Congressional Record, Volume 160 Issue 10 (Thursday, January 16, 2014)

[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 10 (Thursday, January 16, 2014)]
[Senate]
[Pages S385-S425]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

SPACE LAUNCH LIABILITY INDEMNIFICATION EXTENSION ACT

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the
Senate will resume consideration of the House message to accompany H.R.
3547, which the clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

House message to accompany H.R. 3547, an act to extend
Government liability, subject to appropriation, for certain
third-party claims arising from commercial space launches.

Pending:

Reid motion to concur in the amendment of the House to the
amendment of the Senate to the bill, with Reid amendment No.
2655, to change the enactment date.
Reid amendment No. 2656 (to amendment No. 2655), of a
perfecting nature.
Reid motion to refer the message of the House on the bill
to the Committee on Appropriations, with instructions, Reid
amendment No. 2657, to change the enactment date.
Reid amendment No. 2658 (to (the instructions) amendment
No. 2657), of a perfecting nature.
Reid amendment No. 2659 (to amendment No. 2658), of a
perfecting nature.

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Maryland.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I come to the floor today as the
chairperson of the Appropriations Committee--a committee I am honored
to chair--to support the Consolidated Appropriations Act for fiscal
year 2014. This bill passed the House on Wednesday with a stunning and
amazing vote of 359 to 67. The purpose of this agreement is to fund the
operation of the Federal Government for the remainder of fiscal year
2014.
The vote in the House, which I hope will be paralleled here in the
Senate, shows what working together based on civility, listening to
each other, being willing to compromise but not capitulate on
principle, negotiating on what are the appropriate fiscal levels--this
shows we can get the job done.
In today's era of shutdown, slowdown, slamdown politics, where
negotiating occurs on cable TV rather than in committee rooms, we
worked together. Setting aside partisan differences, working across the
aisle and across the dome, we looked to find how we could put together
a bill both sides of the aisle and both Houses could agree upon.
This is what the American people deserve: Us doing the business of
the country, legislating in due diligence and regular order. They want
a government that works as hard as they do, and working under a very
stringent deadline, we were able to do this. After 3 years of damaging
cuts that have hurt our efforts to help people, this agreement turns
the corner.
We recognized that we needed to focus on growth in jobs and lower the
unemployment rate but not increase our debt or our deficit. We worked
very hard to do that, to increase the kinds of public investments the
American people would approve of--keep America strong, keep our economy
strong--and to do the diligent work we need to do.
This bill is something called an omnibus bill which includes all 12
appropriations bills. That means we have 12 subcommittees--defense,
health and human services, labor and education, energy, water,
financial services--and each one has to do their funding work.
Ordinarily, we would bring one bill up at a time, but that was not to
be. So where we are is this is a consolidated bill of all 12.
We have been working on this since the President sent his budget to
us this spring. We held over 50 hearings, listened, did due diligence,
and marked up our bills. We were ready to come to the floor in the
fall, but it was not to be. We had to wait for the Budget Committee to
do its work to give us a top line so we could get to our bottom line.
On December 18, just before Christmas, Congress gave us that cap on
discretionary spending. We knew what we wanted to spend, but, again, we
know we have to be a more frugal government. We know we have to be
smart not only about spending but about saving, getting rid of dated,
duplicative, and dysfunctional programs, and we were able to do just
that. On December 18 we were given a cap on discretionary spending of
$1.02 trillion. We met that cap. We worked nonstop over the holidays,
resolving differences in both money and in certain policy areas.
What we do today is we come here with an agreement that is
bipartisan. I emphasize that. The agreement is bipartisan. It is
bicameral; that means both sides of the Capitol. It has also been one
of compromise but not, on either side, capitulating on principle.
I am proud to say this agreement meets our national security needs
and ensures the readiness of our troops and keeps us safe at home. It
also meets the compelling human needs of our middle class and our most
vulnerable. At the same time, it also invests in America's future by
strengthening our physical infrastructure and also supporting research
and development to save lives, spur growth and innovation and
everything from lifesaving biosciences to aeronautics. And we want to
make sure we are looking not only at jobs today but jobs tomorrow.
Before I give more detail about this agreement, I will highlight one
of the reasons I am very proud of something we have done in this bill.
Our legislation pending before the Senate restores the full cost-of-
living adjustment for our working-age disabled military retirees and
survivors of our departed servicemembers. Their COLAS were mistakenly
reduced by 1 percent in the recent budget agreement. This agreement
fixes that error.
I wish to make this note: It is limited in scope. It fixes the error
for disabled

[[Page S386]]

military retirees and departed servicemembers. It is not the
comprehensive pension reform necessary. We will await the Presidential
commission which will come before the Senate, and we will be able to
implement and work on their recommendations in due time.
I encourage my Members that to vote for this bill is to support the
fix that helps our most vulnerable patriots. It is limited in scope but
an important downpayment to restoring full COLAS for military retirees
of working age who are either disabled or are part of the departed
servicemembers.
This agreement provides for our national security. It has $11 billion
more than current levels for operation and maintenance, $1 billion for
the National Guard and Reserve so that our units are ready for missions
overseas and/or at home. The resources also support the Defense
Department's 3 million Active-Duty, Reserve, and civilian employees.
This bill, if it passes, eliminates the need for civilian furloughs in
2014, and it also prioritizes readiness.
The agreement funds important areas in other protections of national
security--an area I am very keenly interested in. An increasing threat
to our people and our economy is cyber security. One need only look at
the headlines. From Target to Neiman Marcus, 40 million Americans or
more were hit by hackers whom we expect came from a non-NATO member
country. There is a growing nexus between organized crime and those who
have other predatory intents to the United States. We have $11 billion
in here for cyber security for the Department of Defense, the FBI,
Homeland Security, and important research agencies.
This agreement also keeps its promises to veterans in terms of health
care, and we pay particular attention to the VA disability backlog. We
believe that if you were on the frontlines over there, you shouldn't
face a long line here when you have applied for your disability
benefits. Working with the relevant authorizing committee, we believe
we have been able to come up with it.
This bill also makes important investments in America's human
infrastructure and meets compelling human needs in health care,
education, and childcare. We have increased our investment in Head
Start by $1 billion, making sure 90,000 more kids across the Nation are
part of early childhood education programs that improve their school
and reading and math readiness. We have also increased the childcare
development grants by $154 million, meaning 22,000 more lower income
families will be able to afford childcare--about 24,000 children in
Maryland alone.
In our committee, we believe welfare should not be a way of life but
should be a way to a better life. Childcare development grants enable
women to move from welfare to work.
Also, for those who are working at a minimum wage where often full-
time work means full-time poverty, if you are going to work, childcare
should not eat up half of your already modest income. The child care
development grant is a tool, along with the child care tax credit, to
enable people to be able to work and make sure work is worth it.
We are also very conscious, on both sides of the aisle, of the need
of Federal support for special education. We do not want a continued
unfunded Federal mandate, where we require certain programs for special
needs children but do not meet the Federal responsibility for paying
for it. We have money in the bill for this.
Energy assistance and help with food and housing we have been able to
do here. But we believe the best social program is a job. There is no
doubt about it. To be able to work at a full-time job that supports a
person's family and let's them get on the opportunity ladder for the
American dream is what we hope to do. We believe, many of us, that with
jobs helping build America's infrastructure we meet two needs. We have
an aging, decrepit, sometimes even dangerous infrastructure. The money
in this bill will go to important programs such as the harbor
maintenance trust fund and also TIGER grants to help with
transportation, so we can rebuild America's infrastructure and at the
same time put Americans to work on rebuilding our infrastructure.
Also, at the same time we believe we need to look at the jobs of
tomorrow, where we fund the kind of basic research that only government
can do, that leads to new ideas, that will lead to the new thinking in
the private sector that will create the new jobs tomorrow. That means,
for example, for the National Institutes of Health, we increase it $1
billion. It means they will be able to do 400 additional studies. It
will also deal, not only with our cures for cancer but also the brain
initiative will help speed along finding a cure or cognitive stretchout
for Alzheimer's. This is good public investment.
When we look at Medicaid funding, a cure for Alzheimer's or cognitive
stretchout will not only save families the awful consequences of
Alzheimer's--my father died of that--but it will also help our budget.
When we look at Medicaid, 80 percent of the beneficiaries on Medicaid
are children, but 80 percent of the money goes to long-term care for
people who have either Alzheimer's or other neurological impairment
diseases such as Lou Gehrig's disease, Parkinson's, and so on. When we
can find a breakthrough on Alzheimer's, it will also help lower the
cost of Medicaid, and we will be able to put it in other programs.
There is much more to be said about this bill and I will say it
later. I see my vice chairman is on the floor and he will want to speak
and there are others who are also present. I will speak during the day,
but I want you to know I am proud of this bill. We did the job that was
given us. We played the hand that was dealt us, and what we have come
up with is a good deal for the American people. We tried to be smart
about where we spent the money and we tried to be very smart in how we
saved money.
I yield the floor and look forward to continued debate and passage of
this bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Booker). The Senator from Alabama.
Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I will join my friend and long-time
colleague, the senior Senator from Maryland and chair of the Senate
Appropriations Committee Senator Barbara Mikulski, who has just spoken,
in strongly supporting passage of the Consolidated Appropriations Act
for fiscal year 2014. This bill is a product of a bipartisan and very
collegial negotiation between both parties in both Houses of Congress.
It is in very large part a compromise of what the House and Senate
produced in their respective committee processes last summer.
We, of course, have our differences and each of us would like to have
many features in this bill different, but that is the nature of a
negotiation and ultimately of a compromise, and that is where we are
today.
There is much we would like and much we do not like in this bill, but
on balance I believe it represents a middle ground upon which we can
all comfortably stand. It is certainly far better than the alternative,
which would be another confrontation, another government shutdown, and
another giant step further away from establishing some sense of regular
order.
It is a matter of record that I did not support the Bipartisan Budget
Act of 2013. It is and remains my strong preference that we continue to
reduce our discretionary spending levels and, more importantly, our
long-term mandatory spending levels. As I have said many times, once
the Congress has decided what our spending levels are to be, I believe
it is the responsibility of the respective appropriations committees to
decide how those funds will be spent. The bill before us does exactly
that.
This legislation adheres to the statutory budget caps for defense and
nondefense spending set by the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013. It
carries forward a spending level for defense programs that avoids a $20
billion sequester for 2014. The bill funds total discretionary spending
below the 2004 level when adjusted for inflation.
Enacting this funding measure will allow Congress finally to advance
its current priorities instead of relying on the spending priorities of
the past, which of course is the unavoidable consequence of a
continuing resolution. Seven out of twelve bills in this omnibus have
been relying on appropriations priorities dictated by the fiscal year
appropriations for 2012. Instead of giving the executive branch
virtually

[[Page S387]]

unfettered discretion, this bill includes hundreds of limits on how the
executive branch can spend taxpayer dollars. It provides continuity for
key government functions and avoids the uncertainty of additional
continuing resolutions.
Since the President took office, we have enacted 20 continuing
resolutions. This bill today provides no new money to implement
ObamaCare by holding flat the funding for certain accounts at the
Department of Health and Human Services and the Internal Revenue
Service. It funds the financial regulators who implement Dodd-Frank at
a level that is $424 million below the President's request.
We will hear many times today that this bill is not the bill any
individual Senator would have written, and that is true. It includes
concessions that many would not like to make. But it also contains
funding or limits on funding for priorities that are important to
Members of both sides of the aisle. In my view, this is the
prerequisite for a legislative compromise and is what we have achieved
with this bill.
I again thank the chair of this committee Senator Mikulski and
commend her for setting a tone that made this agreement possible. I
join with her in strongly urging our colleagues to support this
measure, just as the Members of the House did yesterday by a vote of
359 to 67.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to engage in a
colloquy with my colleagues, Senator Graham, Senator Ayotte, and
Senator Roberts.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I bring to the attention of my colleagues
the front page of the Washington Post this morning: ``Hill balks at
shifting CIA role in drone war.''

Congress has moved to block President Obama's plan to shift
control of the U.S. drone campaign from the CIA to the
Defense Department, inserting a secret provision in the
massive government spending bill introduced this week that
would preserve the spy agency's role in lethal
counterterrorism operations, U.S. officials said.
The measure, included in a classified annex to the $1.1
trillion federal budget plan, would restrict the use of any
funding to transfer unmanned aircraft or the authority to
carry out drone strikes from the CIA to the Pentagon. . . .
''

The Appropriations Committee is supposed to appropriate. The
Appropriations Committee has no business making this decision. How many
of my colleagues knew that this provision was in this mammoth
appropriations bill? I bet a handful. The job of the Armed Services
Committee and the job of the Intelligence Committee is to authorize
these things. There was no hearing in the Armed Services Committee,
there was no hearing in the Intelligence Committee on this issue.
Instead, a major policy decision that has to do with the ability to
defend this Nation against the forces of violent Islamic extremism is
now being decided in a secret annex of a mammoth appropriations bill.
It is not the first time I say that the appropriators have
authorized. The appropriators have gotten into the business of the
authorizing committees in a way that is a violation of every procedure
and process this Senate is supposed to be pursuing.
I believe Senator Levin, the chairman of the Armed Services
Committee, will be as outraged as I am. I believe the chairperson of
the Intelligence Committee will be as angry as I am. This is a
fundamental function of government that has to do with national
security and it is hidden in a provision, in a secret provision of the
mammoth appropriations bill. I say to the distinguished chairperson and
ranking member, that is not their business.
Some of us have been speaking out for more than a year about the
terrorist attack of September 11, 2012, which took the lives of four
American public servants in Benghazi, Libya, including U.S. Ambassador
Chris Stevens. We have spoken out because of the many questions that
still remain unanswered to this day.
We have spoken out and will continue to speak out despite efforts of
partisans and proxies of the administration to sweep all of this under
the rug. The latest snow job came in December, from the New York Times,
that ever-reliable surrogate of the Obama administration, which
published a long report challenging some key facts about the Benghazi
attack. But as Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan used to say, everyone is
entitled to their own opinions but not to their own facts. The facts
are stubborn. In reality, what the Times report does is propagate
myths. Let's review some of the facts.
The Times claims the following:

Months of investigation . . . centered on interviews with
Libyans in Benghazi who had direct knowledge of the attack
there and its context, turned up no evidence that Al Qaeda or
other international terrorist groups had any role in the
assault.

