours when our troops absolutely need to be prepared and
ready. For equipment, an announcement was made we were going to
withdraw a carrier, which sends the wrong message to Iran.
Despite all this, the continuing resolution, which is on the floor
with the appropriations bill attached, contains $380 million for a
missile to nowhere. This is something our military will
[[Page S1971]]
never be able to use. And why is it there? It is there because people
are worried about their parochial interests, that their State builds
part of this, and also because, apparently, they want to provide
employment to the Germans and the Italians, because they are getting a
substantial amount of this money. Yet we will never see anything our
troops can use from it.
My amendment was very straightforward. The amendment would do this:
It would take the $380 million and strike it from the MEADS Program,
then take those resources and, instead of spending the $380 million on
the MEADS Program, it would go to the operations and maintenance fund
for our troops for real needs they have on the ground--whether it is
equipment or training--rather than for a missile to nowhere that they
do not need and don't want.
It seems to me we owe it to our troops to make sure our taxpayer
dollars don't continue to be wasted on funding a MEADS Program we will
never get a result from. In fact, we have had large unanimous agreement
on a bipartisan basis about striking this MEADS Program. In fact, I
mentioned the Senate Armed Services Committee has said we should
prohibit funding for it. The House Armed Services Committee did the
same thing and said we should prohibit funding for it, and the House
Defense Appropriations Subcommittee zeroed out funding for MEADS. The
only committee that allocated funding for it was the Senate
Appropriations Subcommittee. Talk about a waste of money.
It is shocking to me, by the way, that this amendment makes so much
sense, that it has bipartisan support, and yet I can't get a vote on
the floor of the Senate to strike the money for this missile to nowhere
and to apply the funds to where our troops need them so the funds can
actually be used to make sure they have what they need to be prepared.
It is appalling that I am being denied the right to offer this
amendment, to bring it to the floor, to let people vote on it. At a
time when we face great fiscal challenges, it is absolutely appalling
to me that here in the Senate we can't strike $380 million in funding
for a missile to nowhere when we are almost $17 trillion in debt. This
is what is wrong with Washington. It is appalling we cannot be in a
position to get a vote that is germane to fund a program that the
Concerned Veterans for America has said is wasteful, in support of my
amendment; that the Citizens Against Government Waste agrees as well
and supports my amendment; and that I have bipartisan support for my
amendment. In fact, Senators Begich and Shaheen are cosponsors of my
amendment. So this is not a partisan issue, this is about not wasting
taxpayer dollars. I can tell you this sort of thing is what is
appalling to the American people, that we cannot and we will not strike
wasteful spending. We can't even get a vote on it here in the Senate.
I am going to continue to fight to end the funding for this program
and other wasteful spending programs and to make sure the money we have
and the taxpayer dollars, particularly in the Pentagon but in every
area of government, go for what they are intended--for things our
troops need, and not a missile to nowhere where we are protecting,
apparently, parochial interests that people are worried about more than
they are worried about the overall fiscal state of the country.
This is something that has been very disappointing to me. I think it
is appalling we wouldn't allow a vote on such a relevant, germane
amendment on a bill in which we are going to spend over $1 trillion. I
don't know why we continue to fund things such as the missile to
nowhere when there are real needs our troops have. I know this
amendment had bipartisan support in the past. Both sides of the aisle
do not want to spend money on a missile to nowhere when there are real
needs our troops have.
I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this issue on the floor
today.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, it took 4 years to get a budget from
the Senate majority--4 long years.
As the days go by, it has become increasingly clear why it took so
long; their budget is so extreme and so unbalanced. That is why they
are having such a hard time selling it to the American people and why
they have had to fall back on some tired talking points to defend it,
claiming their budget would, for instance, grow the economy from the
middle class out. That is a clever sound bite, but it doesn't describe
the Senate Democratic budget at all.
Maybe a better way to put it is that the Democratic budget would grow
the bureaucracy from the pockets of the middle class out. That is
because it would increase Federal spending by almost two-thirds by
imposing a massive tax hike that could cost the average middle-class
family literally thousands.