The Times goes on to claim:

Benghazi was not infiltrated by Al-Qaeda. . . .

Here are the facts. Al Qaeda-affiliated groups were present in
Benghazi, and they were involved in the attack of September 11, 2012.
The New York Times itself reported on October 12:

American officials said [the attack] included participants
from Ansar al-Shariah, Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, and
the Muhammad Jamal network, a militant group in Egypt.

All of these groups are affiliated with Al Qaeda. The New York Times
claims:

Republican arguments appear to conflate purely local
extremist organizations, like Ansar al-Shariah with Al
Qaeda's international terrorist network.

Again, here are the facts. In an interview yesterday with CNN, the
Senator from California acknowledged correctly that Ansar al-Shariah,
which played a major role in the attack, is linked to Al Qaeda. We are
drawing on the work of our Intelligence Committee which yesterday
released its report on the Benghazi attack and its aftermath.
In that report you will find numerous references by the intelligence
community before the attack that make clear the nature of the Al Qaeda
threat in Benghazi. The claims that Al Qaeda had not infiltrated
Benghazi rests on the same rhetorical sleight-of-hand that holds that
while groups may align themselves with Al Qaeda, may seek and receive
direction from Al Qaeda, may share similar terrorist goals of Al Qaeda,
and may even call themselves part of Al Qaeda, but if they are not
sitting along the Pakistan-Afghan border or are not part of so-called
core Al Qaeda or Al Qaeda senior leadership, then somehow they are not
Al Qaeda.
This is the same bizarre language and logic that may have led then-
Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice to claim just days after
the attack that ``we have decimated Al Qaeda,'' this despite the fact
that Al Qaeda-affiliated groups are proliferating and gaining traction
all across the Middle East and North Africa, including in Benghazi.
The fact is that the attack against our diplomatic facility in
Benghazi on September 11 was carried out in part by Al Qaeda-affiliated
terrorists who had a safe haven in parts of eastern Libya. As the
Senate Intelligence Committee report finds, the Intelligence Committee
provided ample strategic warning about the negative security trends in
Benghazi and the likelihood they would further deteriorate. This was
the opposite of an intelligence failure; this was clear as day.
Despite these clear warning signs, the State Department was
unprepared. Our diplomatic facility in Benghazi was insecure and had
already been attacked multiple times. Our military was not postured and
ready to respond to contingencies in a part of Libya where attacks
against westerners and western interests had already occurred and where
the threat of more attacks was growing.
The false narrative the New York Times is furthering just so happens
to align with the Obama administration's account of events, but, again,
facts are stubborn, and the Senate Intelligence Committee report
clearly supports the conclusion that the administration knew or should
have known of the terrorist threat in Benghazi during the relevant
period and should have pre-positioned assets or made other preparations
to better protect our people serving there.
The administration and its allies will continue to try to sweep
Benghazi under the rug--including the fact that we have still not
received testimony and the presence of the individuals who were present
and moved to Germany the day following the attack on the

[[Page S388]]

Embassy and the deaths of four Americans.
Contrary to the President's repeated claim that the tide of war is
receding and contrary to his administration's talking point that Al
Qaeda has been decimated, the reality is that Al Qaeda-affiliated
groups are emboldened now from central Asia to the Middle East and
north Africa, all the way to west African countries such as Nigeria and
Mali. Indeed, nothing brings this home more tragically than watching
the black flags of Al Qaeda hoisted over the Iraq city of Fallujah.
Ninety-five brave soldiers and Americans died in Fallujah, 600 were
wounded, and today we see the black flags of Al Qaeda hoisted over the
city of Fallujah. The problem is getting worse, and that is in large
part due to this administration's disengagement from these regions.
Look at Libya today. It is a country that we and our NATO allies
intervened to save from the wrath of an anti-American tyrant, and it is
now characterized by chaos, lawlessness, and ungoverned spaces that are
exploited by those who seek to do harm to our Nation and our interests.
According to the Senate Intelligence Committee's report, 15 Libyans who
cooperated with our investigation into the Benghazi attack have been
murdered.
The administration can blame the Libyans for these problems, just as
they blame the Iraqis for Iraq's problems, but they can't escape their
share of the blame for failing to support these people who want and
need our help to secure their countries. That is why Chris Stevens was
in Benghazi. That is why he risked and ultimately gave his life. He
believed it was in our interest to lead events in the world and support
our friends and those who wish to be our friends in their effort to
build stable, successful societies with effective democratic
governments. The greatest way we can honor his sacrifice, and those of
his colleagues, is by recommitting ourselves to their mission.
Unless America actively supports those in the broader Middle East who
wish to replace despair and extremism with hope and freedom, I fear the
tide of war will eventually get us again.
I note that my colleague the Senator from New Hampshire is on the
floor, and I would ask her and my colleague from South Carolina, is it
not true that in this Intelligence Committee report, which is very
encompassing, except for one mention in the minority views, there is no
individual who is held responsible? So now we have a situation where
bureaucracies are responsible but individuals are not. I find that
intriguing.
Also, my friend from South Carolina has been trying to interview
witnesses for a number of months, if not years, who were at the scene
of the attack and then moved to Germany the following day. Isn't it
true that we have never been able to interview those witnesses, which
could have cleared up any arguments or any doubt about what the attack
was all about?
Mr. GRAHAM. I thank my colleague for the question. I finally got to
interview a survivor about a month or so ago with Senators Menendez and
Corker. I have only been able to interview one witness after all of
these years and months.
If I could, I wish to thank the Intelligence Committee for doing a
lot of hard work, but let's not lose sight that this is not just about
the State Department. My focus is going to be comprehensive, and
Senator McCain has called for a joint select committee, along with
myself and Senator Ayotte, for over a year now. Why? You don't want to
stovepipe this. The Intelligence Committee tells us in pretty good
detail about the failures of the State Department, but here is my
question: In the September 14 White House meeting where the
Intelligence Committee prepared talking points for the White House that
clearly established that this was a terrorist attack with Al Qaeda
people involved--who changed those talking points in that White House
meeting?
I have an email--which I hope will be here in a moment--from General
Petraeus. Basically, somebody in that meeting or before the meeting is
saying to General Petraeus that the White House wants to take
references to Al Qaeda out and basically sanitize the talking points.
He is upset, but he says: Well, go ahead and do what they want. Nobody
admires General Petraeus more than I do, but, quite frankly, somebody
needs to revisit that.
Where was the intelligence community for 2 weeks when the President
of the United States--not Susan Rice--was telling the entire world: We
think this was a protest caused by a video, when the intelligence
community knew differently? To my friends in the intelligence
community, you need to answer that question. What input did you give?
Did anybody pick up a phone and call somebody at the White House? They
need to tell the President to quit doing that because it is not
accurate.
Another question: On September 15, 16, and 17 of September, all the
survivors were interviewed by the FBI in Germany. I have talked to one
survivor. I can tell you, in a quick summary, the man was brave and the
people on the ground in the State Department deserve medals for going
through what they did. But let me tell you this: He said there was no
protest. There was not one report from Benghazi about a protest around
the Embassy.
The Turkish Ambassador left not too long before the attack. Do you
think he would have walked out in the middle of a protest? Do you think
the Ambassador would have gone to bed if there was a protest? The
people in charge of security never reported a protest because there was
not one, and he said there wasn't one. He said: I saw on my screen--and
he was in charge of security at the time--16 to 20 heavily armed
people running through the gate and carrying a banner in Arabic. At the
time, I didn't know what it said. I now know it was the banner of Ansar
al-Sharia, the Al Qaeda affiliate.

And to my friends the New York Times, journalism has died at that
paper. Do you really believe this wasn't a preplanned terrorist attack
with Al Qaeda affiliates in charge? The gentleman said there were four
gun trucks around the compound. It was a coordinated military attack,
and they were lucky to have survived.
Who started this? Who planned this? The man's name was Qumu, the
former Gitmo detainee. I can't say his last name, but I think it is
Qumu. The man who started Ansar al-Sharia came from Gitmo. He was a
former Gitmo detainee, a Libyan who went back to Libya and started this
group. The ``60 Minutes'' report identified him and a Mr. Khattala as
the organizers of this attack. All I can say is that there is no
mystery about who planned this. It was an Al Qaeda affiliate in Libya.
On August 16 a cable was sent back from Chris Stevens to Washington
at the State Department saying: We can't defend the consulate because
10 training camps of Al Qaeda exist in Benghazi; the Al Qaeda flag is
flying.
By the way, the Red Cross had left Benghazi and the British had left
Benghazi because of attacks by terrorist groups. This was long before
September 11.
Don't tell me we don't know. We do know. It was terrorists. It was a
former Gitmo detainee who was bin Laden's bodyguard. What did he have
to do--have a card? The guy who was in Gitmo whom we let go was core Al
Qaeda. He was bin Laden's bodyguard. They caught him in Pakistan. He
fought in Afghanistan.
Now, what we don't know from this report is who in the White House
changed the talking points.
You want to know what Chris Christie did? Fine. Absolutely fair game.
We know what he did when he found out what his people did about the
traffic jam. He fired them. He got up in front of the whole world and
said: I am embarrassed. It is my fault. I am going to fire the people
who did this bad thing.
Name one person who has been held accountable for this bad thing
called Benghazi. Name one person at the State Department who has been
fired for ignoring repeated requests for additional security on the
consulate coming from people in Libya.
By the way, the Accountability Review Board--what did I learn in my
interview with the survivor? I found out for the first time that villas
B and C--the places that were attacked in Benghazi, the State
Department consulate--had their lease renewed in July for an entire
year for hundreds of thousands of dollars. I didn't know that. It was
leased for well over half a million

[[Page S389]]

dollars. So you are going to tell me they were going to close the
consulate in December? That was the conclusion of the Accountability
Review Board. That is not accurate.
I will tell you what I think they were going to do. I think Hillary
Clinton was going to go down in December and announce that the
permanent facility would be open in Benghazi.
To Hillary Clinton's and Susan Rice's credit, these two women pushed
the President to keep Benghazi from being overrun during the war with
Qadhafi. They got involved, and to their credit they pushed the
President to get involved militarily to prevent the slaughter of
everybody in Benghazi.
I have been told that the plan for Benghazi was to have a permanent
footprint and for Secretary Clinton to go down there as one of her last
acts to say: We are here, and we are here to stay. The problem with
that scenario is that the security had deteriorated because we had
absolutely no plan to fall on after the fall of Qadhafi.
Mr. McCAIN. I think a lot of people who are observers really have to
view this and the actions on the part of the administration--the
statement by now-National Security Adviser Susan Rice on every Sunday
talk show was that this was the result of a hateful video, a
spontaneous demonstration, and that Al Qaeda has been decimated. We can
only view that and some of these actions in the context of the fact
that it was a political campaign. There was a Presidential campaign
going on, and the rhetoric time after time and rally after rally from
the President of the United States and his surrogates was this: Bin
Laden is dead. Al Qaeda is on the run. The tide of war is receding.
All of these events that took place at the consulate in Benghazi and
the death of Christopher Stevens contradicted that storyline. Still, I
cannot understand why 2 weeks later the President of the United States
was before the United Nations and still talking about how this was due
to a spontaneous demonstration and hateful video. You can only
understand that, in my view, it was in the context of a storyline that
was propagated throughout the 2012 Presidential campaign.
Mr. GRAHAM. I think the White House, in my view--this is a reasonable
conclusion but not a fair conclusion because we don't know exactly what
happened yet. But I can tell you this: Somebody at the White House on
September 14 pressured the intelligence community to change the story
of Benghazi. And on September 15, why did they pick Susan Rice? She
said that Secretary Clinton was tired and had gone through a lot of
trauma. I am sure that is true, but I know Secretary Clinton pretty
well. I think she is tough.
Let's put it this way: She could not be on TV to talk about what
happened at the State Department because she was distraught? I don't
buy that. Does anybody believe that about Secretary Clinton? And if it
is true, it is something the American people need to consider. I don't
believe it is true. I don't believe she was incapable of going on
television, as Susan Rice says. I believe they picked a person very
loyal to the President who would say whatever needed to be said. What
she said was so far away from the truth that it needs to be
investigated. What she said was so beneficial to the President's
reelection that it needs to be investigated.
She was speaking definitively about Benghazi on September 15 while
the FBI was interviewing survivors on the 15th, 16th, and the 17th. Why
would any administration go on national television and tell the world
what happened in Benghazi while the FBI is still interviewing people
who were in the attack? And where did the FBI's interviews go?

I talked to the Deputy Director of the FBI who is now retired. He
said not one person interviewed by the FBI in Germany ever said there
was a protest; all of them said it was a terrorist attack. So how could
the FBI have interviews from every person on the ground in Benghazi who
worked for the State Department saying that there was no protest and it
was a terrorist attack, and that not get into the system? Did the FBI
just sit on these interviews? Who did they give those interviews to?
How could Susan Rice tell the American people and the world we know
what happened in Benghazi before the interviews were over? She went on
television to spin this story. How could the President of the United
States, after the interviews were taken, go before the American people
time and time again for weeks and tell a story about a protest that
never occurred? This may not be a big deal to my colleagues, but it is
a hell of a big deal to me.
When Abu Ghraib blew up, Senator McCain and myself said: This is not
a few rotten apples; this is system failure. Before the surge, when
Iraq was falling apart, we said: This is not working, no matter what
people in the Bush administration are telling us. We know better. We
have been there. When Gitmo was a mess, we didn't sweep it under the
rug. We worked with Senator Levin and Senator Feinstein, two great
Americans, to get the definitive truth as best we could about failures
at Abu Ghraib, about Gitmo, and we spoke truth to power when it came to
Iraq.
Mr. McCAIN. Regarding Iraq, we called for the resignation of the
Secretary of Defense because of the failures in Iraq.
Mr. GRAHAM. Yes, we did.
Now here we are, years later, and the families have no clue as to
what happened to their loved ones. Quit blaming the dead guy. This
suggestion that Chris Stevens had fault for his own death--Chris
Stevens was in Benghazi because that is where he was supposed to be
doing what America wanted him to do: Try to hold Libya together. So
there is not going to be any blame on the dead guy.
I wish to ask a question of Senator Ayotte. The Senator from New
Hampshire has followed this as well as anybody. Can the Senator
describe for us from her point of view the unanswered questions and
whether she thinks there is evidence that this was a preplanned
terrorist attack versus a protest?
Ms. AYOTTE. I wish to thank my colleagues, the Senator from South
Carolina and the Senator from Arizona, who have been relentless in
finding the truth about what happened in Benghazi where our ambassador
and three brave Americans were murdered.
There are so many questions, but I would start with the
accountability question the Senator from South Carolina raised. No one
has been held accountable. Who has been held accountable for the
failures?
If we look at this intel report, it is very clear the intelligence
community, according to this report, provided ample strategic warning
that our people in Benghazi were at risk. There were failures, and no
one has been held accountable. Why?
As I look at these talking points, the question was raised: Why was
the reference to Al Qaeda removed from the talking points? Who did that
in the context of a Presidential campaign? But also, take a look at
these talking points. There is no reference in these talking points to
a video. Look at the actual language of the talking points.
Why is it that the spokesman for the President, on September 13, is
out there saying that this is a reaction to this movie? Why is it that
Susan Rice, the Ambassador, is on television on multiple shows blaming
the video? Not only was it absolutely wrong when she said Al Qaeda was
decimated--and it was misleading, particularly the fact that Al Qaeda
had been removed from the talking points, but there is no reference in
the talking points to a video. So who in the administration made up the
video story?
That is important for the American people to know because it wasn't
just Ambassador Susan Rice who relied on the video story. It was our
President of the United States who talked about the video and talked
about it, frankly, after the Ambassador went on all of the Sunday shows
on September 16. In fact, the President said as late as September 18
when asked--basically, he talked about the video and said: You had a
video that was released by somebody who lives here, sort of a shadowy
character--here is what happened--who had made an extremely offensive
comment. So we have the President of the United States, as late as
September 18, and then again on September 20--we have the President
saying on Univision Network, responding to the possible involvement of
Al Qaeda: Is Al Qaeda involved? Here is what we do know: That the
natural protest that arose because of the outrage from the video were
used by the extremists to see if they could harm U.S. interests.
Where did the video come from? Even what the intelligence community
came

[[Page S390]]

up with, which was deficient and which was clearly subject to political
influence because it removed the reference to Al Qaeda, has no
reference to a video. So I think there are a lot of questions that need
to be answered.
Here is the most important question: Why has no one been brought to
justice? The President, I believe it was on September 12, said: We will
find out who did this, and we will bring them to justice. For those
families, those victims, no one has been brought to justice. In fact,
we have people such as Abu Khattala, who was a former commander of
Ansar al-Shariah, who is believed to have been there that night sitting
in cafes in Libya giving press interviews, and yet there is much
evidence to suggest that he is likely to be involved in this, and many
other terrorists, but no one has been brought to justice. So why is
that? Why doesn't anyone have the curiosity not only to answer the
questions of what happened that night but also to ensure that justice
is done?
Mr. GRAHAM. If the Senator will yield, I am trying to find the press
statement of the White House official that says the President has
consulted with his national security team--I am paraphrasing--about the
threats we face throughout the world and that we are ready. This is on
September 10. What does this report tell us about September 11? We were
so far away from being ready that it is unnerving. So there is a lot to
be asked. Why would somebody in the White House issue a statement on 10
September talking about being ready for any contingency anywhere and
basically assuring the American people the President is on top of this
when, clearly, he was not?
Mr. McCAIN. Another question for my colleagues: The attack went on
for a period of some nine hours, as I recall. Over that period of time,
with the hundreds of airplanes, aircraft that we have and the ships and
other military capabilities we have in the area, in the Mediterranean,
we were not able to get any real significant help. There are a number
of accounts of where a team supposedly landed, were held at the
airport, were not allowed to move in, and all of that. All of these are
questions that have not been answered.
General Ham told the Senator from South Carolina and me over the
phone that he didn't have any assets that were capable of reaching
Benghazi. Does he mean we don't have the capability over an 8- or 9-
hour period to get some relief to an ongoing attack? Again, what was
the hangup that kept people at the airport who finally did get there?
Mr. GRAHAM. If I could follow along with that thought, because it is
a very good question, No. 1, if the Secretary of Defense and the
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff publicly testified they knew it
was a terrorist attack from the moment it started and told the White
House, how did that get lost? How can they start talking about a
protest and video when our own Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of
the Joint Chiefs of Staff in real time tell the White House, but they
only spoke to the President once with a prescheduled meeting just when
the attack started? The Secretary of Defense----
Mr. McCAIN. We still don't know what the President did that evening.
Mr. GRAHAM. We know he has answered one question. He said he wanted
to be transparent and open and let everybody read the story of
Benghazi. We have deployed a small force asking questions, and the
answer to one question, finally: Did you call anybody in Libya, Mr.
President, that night? No. We have a rescue team held up at the
Benghazi Airport for 2\1/2\ hours.
Ms. AYOTTE. May I also add to that the President--we heard testimony
that obviously the Secretary of Defense and others knew right away this
was a terrorist attack. Let's not forget the 16-minute interview where
he is asked about that on September 12, and he said it is too early to
tell exactly how this came about. When he is asked directly if this is
a terrorist attack, he would not identify it as a terrorist attack.
I will also add this. What is so sad about this is no one has been
held accountable. The warnings were there. Not only were the warnings
there from the August 16 cable that came from the embassy, from
Ambassador Stevens, saying that the consulate could not withstand a
coordinated attack, but what has been lost in all of this? When we talk
about the New York Times trying to erase Al Qaeda from this, the day
before, Ayman al-Zawahiri, the head of Al Qaeda, released a video just
before September 11, 2012, just before this terrorist attack--which, by
the way, occurred on September 11, of course, which should have given
us a pretty direct clue that this was a terrorist attack. But al-
Zawahiri issued this video acknowledging and eulogizing the death of
Abu Yahya al-Libi in a drone strike and calling for terrorist attacks.
Al-Libi was a Libyan who served as the second in command in Al Qaeda
under Zawahiri and was a top leader in the Libyan Islamic fighting
group.
Think about the evidence that was there before, not only what we
didn't do to protect that consulate but the warnings that a terrorist
attack was coming.
Mr. GRAHAM. If I may, who was the person who decided to approve a
year's lease on this piece of property in July after it had been
attacked in June? They blew a hole in the wall that 40 people could go
through on June 10. So somebody said: Hey, this is a great site; let's
extend the lease for another year, to July 2013. They never reinforced
it, never added any appreciable security, and denied all the security
requests. This goes on and on.
If we want to know about the bridge, that is great. If we want to
know about what Chris Christie knew when and what he should have known,
great, go for it. All fair. Does anybody care about what our President
did that night? Does anybody really care if the President of the United
States, for two weeks, talks about a protest that never happened, while
all of the evidence suggests otherwise? Does anybody really care that
the consulate was a death trap and nobody in Washington ever responded?
Does anybody care that nobody has been brought to justice? Does anybody
in this country care that somebody in the White House, on September 14,
obviously for political reasons, took the intelligence and turned it
upside down? Does anybody care that Susan Rice, who has nothing to do
with Benghazi, was the spokesman for the country, telling a story not
founded in fact, founded in political advantage? I think Americans do
care.
Ms. AYOTTE. Let me ask the Senator from South Carolina this. Does
anyone care that the Secretary of State claimed she knew nothing about
this August 16 cable? She didn't know about these cables leading up to
what had happened in Benghazi, about the warning the Red Cross left and
the French left, the hole blown through the consulate, and the August
16 cable. Yet Secretary Panetta was aware of it. Chairman Dempsey was
aware of it when he came before the Armed Services Committee, but the
Secretary of State wasn't aware of it.
Mr. GRAHAM. How can the Secretary of Defense know about the security
environment in the Benghazi Consulate and the Secretary of State not
know? All I can say is it does matter.
Mr. McCAIN. The fact is no one, no one to this day has been held
responsible for the tragic deaths of four brave Americans--no one. The
Intelligence Committee report I appreciate. The whole bureaucracy is
responsible. Individuals are the ones that run bureaucracies.
I am disappointed that the Intelligence Committee did not have the
courage to name the names of the people responsible.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. President, let me first thank Senator
Shelby and Senator Mikulski for their very hard work on this Omnibus
appropriations bill. That is what I am down here to speak on. The
American people sent us to make choices, sometimes very tough choices.
They do not expect perfection, but they do expect us to be fair and to
get the job done.
Americans are tired of shutdowns and sequestration and stopgap
funding. Today we are making decisions we were sent here to make. The
annual appropriations process is the right way to do the people's
business. Instead of kicking the can and passing the buck, lurching
from crisis to crisis, I think we are making some significant progress.

[[Page S391]]

This was my first year on the Appropriations Committee. I especially
wanted to thank Chairman Mikulski for her leadership, her unfailing
support, and for doing such an amazing job. She once said, ``It is not
how long I serve but how well I serve.'' Senator Mikulski has proven
once again on both counts she is truly exceptional.
This bill returns some sanity to the budget process in Washington. I
am pleased that for the most part it does well by New Mexico. New
Mexico plays a unique role in our Nation's national security. This bill
provides strong funding levels for the safety and security of our
Nation's nuclear deterrent, including the important B61 project at
Sandia National Labs. The President's request of $537 million is fully
funded. The highly qualified employees at Sandia will continue their
vital mission making sure these weapons are managed safely and
securely. This is not something we should shortchange.
This bill also provides equally important funding for Los Alamos
National Laboratory in northern New Mexico. The workforce there has
been reduced in recent years. This bill will stabilize things for 2014.
Both of these labs are critical for nuclear security. But they are much
more than that. They are also engines for the innovation in aerospace,
biotech, cyber security, and new energy technology.
New Mexico is proud to host both of these labs. But the Department of
Energy also has an obligation to our State and other States on legacy
cleanup. The funding levels do not fully meet our request, but they do
provide strong increases over 2013 for cleanup at Los Alamos and at the
Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in Carlsbad, NM. These cleanup activities
are a serious obligation of the Federal Government and are a source of
skilled, well-paid jobs for man New Mexico families.
New Mexico is also home to three Air Force bases and the Army's White
Sands Missile Range. This bill contains nearly $150 million in
construction and infrastructure projects, including $60 million for a
TRICARE facility at Holloman Air Force Base. These projects will
benefit national security, they will create jobs, and will meet our
obligations to the men and women who are serving their country.
The Federal Government also plays a very important role in New
Mexico's water infrastructure. We are an arid, Western State. Prudent
water management is crucial for our economy. We cannot afford the waste
that comes from neglected infrastructure. This bill contains over $120
million in funding for Federal water assets in our State and includes
the Navajo-Gallup pipeline, and the Middle Rio Grande Project.
We have been struggling with intense drought. Rural areas and small
towns in particular have been deeply affected. Some small communities
are seeing their wells run dry. They need help and they need it now.
The $1.7 billion in USDA rural development water funding is absolutely
essential. This historic drought requires that we rethink how we use
water throughout the West. We need to be smart about our strategy. We
need strategies that work for individual communities. That is why I
advocated for greater funding for the WaterSMART grants, helping local
governments and water districts improve water efficiency.
The conference report promotes an innovative drought water-sharing
arrangement along the Rio Grande, where we are facing difficult
tradeoffs between agriculture, the environment, and urban uses.
This bill also helps meet our obligations to our Nation's veterans.
The backlog at the VA is unacceptable. Frankly, it is an outrage. No
veteran should wait 1 year or more on their claim. This bill funds a
10-part plan to resolve this problem: improving IT infrastructure,
better training, and hiring additional personnel. We dedicated $250
million specifically to carry out the VA's rural health initiative to
ensure that veterans in rural and remote areas are not left behind,
utilizing telehealth solutions and mobile clinics, bringing veterans
the care they deserve without long drives.
I will keep fighting for veterans in New Mexico, including those in
rural areas, making sure they have access to the health care they have
earned. Many veterans are understandably upset with the recent change
in the COLA for working-age military retirees. I am outraged too. This
cut was included in the recent 2-year budget agreement passed in
December. I did not support this provision and I am working hard to
repeal it. Thankfully, this bill ensures disabled veterans and spousal
benefits will not be subject to the cuts. Congress has the rest of 2014
to do the right thing. We need to fix this mistake for good for all
veterans.
This year, I have had the privilege to chair the Appropriations
Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government. I am proud
of the work we have done to safeguard our financial system, protect
consumers and support job creation and to strengthen our Federal
courts.
The bill provides $112 million for the Financial Crimes Enforcement
Network, fighting terrorist financing, money laundering, narcotics
trafficking, and other illicit financial activity.
To protect the public and consumers, the bill fully funds three key
agencies. For the CPSC, $118 million to help protect the public against
risk from injury of consumer products; for the FTC, $298 million to
combat consumer fraud, fight identity theft, and promote consumer
privacy; for the FCC, $340 million to maintain robust networks for
emergency communications, political debate, social interaction, and
business transactions.
To support job creation, the bill provides $929 million for the Small
Business Administration. It also supports the Small Business
Development Centers to provide critical guidance to small businesses
and emerging entrepreneurs. The bill supports community development in
underserved areas, including tribal nations, providing $226 million for
the CDFI Fund.