The Democrats like to say the up to $1.5 trillion tax increase
authorized in their budget--the largest tax hike in American history,
by the way--would be funded by closing loopholes for millionaires and
billionaires, but the math simply doesn't add up. They will have to
come after the middle class to fund this spending spree.
There is something else. The Senate Democratic budget wouldn't
balance ever--not in 2013, not in 2023, not in 2023, not ever. It
wouldn't balance in any of our lifetimes. It wouldn't balance in the
lifetimes of our children or our grandchildren. It would simply never
balance.
Think about it. That means a child born today would grow up knowing
nothing but massive deficits their entire life. That means trillions
upon trillions in more debt and an economy that would never ever reach
its full potential. That is simply not right, but it is what we would
get with the Senate Democratic plan. It is an extreme approach that is
more than just fiscally reckless; it is deeply irresponsible.
That is why so many middle-class families agree with Republicans that
we should be growing the economy, not the government. They know we need
to control Washington spending and balance the budget in order to kick-
start economic growth and to create American jobs. They are so tired of
the Obama economy.
They are tired of the endless pivots to jobs that never result in the
kind of sustained job creation we need. They are tired of the sluggish
growth, of always looking to the future with anxiety or worrying
whether Medicare will even be there when they retire.
They are tired of the ideological DC Democratic extremism that got us
here: knee-jerk, tax-first solutions to almost every single problem,
massive overspending, steadfast opposition to reforms that would make
government programs more efficient, effective, and sustainable.
So my friends across the aisle shouldn't be surprised their budget is
getting such a rough ride. It contains up to $1.5 trillion in new
taxes. This would be the largest tax hike in American history. It
contains $\1/2\ trillion more in spending, money that could be siphoned
out of the economy and into the hands of politicians and bureaucrats.
It lacks meaningful reforms to save and strengthen Medicare, allowing
it to go bankrupt in just a few years, and it enshrines massive
deficits into law, ensuring they continue forever and ever without end.
The Senate Democratic budget is nothing more than a rehash of the
same tired politics that continue to pummel the middle class. It is
time to move beyond this failed extremist approach and try a new one.
Instead of expanding the power of the bureaucratic elite at the expense
of hardworking taxpayers, I would urge Washington to change course.
Let's focus on growing the economy, not the government.
ObamaCare
I would also like to discuss ObamaCare for a moment.
As I just stated, Senate Republicans want policies to grow the
economy, not the government. Yet ObamaCare is a law that grows the
government and will slow our economy. On Saturday, we will mark the
third anniversary of its passage into law.
Republicans have long warned that ObamaCare would have a devastating
[[Page S1972]]
impact on our country. I have spoken about 100 times on the Senate
floor against ObamaCare and I have warned about its consequences:
increased premiums, lost jobs, and higher taxes.
Unfortunately, many of those things have already started happening.
It is not just off in the future. It has already happened, and the
Federal Government has only just begun implementing the law.
Instead of premiums going down $2,500, as President Obama promised,
they have actually gone up by about the same amount, $2,500. Congress's
own nonpartisan budget experts tell us the premiums will increase by
about $2,100 after more rules, more taxes, and more mandates take
effect.
The Federal Reserve also came out with a report that confirmed
something else Americans already know: ObamaCare is costing us jobs. By
some estimates, it could end up costing 800,000 jobs at a time when we
desperately need more of them.
Members of the President's own party have begun sounding the alarm
about the law's tax hike, including its tax on medical devices.
His union allies are concerned the law will make them less
competitive too. Of course it will. Perhaps some of the union bosses
should have more thoroughly considered the well-being of their members
before supporting ObamaCare's passage in the first place.
ObamaCare has already become a regulatory nightmare. I would call the
attention of my colleagues to this chart. This is the ObamaCare law,
hundreds of pages in itself. But these are the regulations so far: 7
feet tall, almost 20,000 pages of ObamaCare regulations so far.
The law itself is not small, hundreds and hundreds of pages. But
nearly 20,000 new pages of regulations, 7 feet tall, and they are just
getting started. This monster of a bill, as I indicated, was hundreds
of pages long itself, but that is actually nothing compared to the
regulations it has spawned.