For the Federal courts, the bill provides a much needed increase,
$6.5 billion in discretionary funding, 5 percent above the fiscal year
level of 2013. Budget cuts have forced the courts to downsize and
furlough staff. This bill provides the judiciary the staffing and
resources it needs for court offices, probation, pretrial services, and
in particular Federal defender offices will be adequately staffed.
The bill also calls for significant investments in the government's
capital projects. For the first time in 3 years, it provides the
General Services Administration a total of $1.653 billion for
construction and repair of Federal buildings and courthouses. I would
like to thank my ranking member Senator Johanns for his effort this
year. He was friendly, honest, and straightforward. It has been a real
privilege to work with him.
Finally, I must thank our subcommittee staff, Marianne Upton, Diana
Hamilton, Emily Sharp. Like all the committee staff, they have spent
time over the holidays, on weekends, and uncounted long hours to help
complete the final bill.
In closing, I am very happy to be here talking about the good work of
the Appropriations Committee and that good work that has been produced
in this bill that is before us for New Mexico and for the Nation.
But I must mention one problem that remains. It is a great concern
for many of us from the West. Funding for the Payment in Lieu of Taxes
Program, known as PILT, has expired. These funds compensate counties in
New Mexico and throughout the country where the Federal Government owns
a good deal of land, land that cannot be taxed, cannot be developed,
cannot be used to help pay for services such as roads and schools and
public health and public safety.
PILT is a lifeline to my constituents in many rural communities in
New Mexico. I joined with my friend Senator Enzi of Wyoming urging that
this crucial funding be included in this bill. Unfortunately, it was
not. I realize PILT has not been in the appropriations bill for several
years. In fact, it is preferable for it to receive mandatory, long-term
funding. But we must find a solution and we must find that solution
soon. I am calling for PILT to be included in the upcoming farm bill
conference report.
It is a commonsense solution to this very real problem. PILT is a
long-term funding program. Our rural communities across the West need
consistency. They need to be able to plan for long-term projects.
Mandatory long-term funding is the only real solution.

[[Page S392]]

I hope my colleagues will work with me.
With that, I would urge all of my colleagues to vote yes on the
Omnibus appropriations bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, if I might respond to the very generous
comments of the Senator from New Mexico about the work of the
committee, I would also like to respond to his comments about PILT. The
Senator from New Mexico has spoken very eloquently, as have other
Senators from the West, about the need for this Payment in Lieu of
Taxes.
The Presiding Officer is a newcomer. I am sure he finds that we speak
a different language and our constituents say: We use TILT and PILT.
They wonder if we are tilting in the right direction. But to use plain
English and plain needs of States that have a large amount of land that
is held by the Federal Government, PILT stands for Payment in Lieu of
Taxes.
So there is tremendous land owned by the Federal Government in New
Mexico; am I correct?
Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. The Senator is absolutely correct. In some
of our counties, 70 percent of the land in the county is Federal
Government land. So what happens, as the chair pointed out, is the
Federal Government says because that cannot be developed and it cannot
be taxed, we are going to pay you in lieu of taxes.
Ms. MIKULSKI. But they have not been paying?
Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. No. The program which has been in place a
very long time has expired. We have run out of money. These counties
need to be able to plan for their projects. So that is where we are.
Ms. MIKULSKI. I think this is an issue of fairness and justice. I
know the Presiding Officer comes to the Senate as a mayor. I came
through the route of starting on the city council. We are local
government people. We know how we had to struggle with unfunded
mandates. Many of us have large Federal institutions in our State that
we love, such as the U.S. Naval Academy in my district.
That does not pay taxes, but, my gosh, we are happy to have them. I
think we have to resolve this PILT issue. I would say to the Senator
from New Mexico, who has spoken to me frequently about this issue, and
to all of the Senators from the West on both sides of the aisle: Let's
work on this.
I pledge to you that as we move on fiscal year 2015, if it is
appropriate to be in appropriations, we will be doing it. But I will
also work with other relevant authorizing committees. We have to crack
this problem. It has been languishing far too long. I think it is a
justice issue, that if the Federal Government owns land on which it
doesn't pay taxes, prohibits it then from being placed in other
developmental use that could be taxed, we have to in some way pay our
fair share.
Isn't that the Senator's perspective?
Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. That is exactly my perspective. In these
counties, the programs run out. The counties have planned on this money
because they have been getting it year after year, and we have to find
a way to do this.
I wish to applaud Chairwoman Mikulski. They are our people, as the
Senator knows--there are Western Senators, Democrats, Republicans, and
they have all talked with the chairwoman. We have been talking to the
authorizing committees. We have talked to Senator Stabenow in
Agriculture in terms of the farm bill. We think there is a way this can
be worked out.
I am very encouraged to hear that the chairwoman also believes it can
be worked out, is willing to look at this next year in the
appropriations process, and work with the authorizers to see this gets
done.
Ms. MIKULSKI. As the Senator's colleague and also someone who comes
out of local government who knows the challenges local governments
face, we have worked on this, again, on a bipartisan basis.
I have spoken to Senator Stabenow and believe she is willing to
proceed on how we could do this as well.
I thank the Senator for his comments. I think we have a path forward
to talk with Senator Stabenow, with others who are involved in the farm
bill, and to move forward, and yet move forward on this bill and lay
the groundwork for 2015 so we don't have this recurring problem.
Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. I wish to tell the Senator how much all of
the Senators on this issue appreciate the chairwoman's hard work. I
think we need to stay focused. What happens with these counties is they
wish to know early on whether the money is coming and how much. If they
don't know, they aren't able to spend it wisely.
Ms. MIKULSKI. If I could respond to the Senator.
Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Please.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Municipal government is usually in a different fiscal
year. Baltimore City Council began January 1, the Federal Government,
of course, is October 1, and we are finally getting settled on January
16. We are a little behind the schedule, but we are not behind the
eight ball. We are going to work on this.
I thank the Senator for his work, along with Senator Johanns, a
former Agriculture Secretary and Governor, I might add, and the way the
Senator worked on the Subcommittee on Financial Services.
The Presiding Officer, a Senator from New Jersey, took the seat of
the late and beloved Senator Frank Lautenberg, and Senator Udall took
Senator Lautenberg's seat as the chair of the Financial Services
Subcommittee. Senator Lautenberg would be very pleased to see this
today. Although he would want to be here, the fact that the two
Senators are in the Senate is very good.
Senator Udall essentially had a battlefield promotion. The Senator
proceeded with such diligence and had constantly in his mind the
mission of the agencies, enormous controversy at IRS, and had to step
into some very complicated issues. The Senator's faithfulness to duty,
the way he went about it with such diligence and verve, is indeed to be
commended. I know Senator Lautenberg would believe that his gavel
passed into very competent hands. We thank the Senator. We also wish to
thank Senator Johanns because he helped to carry the momentum.
This is the way the Senate ought to be. Even in a time of great
sadness we were able to do our job.
I yield the floor, and 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.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum
call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. MURRAY. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Unemployment Benefits

Mrs. MURRAY. As the chairwoman of the Appropriations Committee
leaves, I thank the Senator for her tremendous leadership. I thank the
Senator for her leadership in getting this bill to the floor.
I come to the floor today to talk about another topic, and that is
the 1.4 million Americans who have lost their unemployment benefits and
the over 70,000 people who continue to lose them each week. The Senate
has found itself in an all-too-familiar place. Once again, some
Republicans are refusing to be able to say yes even to the most
reasonable of offers, and it is a problem we have seen in this body too
many times.
Over the course of the 16-day shutdown last October, we tried time
and time again to find compromises to end that manufactured crisis,
return Federal workers to their jobs, and reopen our Federal parks and
buildings. But for too long Republicans refused to listen to the
American people and embrace compromise. Instead, they were standing
firmly in a partisan corner--and it is a pattern of what we saw last
year in our efforts to pass a budget.
In March of the past year--as every Senator, I am sure, will
remember--we spent a week on the Senate floor in a very open process
debating and voting on amendment after amendment until the very wee
hours of the morning. On March 23 we finally passed our budget after
the House had passed theirs the

[[Page S393]]

day earlier. I thought at that time the next step would be to start a
conference as quickly as possible. I thought it was a no-brainer.
This is what the American people were expecting, the two sides to get
in a room, work out our differences, and avoid another crisis. Every
time we tried to start that budget conference--21 times in the Senate--
a Senate Republican stood up and said no. They no longer wanted to go
to conference, they no longer wanted to follow regular order, they only
wanted to obstruct. That took us to a government shutdown, a debt limit
crisis, and a lot of pain for families and communities across the
country before we could get them in a room with us in a budget
conference and agree to a deal the American people expected.
That has been sort of the Republican playbook in the Senate. They say
no for as long as they can, they play politics for as long as they can,
they hold out and obstruct as long as they can, until the pressure from
angry Americans finally reaches a fever pitch, and then, when it is far
too late, hopefully come to their senses.
It is getting to be far too late for every single American who lost
their unemployment benefits. In fact, as last week's unemployment
report showed, nearly \1/2\ million Americans recently gave up
entirely. Those who haven't given up spent every single day desperately
working to get on a job. Unemployment benefits make all the difference
for them and their families while they scour the want ads, pound the
pavement, and send out resume after resume.
In fact, I have heard from many people in my home State of
Washington, story after story from men and women. One of those was from
a man named Gary who lives in Spokane. Gary wrote to me about his wife
Linda and how at ``56 years young'' with a degree in accounting and an
MBA in finance Linda is still unable to find work. After exhausting her
unemployment benefits, Gary and Linda are now forced to live off of his
Social Security disability insurance. They are now facing monthly
medical expenses and rent of over $1,000 just to stay healthy and keep
a roof over their heads. Gary's benefits cover about $900 of those
expenses.
With each passing day this Congress fails to act Gary and Linda find
themselves further and further behind. Gary concluded in his note to me
in a simple plea, written in all capital letters, that said: ``PLEASE,
PLEASE, PLEASE HELP!''
I also recently heard from a woman who was laid off from her job at a
plant in Keyport, WA.
She said:

This year, I have applied for over 200 jobs and, in spite
of a stellar resume, have only gotten 4 phone interviews.
I have lowered my standards throughout the year and applied
for jobs far below my pay grade to no avail . . . my husband
and I have had to claim bankruptcy . . . [and] I truly worry
about losing my home and displacing my children.

These are real people, as the Presiding Officer well knows.
I have heard from Traci, a former executive assistant with 20 years
of experience, in Everett, WA. After taking time off from work because
she had to care for her dying mother and a daughter who was suffering
from bipolar disorder and drug addiction, Traci found herself without a
job.

After her mother passed away, Traci fell ill, and it made it very
hard for her to look for work. While Traci was receiving unemployment
benefits that were barely enough to cover the care her daughter
required, she was just barely making it. She told me that now she
cannot afford food and has lost over 50 pounds. She spends every day
searching high and low for one break. She said: ``I just need time for
someone to give me a chance.''
A chance. That is all she is asking us for. That is all they are
asking, all of these people. They don't want a handout, they don't want
to be a burden. They need support while they get back on their feet and
on the job.
We in the Senate need Republican support to do that. We are ready and
willing to move forward. We have worked to find compromise. When
Republicans wanted this extension to be paid for, even though it has
been extended time and time again without pay-fors under Republican
Congresses and Republican Presidents, we said OK, we will try and find
that.
That wasn't enough. When Republicans signaled that they didn't want
to pay for an extension by closing tax loopholes for the wealthiest
Americans, we again looked to find a compromise.
When we put forward savings from policies that have either been
agreed to by both sides or have been taken from proposals championed by
Republicans, they once again said it wasn't good enough.
When they asked for amendments, we offered amendments. They again
said no.
Unfortunately, Republicans have now reverted once again to pure
politics aimed not at the vast majority of American people who want to
see this extended, but instead squarely at their most conservative
audience possible. Nowhere is that more evident than in the pay-fors
they have offered--whether it is the minority leader's amendment that
predictably seeks to undercut health care reform or the Ayotte
amendment, which is a very disturbing signal in that after joining us
in passing comprehensive immigration legislation, Republicans are now
doing a complete 180 on immigration in an election year. With that
amendment, Senate Republicans are indicating that they are actually
going to begin targeting U.S. citizens, children who are U.S. citizens,
simply because they were born to undocumented workers. I think that is
shameful, and I am shocked that we have reached this point.
These policies aren't going anywhere. Republicans know that. In the
end, all they amount to is nothing more than delaying tactics while
American families' lives are hanging in the balance.
Make no mistake, families across the country are teetering on the
brink today. In fact, nowhere is that more clear than the last
heartbreaking story I came to the floor to share with you. I received
this yesterday from a woman named Shiela, who for the last 13 years has
worked a middle-management job at a national corporation in my State.
She started her letter by saying: ``I've never written to any
government official, but I'm compelled to do so today.''
Then she told me how she, her husband, and two children had lived a
fairly comfortable life, but all of that changed last year when her
employer decided to downsize, and she was one of the many Americans who
was laid off.
Her husband, who works in real estate, was struggling in a very weak
market, as we all know. Suddenly, Shiela's family of four found
themselves relying on just over $500 a week in unemployment assistance.
Having graduated from college and business school, Sheila--like so
many others--found herself in need of these benefits, and she said
never in a million years did she think she would be in that spot.
These are her words:

I've worked for so many years, paid my taxes, did the right
thing for others . . . and now I need help.