This more than 7-foot stack of paper next to me is what has become
known as the redtape tower--the redtape tower, almost 20,000 pages of
ObamaCare regulations so far. It is nearly 20,000 pages' worth of
complexity. That is just what the bureaucracy has dreamed of so far,
and we can only imagine how much more is yet to come.
Do we expect small businesses to be able to cope with all the rules
in this tower? If you were a small business owner, how could you? Would
you even be able to read through all of them and figure out which ones
applied to you? I doubt it. I don't expect the average American to have
much luck either.
The administration released a draft ObamaCare application last week.
It is 21 pages long. Unbelievable. If you like doing your taxes, you
are going to love applying for the ObamaCare exchanges.
So Washington Democrats may pop the champagne this Saturday to
celebrate the law's third anniversary, but more Americans and small
business owners will be reaching for an aspirin once they are forced to
start navigating this bureaucratic nightmare.
In my view, ObamaCare is a colossal mistake for our country. There is
no way to fix this thing. It needs to be pulled out by its roots, and
we need to start all over. This bill needs to be repealed and it needs
to be replaced, not with another unreadable law or another 20,000 pages
of regulations but with commonsense reforms that actually lower health
care costs.
Anyone who thinks we have given up this fight is dead wrong.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, in a few seconds I will be propounding
a unanimous consent request. We were originally scheduled to have a
series of votes at 11:15. We think we have a way of working out some of
our concerns if we just take a little bit of a breather and do the kind
of negotiation based on the civility and common sense that we have been
using during this deliberation.
Therefore, Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that
notwithstanding the previous order, all postcloture time be considered
expired at 2 p.m., with the time until 2 p.m. to be equally divided
between the two leaders or their designees, with all other provisions
of the previous order remaining in effect.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, just to give everybody the lay of the
land, it means we are working through our legislative issues, and at 2
o'clock we will then proceed to a series of votes which will be
announced in plenty of time for people to know what is happening.
I ask unanimous consent that the quorum calls be equally divided, and
I thank the able floor staff for giving me advice. There are days when
I think it is an opera and they are calling out the arias we need to
sing. But we are moving, and I thank Senator Shelby for consulting with
his side of the aisle.
At 2 o'clock we are going to have a series of amendments, and I think
the Senate will feel very solid about the direction in which we are
going.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk
will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Ms. AYOTTE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ms. AYOTTE. Madam President, in a minute I am going to call up an
amendment that I was speaking about on the floor of the Senate over the
last few days. Essentially, this is an amendment that is pending to the
bill--the continuing resolution and appropriations bills--that would
strike $380 million of spending for the MEADS program. It is
essentially a missile to nowhere that our troops will never be able to
use in theater. We want to transfer that money to the operations and
maintenance funding for the troops so we can make sure there are
resources they can use to, obviously, make sure they have what they
need for the very best equipment and training--particularly in light of
sequestration and what we are facing. I know there is an agreement that
is being worked out, and I hope my amendment is included in that
agreement.
At this time I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending
amendment so I may call up my amendment, amendment No. 127.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. REID. Madam President, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Ms. AYOTTE. Thank you, Madam President.
Mr. REID. Madam President, before the Senator leaves the floor, I
have listened to most of her speeches, and she has been very
articulate. I appreciate how she feels. There are some Democrats who
agree with her, but the problem is it is hard to arrive at a list of
amendments. I appreciate her intensity, and I certainly do not in any
way denigrate what she has been trying to do, but this is the situation
in which we find ourselves.
I reluctantly object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
Mr. MORAN. Madam President, I too have an amendment that I have been
attempting for a number of days to have made in order. This is the
amendment that deals with the air traffic control towers. It is an
amendment that very directly and simply transfers money from two
accounts that have lots of money in them--the unencumbered balances of
the Department of Transportation as well as a research fund--transfers
$50 million from those two accounts to the air traffic control program.
If we do that, we can at least avert--at least what the Department of
Transportation says is necessary to eliminate that program--closing
more than 170 air traffic control towers on April 7.
I spoke earlier this morning, and I intend to speak before the vote
occurs. I
[[Page S1973]]
will not repeat myself at this point in time, but this morning I
outlined--and I hope my colleagues were listening--the importance of
this amendment to the safety of the traveling public. The modest nature
of what we are trying to accomplish has the bipartisan support, as well
as the wide range of support, from groups outside the Congress that
support this amendment.