In October, Sheila's family lost their house. They are now renting.
They do not know if their daughter will still qualify for the student
loans she is currently receiving. Sheila's checking account is now
overdrawn. Her car payments are past due. She started getting notices
from her utility companies. And as my staff talked with her yesterday,
she said she was headed out the door to apply for food stamps.
Because of the Republicans' refusal to work with us, we will once
again be going home to constituents such as Sheila to explain why this
extension hasn't gotten done. I know I will be pointing out the fact
that we have compromised time and time again to try to get something
done here; that we have all but begged Republicans from the start to
work with us on this effort, but I can't help but wonder how
Republicans are going to explain their actions.
While I normally don't come to the floor to give advice to my friends
on the other side of the aisle, I would certainly like to suggest they
do not stare into the eyes of someone who just had to apply for food
stamps for the very first time in their life and explain that they
can't act until ObamaCare is destroyed. And I hope they do not tell
those who are about to lose their home they can't help them until they
find a way to cut childcare credits for U.S. children. And I hope they
do not tell Americans who spend their days working hard and applying
for jobs that pay a fraction of what they have been making they will
only be willing to help

[[Page S394]]

them if all of their political demands are met. And I especially hope
they do not think making arguments about procedure or amendments or
arcane rules of the Senate that only people here in DC pay attention to
is an excuse for walking away from 1.4 million Americans at a time when
all they want to see is results.
What I do hope is that the experiences they have coming face-to-face
with these families will change their tone when they come back here in
a week. I hope the stories, such as the ones I shared here today, will
once again be the pressure that Republicans have required over and over
to finally act. And I hope that soon they will join us in passing our
nonpartisan, commonsense bill and finally delivering some certainty and
some security for struggling Americans who deserve it.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mrs. MURRAY. Yes, I will.
Ms. MIKULSKI. First, I thank the Senator for the work she did in the
Budget Committee, because that budget she worked so diligently on on a
bipartisan basis with Paul Ryan has enabled us to have the allocation
for discretionary spending that has enabled our coming here today to
make sure the government will function, that it will work as hard as
the taxpayers who pay for it, and that we will have no government
shutdown and no crisis environment. So I really want to thank the
Senator for that.
The question I have for the Senator is in regard to her role as the
chair of the Subcommittee on Transportation and Housing, Urban
Development, and Related Agencies. Has the Senator had a chance to look
at what she thinks will be the positive job impact of what she has been
able to do? Because the Senator funds transportation for the United
States. There are TIGER grants that are so important to Maryland and
the Port of Baltimore, and also the issues related to housing. In my
own hometown the renovation of housing for the elderly--most of it
built in the 1970s and 1980s under Carter and Reagan--needs to be
rehabilitated. They need to be reformed so they meet new ADA standards,
all of which would put men and women to work where, in my State, the
job rate among construction workers is enormously high. So building
bridges and building homes would sure go a long way. Has the Senator
had a chance to look at any of that?
Mrs. MURRAY. Let me respond to the chairwoman of the Appropriations
Committee, Mr. President.
I came to the floor today to talk about the millions of Americans who
are in need of extended unemployment benefits, but I would tell my
colleague that everyone I have ever talked to on unemployment would
much rather have a job. As to the question the Senator has asked me in
relation to my role as chair of the subcommittee on transportation and
housing and the bill we are about to pass here in the Senate, it will
have an impact on creating jobs and building that infrastructure so
people will have that job certainty. It is extremely important.
On the transportation side of my appropriations bill, the TIGER grant
program the Senator has described will bring not only jobs to
communities but real projects that will help build a foundation for
future economic growth.
There is no one who questions that transportation infrastructure
brings jobs today, provides economic development for the future, and is
absolutely the way people get to work and home in a timely manner,
bringing certainty for so many families we know. That is a critical
part of my subcommittee.
The other part of my subcommittee, as the Senator mentioned, is
housing. Those issues are so important. I think most people forget if
you don't have a place to live it is pretty hard to go to work.
Providing some of these programs we do, such as section 8, and some of
the reforms we have put in here, is absolutely critical for so many
Americans to be able to have the stability and to get out and get a
job, so that we don't have to be arguing over unemployment extension
here but actually how we can make the investments so this country can
work and survive.
I hope we can provide those extensions today, as we struggle to get
back on our feet, but meanwhile pass this critical bill the Senator has
authored so we can provide jobs and economic support, which is what
people want.
Ms. MIKULSKI. I thank the Senator for her tireless effort.
I want to comment on the work the Senator from Washington State did
in her role chairing the subcommittee on transportation and housing.
What a bipartisan effort that subcommittee put forth. Senator Murray
and the Senator from Maine Ms. Collins worked on a bipartisan basis on
transportation, which is what the committee funds, and on housing.
When I speak of housing, this is housing that is primarily related to
meeting compelling human need. It also has the money for Community
Development Block Grants.
Going back to the days when I referred to the Senator as ``Mr.
Mayor,'' now ``Mr. President''--the Presiding Officer--we know--City
Council Barb and formerly Mayor Booker--what Community
Development Block Grant money means in our local communities. In my
State, Community Development Block Grant money is key to local
governments solving local problems without a ``one size fits all'' from
Washington.

What I like about the Community Development Block Grant money is that
its criteria for funding is it has to deal with blight, it has to deal
with unemployment, and it has to meet compelling human need. And
whatever they do, it also usually results in good-paying jobs in
construction. But it is not decided by Washington: Thou shalt build
such-and-such under such-and-such Washington rules. It is decided in
Newark, in Baltimore, in Phoenix.
What is so important about the CDBG money in transportation and
housing is money comes locally. There is Federal criteria--again,
eliminate blight, deal with unemployment, and it has to meet a
documented need--but it is decided locally by mayors and city councils,
by county commissioners, or whatever the form of local governance.
So this is what they did. They worked on a bipartisan basis for
adequate funding for CDBG to meet compelling need in the area of
housing, particularly housing for the elderly--the so-called section
202s, many of which were built a long time ago and now need to be
retrofitted and remodeled. Again, this meets need--coming up to the
compliance of what we now know in things such as universal design to
keep people out of long-term care or assisted living. This is a
wonderful way to meet human need and also generate jobs. So they have
done a great job.
I wish also to comment on the leadership they provided, and it was
across all of the appropriators in this committee. We are not a
committee that makes a lot of fuss; we are not usually a bunch of
chest-pounders harrumphing about a policy. We were once referred to in
a major historical work about our work as the quiet guardians of the
purse. We are not quiet while working with each other, but the work is
not well known or well noticed because we have done it in a tone of
solving problems and keeping the problem the problem, and not making
personalities the problem. That has been done by every single
subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee in the Senate. I am proud
of them. I think transportation and housing has been an exemplary one,
but we will hear this today from others who will be coming up to speak
about it. We have done a good job, and I hope other Senators will come
to the floor to talk about the work of the committee. If they have any
questions, if they want to debate or comment, we are open to those
discussions.
I do hope we can move the bill along. I know cloture doesn't expire
until tomorrow, but, gosh, if we all come and everyone could have their
say, I think we could finish it today. It might be late, but I think we
could finish, and then go on with other pressing Senate business. So I
urge those who wish to speak on the bill to come to the floor.
I know other Senators will be coming, but until then, 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. PRYOR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the
quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

[[Page S395]]

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I rise to talk about the business on the
floor, which is the Omnibus appropriations bill. Let me start by
thanking Chairwoman Mikulski for her leadership. She has put long hours
in on this over the Christmas and New Year's break. When most people
were home with families and doing things in their home State, on
vacation, she never stopped working. Her team, her staff on the
Appropriations Committee, never stopped working. The staff, as always,
is kind of the unsung hero around here. They did so many great things
to put this together, both Democrats and Republicans, House and
Senate--everybody had to work together to get this done and I am proud
they did.
I am also proud to be one of the appropriations subcommittee chairs
who was able to work on this legislation. As you know, I am chairman of
the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee. I have worked with my
counterpart Senator Blunt, the ranking member of the subcommittee, to
craft part of this bipartisan bill. Again, Senator Blunt has been
wonderful to work with. We appreciate him and his staff as well.
When people hear agriculture appropriations, they often think about
farming. That is understandable. We all understand why. That is
certainly a key part of the bill, but that is not all it does. Our bill
helps farmers with operating loans, conservation practices, marketing.
It funds programs that benefit rural communities such as clean drinking
water and rural housing, and it supports nutrition programs that help
kids across the country.
It also funds international food assistance such as Food for Peace
that allows crops grown here at home to be distributed around the
world.
This bill, in addition, touches on the Food and Drug Administration.
That is an agency that is vitally important to the United States. Here
again, just like agriculture is one of the core strengths of the U.S.
economy, pharmaceuticals is another area where America leads the world.
It is critically important that we have a highly functioning FDA in
order for us to keep that competitive advantage.
This bill overall has a huge impact over the U.S. economy, but my
subcommittee's part in this bill also has a very significant bearing
over the U.S. economy that will continue this recovery. Getting people
back to work, getting people focused on domestic jobs and the fact that
we make things here and grow things here is critically important for
our future.
For example, look at what it is doing to my home State. If I could, I
could go around to each one of these desks in the Senate and talk about
specific things it is doing in everyone's State, but just in my home
State, it is providing funding for many of our universities, including
the University or Arkansas at Fayetteville and Arkansas State
University in Jonesboro, to conduct cutting edge agricultural research.
It is supporting economic development grants for the Delta Regional
Authority, which is in our region of the country, to boost the quality
of life in the Delta region. It is providing our kids with a safe and
stable food supply by supporting, again in our State, the Arkansas
Children's Nutrition Center in Little Rock, and it is investing in the
technology of tomorrow by funding the National Center for Toxicological
Research in Jefferson County, AR.
The NTCR, which is part of the FDA, is also very important and people
take it for granted because they don't know what it does, but it is
very important. Now they have a new focus on nanotechnology, which they
have been doing in the last few years, and that will be a game changer
as well. Those are just a few of the challenges.
I could stand here for an hour or so talking about the benefits of
the bill and talking about all the provisions and lots of matters that
are contained in this bill, but I think overall it is most important to
note the agriculture appropriations bill and the omnibus bill overall
are an agreement reached because of bipartisanship. We have to look
back at what Senator Murray and Congressman Ryan did. I appreciate what
they did. They laid the groundwork for us to be here today. It was a
bipartisan effort, went through both Houses, bipartisan, big votes, and
we saw a huge vote in the House of Representatives yesterday. I hope we
will see a large vote in the Senate today or tomorrow or Saturday,
whenever we get this done. Certainly I hope it is going to be today.
Nonetheless, this is a victory for bipartisanship and the agriculture
appropriations part of that is important.
But overall, the fact is that Congress is back in business. We are
getting things done. We are getting back to what our chairwoman would
call regular order. We are working together and that is the only way we
can get things done in Washington. But it is also the only way we can
secure our Nation's economic future. I hope we will see a lot more
bipartisanship in 2014. I know it is an election year. All the talking
heads tell us it is going to be hard to do, but certainly I hope we can
get that done and 2014, I hope, is a much more productive year in the
Congress than 2013 was.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. King). The Senator from Maryland.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, again I rise to compliment a
subcommittee chairman. The Senator from Arkansas took over this
committee for the first time this year, so he is a new chairman, but he
was not new to the issues. I thank him for the work he did and the
bipartisan tone which he set. Again, he has done an excellent job,
working with the Senator from Missouri Mr. Blunt. What was impressive--
when we say agriculture, that is one word, but agriculture in this
country is very diverse. Am I right that the Senator handles everything
from artichokes to catfish?
Mr. PRYOR. We sure do. We handle, as the Senator says, everything
from artichokes to catfish and everything in between. In our bill we
take the entire Department of Agriculture, with the exception of
forestry--that goes to another subcommittee--and we also do FDA. If you
look at--for example, I mentioned, agriculture is one of the core
strengths of the U.S. economy. It may not be very exciting. We may take
it for granted because in this country we have always had productive
agriculture, but if we look at the different advantages it gives us as
a nation in lots of different ways, we need to keep that core strength
going, just like the pharmaceuticals and the Federal Drug
Administration; it is critically important.
Ms. MIKULSKI. I also thank the Senator for what he and the Senator
from Missouri did, what Mr. Blunt did, in terms of food safety. I
believe when we did the continuing resolution we were--and also when we
were shut down--food safety faced the need for inspectors. We both
share, in our States, chicken. Chicken is a $2 billion industry over on
the Eastern Shore. A lot of good people have good jobs because of good
chicken. But without those inspectors, our poultry industry would have
been halted.
What were the consequences in those days and what has the Senator
done in this bill?
Mr. PRYOR. That is exactly right. Had we not had those food
inspectors, it literally could have shut down the poultry plants--but
also the beef and pork and other types of facilities--overnight. It
could have shut them down and been very disruptive.
One of the great things about agriculture in the United States is we
have created a lot of efficiencies in the agriculture economy. So when
you have something disruptive such as this, these inspectors can't
inspect the meat and they just cannot operate, you start to cause all
kinds of disruptions, all kinds of inefficiencies.
Then what happens is the price of that chicken fillet at the grocery
store goes up. When we go to a restaurant it goes up.
We do not need to jeopardize our food supply, either on food safety
grounds or on supply grounds, because we have--if we look at the United
States and what we spend as a per-capita share of our income, we spend
less on food than any country in the world. It is in relative terms. We
have to use that per capita, because if we have a higher standard of
living here, and we do, but it is something we are very fortunate about
and because of this legislation and because of what Senator Stabenow is
doing with the farm bill--it is all a team effort--we are going to keep
that advantage and keep that food and fiber cheap.
Those are all domestic jobs. That is very important. This is growth
here,