I again ask unanimous consent to amend the previous order and bring
up my amendment. It is amendment No. 55, that 10 minutes be equally
divided, and we proceed immediately to a vote on that amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. REID. I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. MORAN. Thank you, Madam President.
Mr. REID. Madam President, I note the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
Mr. REID. Madam President, I withdraw that. My understanding is the
Senator from Montana has a brief statement to make regarding a big
event in Montana.
Mr. BAUCUS. That is basically correct.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
Mr. BAUCUS. I ask to speak as if in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The remarks of Mr. Baucus are printed in today's Record under
``Morning Business.'')
Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I yield the floor and suggest the
absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Murphy). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, at an appropriate time I will ask for
some consideration of an amendment of mine, amendment No. 6. My
amendment would hold the Obama administration accountable for its
recent decision to release more than 2,000 undocumented immigrants from
detention centers across the country in the past month. U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement claimed they were releasing these
people because they needed to reduce their average daily detention
population of about 34,000 people--a congressionally mandated
requirement. They claimed they had to reduce the detention population
for budgetary reasons. Week after week, agents were tasked to release
so many individuals.
At first the Department of Homeland Security claimed it only released
a few hundred people. However, last week the Director of Immigration
and Customs Enforcement admitted that the administration had misled the
American people by confessing that over 2,200 aliens were actually
released. They continue to stand by the excuse that budget cuts were
the reason for releasing these individuals.
Simply blaming budget reduction as a means to turn a blind eye toward
the national security of the American people is a very dangerous plan
and one that calls into question the Department's preparation for
sequestration, particularly when we consider that months before
sequestration the Office of Management and Budget put out an order to
all departments that national security, law enforcement, and safety and
health should be a top priority. So if keeping criminals off the
streets of the United States shouldn't be a top priority--as per the
order from the Office of Management and Budget--I don't know what
should be. So I want an accounting for it, and that is what my
amendment does--requests a simple accounting for why they were released
and what it was all about. What is even more disturbing is the fact
that the Department had billions of unobligated funds from the past 2
years that could have been put into protecting the American people.
On February 27 I sent a request to Secretary Napolitano questioning
the decisions of the Department. The letter, cosigned by Chairman
Goodlatte of the House Judiciary Committee, was an attempt to better
understand--just a simple understanding--how the Department will better
confront sequestration and reduce operational challenges that could
affect the life, safety, and health of the American people--the same
life, health, and safety of the American people evidenced by this very
administration's directive going out from the Office of Management and
Budget of the priorities that ought to be established during
sequestration.
Now, you know what. So often what we find from this administration--
and have even found in previous Republican administrations--is that
letters that are embarrassing go unanswered. Unfortunately, this is not
unusual. About a dozen of my letters to the Secretary of Homeland
Security on just the immigration issue have gone unanswered. There is
no respect for congressional oversight. It is very frustrating.
We are on the cusp of undertaking a massive reform of our immigration
system. Yet getting answers to the most basic questions seems to be an
impossible operation. Time and again, we have seen this administration
refuse to be held accountable, and what we want is just information. It
is not as though we are saying that what the administration has done--
even if we disagree with it--can't be done or shouldn't be done. But
shouldn't the people know about who is being turned out in the streets
when they have been held in confinement for a long period of time? I
fear what will become of the President's promise of transparency if and
when we do pass an immigration bill. And this is an example of things
to fear in the future. Enacting a bill is one part of the process, and
implementing the law is another part of the process. If we don't have
faith in this administration now, what about trust for the future?
So my amendment would require U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement to submit weekly reports--just submit reports--to the House
and Senate Committees on Appropriations and the Judiciary. The reports
will be required to contain detailed budgets on how ICE will maintain
the 34,000 detention bed occupancy levels authorized by Congress. It
also requires ICE to provide the number of aliens released from
detention as well as the following information on aliens released for
budget-related purposes: the conviction or charge for which they were
detained, fugitive status, existence of a prior deportation order, and
the terms of release.
My amendment happens to be cosponsored by Senators Inhofe, Vitter,
Boozman, Roberts, Coats, McConnell, and Collins.
Within the last few days, we have had the Director of ICE, Mr.
Morton, testify--well, it was just yesterday in the House. Chairman
Goodlatte said his testimony raised more questions.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record
a press release that expresses the testimony of Director Morton.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
U.S. House of Representatives,
Judiciary Committee,
Washington, DC, March 19, 2013.
Director Morton's Testimony Doesn't Add Up
Washington, D.C.--Today, U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement (ICE) Director John Morton testified before the
House Judiciary Committee regarding criminal and illegal
immigrants who are priorities for removal but were released
by the agency, which claimed release was necessary due to
sequestration. However, several of the claims made by
Director Morton do not match the facts and here's why:
At today's hearing, Director Morton blamed the release of
criminal and illegal immigrants on the lack of funding in the
Continuing Resolution (CR) and the sequester. But the CR
funded ICE above their budgetary request and provided the
required funding to maintain detention beds at their average
daily requirement of 34,000 through the end of March.
Meanwhile, an internal ICE document shows that the agency
began releasing detainees on February 15 and had already
released thousands of criminal and illegal immigrants ahead
of sequestration.
In addition, while the sequester cuts the agency's funding
by 5%, the savings resulting from the decision to mass
release criminal and illegal immigrants into the population
goes well above 5%. A 5% reduction of 34,000 detention beds
is about 1,700, but ICE has already released over 2,200
criminal and illegal immigrants and the plan was to reduce
the daily population by 5,000.
Furthermore, Director Morton today acknowledged that he
could have made a reprogramming request to Congress or could
[[Page S1974]]
have used other funds to keep criminals off of our streets.
However, he did not provide any reasoning as to why he did
not make such a request.
House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.)
released the statement below regarding these inconsistencies.
Chairman Goodlatte: ``Director Morton's testimony given to
the House Judiciary Committee today doesn't add up. U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement had more than enough
money to continue detaining criminal and illegal immigrants
that are priorities for removal and could have made a
reprogramming request to Congress if the money ran out. But
Director Morton never made such a request nor provided any
rationale as to what is more important than keeping criminal
immigrants off of our streets.
``In addition, the sequester mandated a 5% cut at ICE but
the agency released more than 5% of detained criminal and
illegal immigrants. These facts make it appear that the
decision to release more than 600 convicted criminals and
others facing charges into our communities was more of a
political calculation than a budgetary necessity. This
decision not only undermines ICE's credibility but also
undercuts the American people's trust in this
Administration's ability to enforce our immigration laws.''
Mr. GRASSLEY. Last week Mr. Morton said they released 10 level 1
offenders. These are people convicted of violent crimes. They are
repeat drunk drivers, as an example. Yesterday he said they only
released eight, but he also said they were trying to relocate them and
bring them back in. Well, if you have these dangerous people out on the
streets, the public ought to know about it.
So I suspect that when I ask unanimous consent now, the other side
will object to my amendment. And I don't know why they want to go to
such lengths to protect this administration when all we want is simple
information--just simple information. We aren't saying that the
decisions made--even though we disagree with them--ought to be changed.
We are just saying that the public ought to know when we put violent
people out on the streets, and when we put people out on the streets
who shouldn't be out on the streets, we ought to know where they are,
why they were put out there, and what it is all about.
I think the objection to allowing this amendment to have a vote--as I
presume it will be objected to--is indefensible, but at this point I
call up for consideration my amendment No. 76, and I ask for just 10
minutes of debate and a vote on my amendment. I ask unanimous consent
to do that.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. REID. Reserving the right to object, I understand how the Senator
feels. Over the years I have served with him, he has always made his
opinions very clear. We had his amendment in the list of amendments we
were going to do before, with some modifications that my friend
wouldn't agree to. So I understand his feelings about this, but the
good news is that within the very near, foreseeable future--hopefully,
I can start it in the next work period--we are going to start
immigration legislation here on the floor. We are finally going to be
able to move to something that will include issues people have wanted
to deal with for a long time.