[[Page S396]]

raised here, processed here, and served here. It is great for domestic
jobs. It has a huge ripple effect on the U.S. economy. This bill is
part of that and I am proud to have a hand in it.
Ms. MIKULSKI. The Senator from Arkansas as well as his ranking
member, the Senator from Missouri Mr. Blunt, has done a great job.
Sometimes Congress gets the rap when we grow the deficit, but here in
agriculture, the subcommittee grows good jobs and they grow them by
making sure we have a solid approach to agriculture itself, where
farmers and producers and distributors are able to do their job. And
the work of the FDA, through food safety, has not only kept America
safe, but it enables those who produce food in our country to have the
right inspections so we have the right confidence to go out to the
supermarket.
We are very proud of what they do.
I yield the floor.
Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I would say in conclusion, as I look on the
floor and I see Senators from Alabama, from Maryland, from Maine, from
Connecticut, agriculture touches each of these States. It touches them
differently. Agriculture is truly a matter of national pride. Every
State contributes, basically every person benefits from it.
Again, I was honored to be part of this. The chairwoman deserves a
lot of credit for working in a bipartisan way and getting it through
both Houses.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I am pleased to follow my colleague
from Arkansas and join him in applauding the chairwoman of the
Appropriations Committee Senator Mikulski for her extraordinary and
historic work on this measure which serves so well our values and goals
and our traditions in the Senate of bipartisan service, putting America
first over partisanship. I join my very distinguished colleague from
Arkansas who has highlighted so well the values served by agriculture
in America and served well by this appropriations bill and by the
measure Chairwoman Stabenow is seeking to forge, again through
bipartisan work involving both Houses of this body.
Agriculture serves so many of our basic values in this Nation--
environmental and consumer values, patriotism and pride in a way of
life. In Connecticut, we know deeply and urgently how threatened are
these values and traditions, this way of life and the environmental
consumer issues at stake.
I am pleased that we are near a compromise, on the verge and the cusp
of an agreement on the farm bill that will serve the interests of
farmers in Connecticut and around the country.
The dozens of dairy farmers with relatively small farms around
Connecticut have said to me again and again that they need help and
certainty. That was the message they gave me as I visited their farms
around the State of Connecticut time and again, and now apparently help
and certainty are on the way.
I am pleased that the farm bill conferees have reached a compromise
on the dairy provisions in the farm bill. We are going to be studying
them very closely. They have only just been announced. Apparently, the
new deal announced by the farm bill conferees would keep the margin
insurance program but remove the Dairy Market Stabilization Program. In
place of that Dairy Market Stabilization Program, the deal revives the
recently expired Milk Income Loss Contract Program known as the MILC
Program. The Milk Income Loss Contract Program is a transitional
program while the new margin insurance plan is being set up by the U.S.
Department of Agriculture.
Without going into all of the details, I think this agreement
represents progress, and I am going to carefully scrutinize it and seek
to improve it from the standpoint of Connecticut's dairy farmers. But
there can be no doubt--none whatsoever to anyone in this body, which I
think we would all agree--as to the importance of the milk industry,
beginning with the dairy farmers. Indeed, reflecting the importance of
milk to America is the fact that it is the only beverage, other than
water, that is permitted on the floor of the Senate, as far as I know.
I am pleased and proud to have a glass of milk on the floor today.
This is a first for me in my young experience as a Senator. I am not
sure if it is a correct parliamentary inquiry, but I say to the
Presiding Officer: Got milk? I'm willing to share.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection.
Mr. BLUMENTHAL. This issue is a very serious one because the lives
and livelihoods of our farmers are at stake. There is the open space
that may be sacrificed if dairy farms surrender and are forced to
abandon this way of life due to the increasingly high costs of feed,
fuel, and labor that are pressing them as they also encounter potential
price reductions. So they are squeezed. Dairy farmers are squeezed.
In Connecticut we mostly have small family-owned farms like the
Fairvue Farms in Woodstock, Hytone Farm in Coventry, Mapleleaf Farm in
Hebron, Fort Hill Farms in Thompson, Cushman Farms in Franklin, and
Graywall Farms in Lebanon. I have visited a number of them. I know
firsthand how hard these farmers work simply to keep their farms going.
These six farms make up the Farmer's Cow, a group of Connecticut
family-owned farms dedicated to producing some of the very best milk in
America.
Their milk is so good, in fact, they opened a milk bar--that is
right, a milk bar--in Mansfield called the Farmer's Cow Calfe &
Creamery where you can choose from five or six different types and
flavors of milk to help wash down their delicious and fresh sandwiches,
salads, cheeses, and ice creams.
Visit Connecticut and visit the Farmer's Cow Calfe. These are the
farms we need to support and keep going. These are the hard-working men
and women we need to support. We can and must support our dairy farmers
in Connecticut and around the country.
In fact, in Connecticut we have more than 150 dairy farms on 70,000
acres--18 percent of our State's land--which translates into $2 billion
in economic activity for the State of Connecticut alone. These farmers
need help. They need stability and certainty. Unfortunately, some
Members in the House of Representatives have delayed the farm bill for
far too long, leading dairy producers to wonder whether the Federal
Government is a friend or a foe to their businesses.
Even though Connecticut's dairy industry is a significant contributor
to the State's agricultural industry and general economy, the
industry's strength and survival depend greatly on the support that the
Federal Government can and must provide.
In Connecticut, in 1975 there were 817 dairy farms. Today there are
150 dairy farms. I think that experience is probably reflected by every
State represented in this body. Every one of my colleagues, perhaps,
can attest to the diminishing number of dairy farmers and farmers in
general. Connecticut is doing its part and doing its share so that
farms in our State are sustained, and the Federal Government ought to
do its part as well.
According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Connecticut ranks 45
out of 50 States in receiving agriculture-related subsidies.
Connecticut received $127 million between 1995 and 2010 compared to the
$22 billion received by Iowa and the $24 billion that went to Texas. I
have nothing against those States. I am not criticizing those amounts,
but the amount we received in Connecticut is a fraction--a small
fraction--of what is needed to sustain our dairy farmers, and that is
why I will be urging and advocating for dairy farmers in Connecticut
under this deal. Their interests are shared nationwide. We need to make
sure that the agreement announced yesterday by the farm bill
conferees--keeping the margin insurance program, but removing the Dairy
Market Stabilization Program and reviving the MILC Program--truly
serves milk producers in our Nation, not just the processors but
consumers and farmers. We must do right by America's dairy farmers, an
often under-represented group in this body, and make sure we do right
by our farmers and consumers by giving them the certainty and help they
need to continue a way of life and a product that is vital to our
health and well-being as a Nation.
I thank the Presiding Officer, and I yield the floor.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Will the Senator from Connecticut yield for a question?

[[Page S397]]

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. I am pleased to yield for a question.
Ms. MIKULSKI. First, let me thank my colleague for his generous words
about the work of this committee. What is on the Senator's desk? I am
drinking water.
Mr. BLUMENTHAL. I have milk. I offered to share my milk with the
Presiding Officer. I know that Maine has its share of farmers. I
understand the Presiding Officer is not allowed, under our Senate
rules, to respond in substance, but I would be glad to share with the
chairman of the Appropriations Committee.
Ms. MIKULSKI. I say to the Senator from Connecticut: I have been in
the Senate for 25 years, and I have seen a lot of Senators try to put a
lot of different drinks in those glasses, but I have never seen milk on
the Senate floor. Is that permissible?
Mr. BLUMENTHAL. I am told it is a permissible beverage on the floor.
If it is not, I am sure I will be subject to appropriate disciplinary
action.
Ms. MIKULSKI. For all of us who just yearn for a calcium-rich diet,
it is refreshing to see that. We salute Connecticut and its strong
agricultural presence in our economy, and I thank the Senator for
bringing a nutritious beverage to the Senate floor that is allowed
under the rules. If it is not allowed, I am sure we can have the
appropriate committee of jurisdiction allow it.
I think what the Senator is saying is we have a lot of people in our
country who work in agriculture, and agriculture is not one field.
Agriculture in the United States of America is diverse, and we can't
let these small farmers fade away.
I am seeing new, emerging farmers in my State--whether it is for
dairy or beef, and so on. With the so-called farm-to-fork movement,
this could be the dawn of a new age in agriculture while we preserve
that which has been traditional and fed America during good times and
bad. So I thank the Senator for his work and his advocacy, and I look
forward to working with him.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. I thank the chairwoman for her remarks. I wish to
express to her, as I do to all of my colleagues, that agriculture and
farming really are a way of life. We need to make sure our family farms
and all farms are sustained. We sometimes tend to neglect or take them
for granted.
Again, I thank the distinguished Senator from Maryland for the time
and attention she has devoted over the many years she has been here to
the farms of Maryland and the farms of America. I think it is a cause
we share. Whether it is Alabama or Georgia or Maine or any other State
represented on the floor here today, we need to make sure we provide
the safety net where it is necessary and the support when it is due but
also keep in mind that consumers ultimately are the beneficiaries, the
men and women and children, having four children myself. Also, having
for a time actually worked on a farm, I know this product is central to
the American existence and the American way of life.
I thank the chairwoman, and I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I see the Senator from Arizona is on the
floor, and I would inquire of the Senator if at 12:30 he is planning to
speak on the War Powers Act.
Mr. McCAIN. I thank the chairwoman. I was awaiting the arrival of my
colleague from Virginia, who was going to speak first.
Ms. MIKULSKI. I say to the Senator from Arizona, I think this is an
important discussion. We will do it any way the Senator from Arizona
wishes. If my colleague wishes to proceed, that would be fine with this
side of the aisle. Whatever way the Senator from Arizona wishes to
proceed on this important topic is fine.
Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Senator from Maryland. I hope the Presiding
Officer will chastise the Senator from Virginia for being tardy. I know
he is very capable of that. So I will go ahead and begin, although I
had planned on the Senator from Virginia being first. He is the sponsor
of the bill which I am cosponsoring. I thank the chairwoman.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Chair.
(The remarks of Mr. McCain and Mr. Kaine pertaining to the
introduction of S. 1939 are printed in today's Record under
``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I wish to talk about the omnibus for a
brief time before Senator Leahy has some remarks to be made.
First of all, I thank the chair and ranking member of the
Appropriations Committee and their staffs for their hard work to draft
a sensible funding bill that I think meets the needs of the American
people, a bill that helps us move past the stalemate and disagreements
of the past few years and does what the American people sent us to do;
that is, roll up our sleeves, work together, work hard, and govern.
Recently, folks have put politics and partisanship ahead of our
constituents and our responsibilities, and the results have not been
pretty. But thanks to Chairman Mikulski and Ranking Member Shelby and
their counterparts in the House of Representatives, we now have a
responsible bipartisan bill we can work with, one that invests in our
future to strengthen our economy but that makes tough choices so we can
continue to get our fiscal house in order.
Approving this bill helps avoid another round of devastating
sequester cuts, avoid a government shutdown, and avoid some of the
bitterness that is dragging down economic growth.
In Montana, our seniors, children, women, and civilian members of the
military--to name a few--felt the sequester cuts head on. Kids could
not go to Head Start. The elderly could not get meals, women faced cuts
to reproductive health programs, Defense Department employees were
forced to stay home, and our military was dangerously close to being
hollowed out.
This bill makes smart choices to continue to reduce our deficit,
while investing in core national priorities--those being education,
health care, infrastructure, research and development, and defense.
At the same time, it continues our fiscally responsible approach to
governing by reducing or eliminating funding for dozens of programs
that had been left on autopilot after 2 years of continuing
resolutions, and it repeals the recently enacted reduction in the
annual cost-of-living adjustments for disabled military retirees and
for survivors of military retirees.
This particular change is very important for folks who have been
medically retired and for survivors, the folks who are more likely to
be on a fixed income, and it was done without any fanfare and without
any grandstanding. Senator Mikulski and Senator Shelby figured out how
to fix it.
Let's be clear. This is one step in a two-step process. We have more
work to do to address the military pension issue to make sure it works
for the men and women of the military who have made great sacrifices on
our behalf.
I also thank Chairman Reed and Senator Murkowski for putting forward
a smart Interior bill. By ending sequestration, we are able to make
some real progress in Indian Country and in protecting some of
America's most unique landscapes.
The Interior bill increases funding for the Indian Health Service,
which is necessary, it increases funding for Indian education and for
promoting good stewardship of our public lands.
This Interior bill is critically important to States such as Montana.
It will improve the quality of life for folks on our seven
reservations. It will create more tourism and recreational
opportunities throughout Montana. I am concerned, however, by the
absence of one measure. It is a measure approved by the Senate
Appropriations and Rules Committees. It is bipartisan. It saves money.
It brings more transparency and accountability to a town that needs
more of both. More than one-third of the Senate is a cosponsor.
This act is called the Senate Campaign Disclosure Parity Act. Right