So I say to my friend, I object, but I understand how he feels about
the issue.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding
cloture having been invoked, the following amendments be in order to
the Mikulski-Shelby substitute: Coburn No. 69; Coburn No. 93; Coburn
No. 65, as modified; Coburn No. 70, as modified; Inhofe-Hagan No. 72,
as modified; Mikulski-Shelby No. 98, as modified with changes that are
at the desk; Leahy No. 129, as modified with changes that are at the
desk; and Pryor-Blunt No. 82; that no other first-degree amendments to
the substitute or the underlying bill be in order; that no second-
degree amendments be in order to any of the amendments listed above
prior to the votes; that the time until 2:15 p.m. be equally divided
between the two leaders or their designees, with 30 minutes of
Republican time under the control of Senator Moran prior to votes in
relation to the amendments in the order listed; that upon disposition
of the Pryor-Blunt amendment No. 82, the Durbin second-degree amendment
to the Toomey amendment No. 115 be withdrawn; that it be in order for
the Toomey amendment to be modified with the changes that are at the
desk; that the Senate proceed to vote in relation to the Toomey
amendment No. 115, as modified; that upon disposition of the Toomey
amendment, the Senate proceed to vote on the Mikulski-Shelby substitute
amendment, as amended; that all amendments, with the exception of the
Mikulski-Shelby substitute, be subject to a 60-affirmative-vote
threshold; that upon disposition of the substitute amendment, as
amended, the Senate proceed to vote on the motion to invoke cloture on
the underlying bill; that if cloture is invoked on H.R. 933, as
amended, all postcloture time be yielded back and the Senate proceed to
vote on passage of H.R. 933, as amended; and, finally, that all votes
after the first vote be 10-minute votes and there be 2 minutes equally
divided in the usual form between the votes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I appreciate everyone's understanding on
both sides. This is going to allow us to get to the issue at hand very
soon, and that is the budget, with Senators Murray and Sessions leading
us on that issue.
Also, we were able to get a number of these amendments that people
have been wanting very badly to get. So I appreciate everything people
have done to this point.
Amendment No. 72
Mr. MANCHIN. Mr. President, I rise today to urge my colleagues to
support an amendment to H.R. 933 requiring the military services to
resume their tuition assistance programs, which are so vital to our
military's professional and educational development.
On March 5, 2013, the Department of Defense Comptroller Robert Hale
sent a letter to the services to provide ``additional guidance for
handling budgetary uncertainty in fiscal year 2013.'' In his letter,
Secretary Hale said that ``all services should consider significant
reductions in funding new tuition assistance applications.''
Three days later, on March 8, the Army suspended tuition assistance
for all its soldiers--Guard and Reserve--and as a result, more than one
million Army soldiers immediately lost this important education
benefit. There was not a single exception, not one, not even for troops
wounded in combat.
The Air Force, Coast Guard, and Marines also suspended their tuition
assistance programs.
This matter concerns me greatly, and I hope it does my colleagues as
well. I understand the difficult fiscal decisions facing our military
as a result of the sequester, but I object to the way they are handling
tuition assistance with what amounts to blunt force policy making.
I want to reexamine the exact wording of Secretary Hale's letter. He
stated that the military services ``should consider significant
reductions in the tuition program.'' I want to repeat, he said to
``consider significant reductions.'' Although his guidance was non-
specific in terms of what amounts to ``significant,'' four of our five
military services followed with the most extreme reduction possible--
they suspended all tuition assistance, indefinitely.
This decision affects lives, real lives of one of our nation's
greatest treasures--the less than 1 percent of our fellow citizens who
are willing to volunteer and serve in our Armed Forces, regardless of
the dangers they are likely to face in the defense of freedom.
I want to highlight one example of the thousands of lives now
affected--a young soldier who recently enlisted in the National Guard.
His personal story reflects the negative impact the tuition assistance
cuts are going to have on our Armed Forces.
I saw him interviewed by a news station. He is 19, but with his new
buzz cut, he looked much younger. His military mannerisms were
unmistakable he gave short responses, always beginning with a ``Sir''
or ``Ma'am.''
When asked how the decision to suspend tuition assistance affected
him, he said, politely, ``I was really counting'' on tuition assistance
for college.
You see, this young man does not have any comparable education
benefits to fall back on. He is only 19, as I said, and just back from
training. As a Guardsman, he would need to deploy at
[[Page S1975]]
least once to receive some of the new GI Bill benefits.
What do you think he will tell his friends about the military as a
result of this experience? What will his family say? And how much
warning did we give this young man that he could no longer count on
$4,500 per year in tuition assistance?
As I said, this young man was 19 years old. Last month the veterans'
unemployment rate for those ages 18 to 24 rose again. It is now a very
troubling 36.2 percent. We are in the midst of a grave unemployment
crisis and now is the time to invest--not divest--in continuing
education for our military.
This is not the way we should treat our service men and women. We
should keep our commitments, especially those we have made to those who
are willing to sacrifice everything for their fellow Americans and the
Nation.
I urge my friends and colleagues to support our amendment to require
the services to resume tuition assistance the minute this bill passes.
It is sponsored by Senators Inhofe and Hagan, and it is a necessary
response to an unnecessarily harsh and short-sighted policy decision.
The sequester is not a thoughtful or balanced approach to cutting
spending, and we should find an alternative. But, until that moment
occurs, everyone, especially the military services, must reject the
impulse to ``grab low hanging fruit,'' and cut it down, in its
entirety, simply because it is more convenient.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I commend the chairwoman and vice
chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Senators Mikulski and Shelby,
on crafting a strong bill to close out the remaining 6 months of the
fiscal year. This bill was developed under difficult circumstances and
time constraints, and I really feel they have done a good job of
returning some semblance of regular order to this process. I am hopeful
this progress will continue in the coming fiscal year.
One of my disappointments with this legislation, however, is that we
are not able to fund any new Army Corps of Engineers projects.
The lack of new starts in the Corps is of particular concern to my
State, as it impedes progress on the flood control project in Hamilton
City, CA. It is a project that could potentially serve as a model for
Corp projects throughout the Nation. More importantly, the construction
of a new levee is critical for the protection of Hamilton City and
Glenn County from catastrophic flooding. The project has been ready for
construction for several years now but has been entangled in the new
starts prohibition.
It is my hope and intention that for fiscal year 2014 we will have
regular order in appropriations, and I will work to support this
project moving forward.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I met with FAA Administrator Michael
Huerta last week to discuss sequestration and how it will affect our
national aviation network. Sequestration will reduce the FAA's budget
by approximately $600 million in the middle of this fiscal year. The
Administrator told me this swift and sudden reduction in funding will
have serious consequences to the efficiency of our national aviation
system, especially in Illinois. Airport managers throughout the State
of Illinois have also registered their serious concerns about the
sequestration impact on commercial and general aviation.
The FAA will have to severely reduce service or completely close
approximately 180 air traffic control towers across the country. Nine
air traffic control towers in Illinois will have their service either
eliminated or severely reduced: Alton, Aurora, Bloomington-Normal,
Decatur, DuPage, Carbondale, Marion, Springfield and Waukegan. The FAA
has also said that overnight air traffic control service at Peoria and
Midway airports could be eliminated. These are serious steps that will
increase delays, reduce capacity and potentially compromise the safety
of the airspace in the areas surrounding these airports.
I will continue to monitor this situation and will work with the FAA
and airport managers throughout the State of Illinois to address
aviation safety and air traffic delays.
However, the aviation system is not the only harm sequestration will
have on this country. The White House estimates sequestration will
reduce the readiness of our troops; put up to 10,000 veterans at
substantial risk of becoming homeless; drop 70,000 children from Head
Start, including 2,700 from Illinois; take nutritional assistance away
from 600,000 families because of cuts to WIC; and reduce foreclosure
prevention and other counseling to 75,000 fewer households.
Many Republicans have said they are comfortable with allowing
sequestration to continue. They think no one will notice what
sequestration does to the country. I disagree. These sequestration cuts
will have real impact on real people in Illinois. We need to stop
sequestration with a balanced solution of budget cuts and revenue. I am
pleased we will soon start debating the budget resolution. Budget
Chairwoman Patty Murray has produced a budget that will stop
sequestration and the negative impacts it will have on our economy, our
troops and working families across America.
____________________