[[Page S398]]

now, candidates for the Senate do not have to electronically file their
campaign finance reports with the Federal Elections Commission. Now
they can voluntarily e-file. Maybe the Presiding Officer did. But many
of our colleagues do not.
Instead, all a Senate candidate has to do is take a big stack of
documents, drop them at the office door of the Secretary of the Senate,
and head back to the campaign trail. Then what happens? The Secretary
of the Senate then sends the documents to the FEC which spends time and
money hiring contractors to put those reports on line where they can be
viewed by the public. This costs taxpayers nearly $500,000 and God
knows how many staff hours each year to make this information
available. But the biggest cost is to the American people, particularly
to our voters, who have the right to know who is funding the campaigns
of their elected officials. It is not as if I am proposing a new idea.
Candidates for the House of Representatives must electronically file
their financial reports. Presidential candidates e-file. Yet the Senate
is stuck in the dark ages. In an era of smart phones and cars that
drive themselves and combines that harvest fields using GPS, today the
Senate is dropping stacks of paper at officials' doorsteps.
I proudly voluntarily e-file my campaign finance reports. I know many
of our colleagues do as well. But that is not enough. Ironically, we do
not know why my bill to improve transparency and save money did not
make it into the funding bill. I am told it was blocked by the House of
Representatives. A few folks over at the House are pointing fingers
back over here. That is finger-pointing instead of accountability,
politics instead of governance. We can do better.
Here in the Congress, we consistently demand transparency from
Federal agencies. That is the right thing to do. But we need to also
look in the mirror. We are not doing what we demand of others. But
Americans are demanding this funding bill as well. It is a step forward
to responsible government. It makes tough choices to getting our fiscal
house in order while investing in the future.
This Omnibus is a good bill. It puts our country on more solid
footing. It delivers more certainty to small businesses so we can count
on them to grow and create jobs. Our constituents sent us here to find
common ground. This kind of responsible bill is why we are here. So,
once again, I thank the chairwoman and the ranking member for their
hard work in bringing this bill to the floor. I look forward to seeing
its final passage.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I want to address my remarks, first, to
the chairman and the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee. I
think you have done a lot of hard work. You have done something that
even though I am not in the consensus, you have done what the Senate
was designed to do, build a consensus around a bill. There is no
question this bill will pass today. So my congratulations to you and my
sincere thanks for some of the things you put in the bill that we have
been working on that are good governance projects. So I want to say
that from the start.
I am not going to talk specifically about the bill. I am going to
talk in bigger, broader terms of the problems that are facing us as a
country. I have in my hands a book that contains $9 trillion worth of
cuts. Hardly anybody in the Senate has read it. They may not agree with
50 or 60 or 70 percent. But there is certainly somewhere in here
consensus for us to actually save a whole lot more money than we are
doing.
In 2009, a young lady by the name of Madeline showed up outside the
Senate. This is what she had draped around her neck. ``I am already
$38,375 in debt and I only own a dollhouse.''
Since that period of time, we have managed to markedly change that
situation for her for the worse, because today, if she were outside,
she would have this sign on her neck. It would say $54,602 and she
would only own a dollhouse.
The point I am trying to make is this hole is getting deeper and
deeper and deeper. Although I did not vote for the budget agreement,
because I think it could have been done better, it was an agreement and
had a consensus as well. My criticism is not that the Members of this
body worked a consensus, which is exactly what the Senate is supposed
to do, but I think as we have done these things we might have lost
sight of the big picture. So I want to share with you for a minute what
the big picture looks like, because it is not pretty.
According to generally accepted accounting principles, that is not
the way we run the government, by the way. We do not use real
accounting principles. We use all the tricks and smoke and mirrors we
can. This number is indisputable.
The unfunded liabilities for the Federal Government are $127
trillion. Think about that. We cannot even imagine how much that is.
Our national debt is $17.33 trillion as of last night. I checked it.
There are 14 million households in America. If you take the Federal
liability per household, it comes out to $1.11 million. So $1.11
million is what the debt plus the liability is for every family in this
country. It is growing. I know we cannot solve this problem over 1 year
or 2 years. I am so thankful to the Senator who is leading the
Appropriations Committee in her position. I have the most wonderful
respect for her. She is a listener. She wants to do right.
But what we have to do is change the direction of this. It needs to
go the other way. That requires everybody. If you think about it, if
the average family per capita income--this is what it was last year in
this country, $53,000--can you imagine how we are going to leverage and
afford just the interest cost on $1.11 million?
If you add 5 percent on a million bucks, that is $55,000. That is
more--just the interest costs are more than the median family income in
this country. So there are parts of this bill that are in front of us
that I am highly critical of. I do not like the fact that we play a
game with CHIMPs, change it to a mandatory program. To me it is not
straightforward to the American people. It is not being honest about
what we are actually doing.
What we are actually doing is digging the hole deeper. Let me outline
some things we could have done that we did not do before we had the
budget agreement, before we had this appropriations bill. The GAO over
the last 3 years has identified about $250 billion we could take a
large portion away from by eliminating duplication and by putting
metrics on programs. Now think about that. That is $250 billion a year.
I have been out here giving speeches on all of this and everything
that is duplicative. But the problem is that the appropriate committees
have not met to look at the GAO recommendations. They have not acted on
them. They have not responded to them. The administration, I will give
them credit; in their budget the last few years, they have looked at
those GAO reports and made recommendations in their budgets for
elimination and consolidation. But we have essentially ignored them.
I know how tough it is to build a consensus in the Appropriations
Committee that will get you the votes you need to accomplish that. From
the parochial concerns to the budget concerns, I understand that. I am
glad we have a number now. I am glad we have a bill that has a number.
I think the number is too high if we are ever going to do anything
about this. But the fact that we do not do anything that will make a
difference in the future in terms of driving this number down--just
think. Let's say the GAO is 50 percent right. Let's say they are only
50 percent right. What if we consolidated, put metrics on programs and
streamlined them as they recommend and we saved $150 billion a year.
That starts going in the right direction. It changes. We start going in
the right direction. Now think for a minute. If we have no recessions
over the next 20 years and we have great economic growth, 4 percent, we
still do not solve this problem. Because the interest costs are greater
than the GDP growth associated with our country.
I wanted to give the background of why I come out here all the time
and raise the issue of why we are stealing the future from our
children. Nobody can deny the fact that we have not done the work. The
reasons we have

[[Page S399]]

not done the work are multiple. But most of it is we just will not do
the work. We do not have the leadership that requires us to do the
work.
Think about Madeline. Let's say she gets a great college education
and is in the upper quintile in our country in terms of her earnings
when she is 25. With normalized interest rates, she is going to fall
behind. So I know we are talking out in the future, but one of the
things Thomas Jefferson wanted out of the Senate was for us to be long-
range thinkers, not to think about the problem right now, think about
what the problem is going to be.
In my 9 years here, I have failed in my ability to convince my
colleagues that we ought to be worrying about this problem. Because the
promise of America was opportunity. The promise of the poor house is no
opportunity. What we have set up for the average American family in the
future is the poor house.
It does not have to be that way. We can fight among the priorities,
but the one thing we should not by fighting about, the one thing that
we should know that we can fix is why would there be 679 different
renewable energy programs? Can anybody give any possible justification
for that? It is just $15 billion a year, but if you consolidated them
down to 20, you could save $5 billion a year. That is $50 billion over
10 years.
Why are there 253 different Department of Justice crime prevention
grants? Each of them has an overhead. What we found when we studied
this is people get a grant from one, then use the same grant
application to go to another grant overhead in DOJ, get the grant from
another section, another program, for exactly the same claim. The right
hand does not know the left hand. If you consolidated them, one, you
would get more money to each individual grant, and, No. 2, you would
not have the duplication and fraud and lack of compliance we know these
grant programs are loaded with. We have done the work. We have done the
oversight.
We have actually studied them--or why are there 209? Think about
this--science, technology, engineering, and math incentive programs,
education programs, 13 different agencies, $3.5 billion a year. Why do
we allow that to happen? This is the real face of who it is going to
affect. Yet we won't do the hard work.
It is not the appropriators' job to do that work; I understand that.
But one of the things appropriators could do is say we are not going to
fund any of these programs unless we consolidate them and put metrics
on them. Finally, if they expected to come out in March--and I am so
pleased the chairman wants to run the appropriations bills and to get
back to normal--to say to the Judiciary Committee, if you want these
justice grants run, consolidate them, put restrictions on them,
streamline them, and then we will fund them.
So everybody will know, we are prorating 1 year about $480 billion of
money for programs that aren't authorized at all. One of the strengths
of the Appropriations Committee could be that we could put some demands
on the authorizing committee to clean this up.
I want to state a couple more.
Health care has been in the news. How many of us realize we have 91
different health care training programs spending $14 billion a year?
Some of my colleagues probably know that, but in the committee of
jurisdiction they have done nothing about it.
I don't object to spending $14 billion on health training programs or
any of these other things as long as we are doing it wisely, but what I
would suggest is for the 91 different programs--which should be
probably 4 or 5--the overhead associated with the others is saved for
the American public. We could save a significant amount of money for
Madeline. Because the real story is our excesses, our lack of work, our
lack of consolidation, our lack of streamlining, our lack of
elimination and duplication, our lack of demanding the metrics so that
we know the programs we are funding out there are working.
We are not going to pay the price for it, nobody in this room. The
people who are going to be paying the price for it are Madeline's
generation. How are they going to pay for that? What is going to
happen? What is the real cost associated with that? It is not a pretty
picture. This is what it is: It is a markedly declining standard of
living.
Most people don't know that median family income in real dollars in
America today is at the exact same level it was in 1989, and it is
going backward. Even with a growing economy, it is going backward. The
assets available to a family are declining while the obligations for
that family are increasing, and we are responsible for that. It is not
something we can't fix, it is something we choose not to fix.
I also would say that I have one large concern in this bill. We
increased NIH back to $1 billion. We are still not where we were 2
years ago, but we started with $800 million more at the Defense
Department, duplicating programs that are already running at the NIH.
We are making my list bigger, not smaller. We are going in the wrong
direction.
We have great people at the NIH. We have a great leader in Francis
Collins. They have markedly improved the management of their grants,
their oversight of their grants. Yet we are going to take $800 million
and move it over to another set of overhead--with people not nearly as
experienced, not nearly as knowledgeable. We are going to be spending
money in the Defense Department to study things we are spending money
for for the exact same type of thing at NIH. So we are not going to get
great value for this money. What we are going to do is waste it. That
$800 million should have gone to NIH and every other nonmilitary-
related medical program over there. That money should have gone to the
NIH.
When we talk to the Senators who started this, both Tom Harkin and
our former colleague, now deceased, Ted Stevens, they would admit to us
in private that it was a mistake to ever start it this way, because we
are wasting a ton of precious dollars that could be used to save
somebody's life, but somebody has a reason for that. I don't know what
it is, but I will say in this bill we have $68 billion of
appropriations for the Defense Department that have nothing to do with
the defense of this country. We don't get all of these savings if we
take it out of the Defense Department, but we get $3 billion or $4
billion if we take it out of the Defense Department. That $3 billion or
$4 billion could fund NIH back at a level it should be funded or
protect Madeline from further decline in her standard of living.
I have made my point. I understand my perspective is not in the
majority, but I will guarantee my perspective is with the majority of
Americans, that we ought not to have 679 renewable energy initiatives.
I don't think we would find anybody in the country who would disagree
with me that they ought to be consolidated. They ought to be run
efficiently. They ought to have metrics on them, as well as the other
hundreds of sets of duplications.
We are going to get another report next month from the GAO, actually
in March. It will be their fourth. They are so discouraged because they
do all this hard work, make recommendations, and then we sit on them.
We don't act.
If I were to have a challenge to my colleagues, it is first to read
the reports over the past 4 years and look at the data that shows where
we are really wasting money. Then, please, for Madeline and the sake of
her generation, act on it. Don't ignore it.
I know it is not easy work. It is hard work. I have done oversight
for 9 years in the Senate. But it can be done, it should be done, and
the Madelines of America are worth it.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Hirono). The Senator from Alabama.
Mr. SHELBY. The remarks by the Senator from Oklahoma are very
interesting and telling. I listened to him carefully, and I believe
basically he is right on the point. I believe basically that we all
agree with the Senator that it is important to reduce the waste and
duplication in our government. He points out a lot of it. GAO has done
it too.
Our staff has met with the GAO several times on ways to address this
problem. We know the problem; we have to act on it, and we have to take
it very seriously. GAO, as Senator Coburn said, is coming out with a
new report. If we work on this, the government is going to be more
efficient. We

[[Page S400]]

are going to save money, and we are going to respond to problems in
America much better. We are a long way from doing this. I appreciate
his remarks this afternoon and I hope a lot of my Senators were looking
at that and listening to him.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
Mr. JOHANNS. I ask unanimous consent to speak for approximately 12
minutes as in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

TPA

Mr. JOHANNS. I rise today to discuss a bill my colleagues and I
introduced to establish trade promotion authority, otherwise referred
to as TPA. Senators Baucus and Hatch, along with Congressman Camp in
the House, introduced the Congressional Trade Priorities Act only last
week. The Senate Finance Committee held a hearing on it today.
This bill would resurrect the partnership between Congress and the
administration to promote a robust trade agenda. That partnership,
known as TPA, came about as a way to thoughtfully and pragmatically
exercise Congress's constitutional authority to regulate foreign
commerce. TPA effectively combines this authority with the President's
authority to negotiate treaties.
Congress therefore provides the marching orders to the President, and
the President, in turn, gets an up-or-down vote on the agreement that
is negotiated. Some might ask why would we do this? Why should Congress
set rules for itself to consider trade agreements through a very
special legislative process? Simply put, negotiating modern trade
agreements would be virtually impossible without providing some
assurance that agreed-upon provisions, negotiated provisions, won't be
picked apart after the negotiators shake hands.
Trade agreements span a multitude of issues affecting international
commerce. To reach these agreements there needs to be extensive
negotiation by representatives of the countries involved, but Congress
is hardly equipped to engage in multilateral negotiations with foreign
countries. We know that. We can hardly negotiate with each other these
days.
TPA allows Congress to set priorities for trade agreements and engage
with the President throughout the process. During floor consideration,
amendments cannot be offered because it would undermine our Trade
Representative. It would undermine our Trade Representative's hand in
negotiation.
Imagine our negotiators signing a deal, shaking hands with our
counterparts from other parts of the world, and then bringing the deal
to Congress. Then, after 535 people offer a plethora of amendments,
they have to go back to the other countries and try to reopen
negotiations because everything has been changed. No one would ever
negotiate a trade deal with the United States again.
So why is that a bad thing? Should we negotiate trade agreements at
all? I would argue, unquestionably, the answer is absolutely yes. White
Houses from Reagan to Obama would agree.
Furthermore, the overall benefit of free trade is undisputed by the
economists. A free rules-based trading system is much better for
America than a system where the government picks winners and losers,
and it is better for American jobs when the playing field is a level
playing field.
I want to give an example: Colombia. In 2011 Congress passed a trade
agreement with Colombia--already one of our most important allies in
Latin America. That trade relationship is thriving as a result of that
agreement. Consider this: Between 2011 and 2013 U.S. goods exports to
Colombia have increased 18 percent. At the same time U.S. goods exports
to the rest of the world have decreased by 2 percent. Trade agreements
are a great benefit to Americans as well as in corners of the world
where they need a strong ally.
Unfortunately, that is a message that doesn't always make it through.
Instead, we hear a chorus of scare tactics about job losses,
environmental concerns--whatever it is. Critics ignore the proven power
of trade to expand job opportunities and to improve the standard of
living, not only here but around the world. At the same time the lives
of millions of people around the world improve. Almost all economists
would agree that countries should move toward more free trade, not
less.
One need only examine tariff rates to understand why it is in our
best interests to pursue trade agreements. U.S. barriers to trade are
already very low by global standards. Our average tariff rate is 3.5
percent. Compare that to our current trade negotiating partners.
Vietnam has an average tariff rate of 10 percent. Malaysia's average is
6 percent. Japan and the EU both have average tariff rates of 5.3
percent. Only New Zealand has a lower rate than we do. So trade
agreements help to level the playing field by bringing down tariffs
imposed on our goods by our competitors. Put simply, trade agreements
knock down barriers. They open doors for U.S. producers and
manufacturers to get our economic engine going again.
Critics falsely claim we are going to experience a flood of cheap
imports as a result of new agreements.
My friends, that simply doesn't make sense when our tariffs are
already low. Trade agreements bring down our competitors' high tariffs.
They level the playing field.
The benefit to trade is especially clear for agricultural products--
huge drivers of the economy in my State. Our average tariff on these
imported products is 5 percent. Malaysia's is 11 percent, the European
Union's is 14 percent, Vietnam is at 17 percent, and Japan has an
agricultural tariff rate of 23 percent. These countries all already
have a number of trade agreements in place with other countries. That
means we face restrictions while our competitors reap the benefits of
the open market. We are on the sidelines while other countries are
filling the orders and creating the jobs. Trade Promotion Authority
paves the way to lowering these barriers and, in some cases,
eliminating them altogether.
Of course, tariffs are not the only barriers our exporters face, and
TPA would help us address the others too. Countries also impose
nontariff barriers, often claiming some illegitimate basis in science,
and they have brought our industries to their knees. Modern trade
agreements address those barriers as well, and we cannot get good trade
agreements inked without TPA.
In general, the U.S. abides by true science-based trade standards.
This is less common, however, in the rest of the world, to say the
least. Trade agreements help bring export markets in line with the same
kind of science-based standards that we apply to our imports. So if you
are concerned about foreign countries blocking American exports, you
should support TPA. Without TPA it becomes much harder to open those
markets for American workers.
We should all get behind this TPA bill and get it across the finish
line so that new trade agreements can clear the way for more Americans
to be hired as export demand increases.
I am pleased President Obama now recognizes the immense benefit that
trade provides to our great Nation. Despite being all talk and no
action on trade early on, this administration is currently negotiating
the two largest trade agreements in history. In my opinion, it is time
for the partisan bickering to end. There are clear job-creating
benefits to our country, and it is time for the President to make that
case to the American people and to his allies in Congress.
In a couple of weeks the President will have an opportunity to do so
in the State of the Union address. I hope he follows through. Given the
ambition of potential agreements across the Pacific and the Atlantic,
the President must lay the groundwork, the vision, for the passage of
this legislation. Creating jobs in this Nation is too important to
leave at the mercy of electioneering politics. It really is time to
act. So my hope is we will pass TPA quickly so we can put Americans
back to work.
Madam President, I yield the floor, and 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. SESSIONS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

[[Page S401]]

Mr. SESSIONS. My late colleague Senator Byrd liked to say there have
been two great Senates in the history of the world: The U.S. Senate and
the Roman Senate. He understood the special and crucial role the Senate
fulfills in our constitutional Republic. The Senate is where the great
issues of our time are supposed to be examined, reviewed, and discussed
before the whole Nation, in public. Yet in the last few years we have
witnessed the dramatic erosion of Senators' rights and the dismantling
of an open process.
We fund the government through massive omnibus bills. This is the
bill before us now--1,583 pages stacked up here before us that no one
really has a chance to read or evaluate or analyze. Senators are
stripped of their rights to offer amendments. We won't have amendments.
Bills are rushed through on the threat of panic, crisis or shutdown.
Pass it today or the government shuts down. Secret deals rule the day.
Work is done outside the public view, and so millions of Americans are
essentially robbed of their ability to participate in the process by
examining what their Senators do.
Under the tenure of Majority Leader Reid, the Senate is rapidly
losing its historic role as that great deliberative body. If this
continues, America will have lost something very precious.
One of the tactics by which Majority Leader Reid has suppressed
Senators' rights and blocked open debate is the technique called
``filling the tree.'' This basically means that when a bill comes to
the floor, the leader will use his right of first recognition to fill
all the available amendment slots on a bill and then block anyone else
from offering an amendment. One man stands in the way of his 99
colleagues.
I say one man, but not really all alone does he stand there. His
power exists only as long as his Democratic colleagues support his
blocking of amendments.
This prevents the body from working its will. It prevents legislation
from being improved by amendment, and it prevents Senators from being
accountable to their voters on the great issues of the day. This is, of
course, why it is done. It has nothing to do with time. It is done
because the majority leader does not want to have his colleagues vote.
Our majority leader has used this tactic--filling the tree--80 times
already. To put this in perspective, the six previous majority leaders
filled the tree only 49 times combined. Senator Reid has filled the
tree on 30 more occasions than the six previous leaders combined. In so
doing, he denies the citizens of each State their equal representation
in the Senate. Majority Leader Reid, in his efforts to protect his
conference from casting difficult votes in order to shield them from
accountability, has essentially closed the amendment process. He has
shut down one of the most important functions that Senators exercise to
represent the interests of their constituents.
Recently, this tactic manifested itself in a dramatic way. To the
surprise and shock of many, the December spending agreement contained a
provision to cut the lifetime pension payments of current and future
military retirees, including wounded warriors, by as much as $120,000
over their retirement period. Other Senators and I have had many ideas
about how to fix this problem, but we were blocked from offering them
by the majority leader. I tried to offer an amendment to replace the
cuts by closing a fraud loophole used by illegal immigrants--cited by
the Department of the Treasury--to claim billions of dollars in free
tax credits they are not entitled to--billions. It would more than pay
for this. But Senator Reid and his conference Members, save one--one
broke ranks--stood together to block my amendment from a vote.
So I would ask my colleagues: Are you comfortable with this? Do you
like having to beg and plead with one person for the right to offer an
amendment in the Senate? Do you believe the Senate should operate
according to the power of one man?
This omnibus bill, though it restores pensions for our heroic wounded
warriors, leaves more than 90 percent of those cuts in place. Shouldn't
we be allowed to offer amendments to provide a fair fix for all our
warriors and veterans?
But blocking amendments is only one of the many abuses. The other
erosion of the Senate has also been front and center in the budgeting
process. We are now in our fifth year without adopting a budget
resolution. We went over 4 years without the Senate even passing a
budget, as required by plain law in the 1974 Budget Act. Instead,
taxpayer dollars are being spent through a series of late-minute
negotiations and legislative pay caps that are driven through the
Senate.
Then we face a massive omnibus bill--this 1,583-page monstrosity--
which is rushed to passage without any amendments or meaningful review.
The American people have no real ability to know what is in it or to
hold us, their elected representatives, accountable. That is, of
course, why it is being done.
Today the Senate and the House are considering another omnibus bill,
one that will spend more than $1 trillion, with thousands of items of
government spending crammed into this single legislative proposal. The
bill will be sped through under the threat of government shutdown, with
very little debate and no ability to amend.
If you don't accept what is in the bill and vote for it and pass it,
Senator Reid says, I will accuse you of blocking the bill and shutting
the government down. You don't dare vote no. So it is yet another time
when we must pass it to find out what is in it. My staff and I have had
less than 48 hours to digest this behemoth, but already we have found
provisions that would not survive if considered in the regular order
where we have amendments.
How is the process supposed to work? Each year, Congress is supposed
to adopt a budget resolution. The law requires it. Then, based on
spending levels contained in the budget resolution, individual
committees report 12 authorization bills. I serve on the Armed Services
authorization committee. Based on the expertise and experience of
Members serving in those committees, they authorize spending. Senator
Levin is our Armed Services Committee chair. Senator Inhofe is the
ranking member. Senator McCain is on the committee. These are people
who have given years of their life to understanding the challenges of
military matters.
Then the 12 subcommittees of the Appropriations Committee are to
produce appropriations bills for their area of the budget, such as
defense, homeland security, and agriculture, which are then to be
individually considered, debated and amended on the Senate Floor. So
they actually appropriate the funds that the authorization committees
authorize to be funded. That is the way the process is supposed to
work. This gives each Member, when the appropriations bill hits the
floor, a chance to review and analyze each part of the budget and offer
suggestions for saving money, improving efficiency, and better serving
the taxpayers. That is the way it is supposed to work.

But under the tenure of Senator Reid the budgeting process has been
totally mismanaged. We have ceased consideration of appropriations
bills altogether, basically, relying more and more on autopilot
continuing resolutions and catch-all behemoth spending packages like
this one. In fiscal year 2006, for example, every single appropriations
bill was debated, amended, and passed in the Senate. In 2006 every one
was passed, considered, and voted on, and that was good. That is better
than we had been doing in the previous years. There were failures
during the previous years.
But in 2013--here we are, here--the red indicates that no bill was
passed in the Senate. In 2013, again in 2014, none were individually
passed. All the funding was done as part of this omnibus process.
I want my colleagues to look at this one more time. The green shows
that the bill was brought forward to the floor and was passed. The
yellow shows it was brought forward out of committee but not passed on
the floor. The red shows it was not even brought to the floor, brought
out of committee to the floor to be considered. Do you see how the red
has continued in the outyears?
What is happening today is contrary to good policy. It is contrary to
the whole idea of what a Senate and a Congress ought to be doing. We
have to stop it. I know we have had a lot of frustrations lately, but
that does not excuse this trend. It has to end.

[[Page S402]]

In my first year as a Senator--I guess the second year I was a
Senator, 1998--every bill was passed. Every bill was passed in 2010.
But we have gotten away from that completely. We can go back to that.
It is not impossible. Those bills when I first came here were all
debated and amended on the floor and went to conference with the House
to settle our disagreements, and then a bill was sent to the President
for his signature or veto. Over time, however, that has happened less
and less frequently, to the point that nowadays we do not debate
appropriations bills at all.
Look, Senator Mikulski is a great leader in the Senate and one of the
people I admire greatly, and so are Senator Shelby and others. How we
got into this process I do not know. But I will just say this: I think
it is fair to say that Republicans have clearly advocated for bringing
the bills to the floor and having debates on them. I--ranking on the
Budget Committee--have clearly advocated we process a budget the way we
are supposed to do. But Senator Reid has made the decision, backed by
his conference, to not bring up these bills. It is a political
decision. It is a decision to avoid having to take votes on disputed
questions of what should be funded and what should not be funded. That
is the problem we are in. So we have crammed all these appropriations
into this huge bill under threat of a government shutdown.
A more ominous development, however, is the breakdown of the
appropriations process in the Senate and how it is infecting the House
of Representatives. It is spreading like the plague over there. In the
first year of their majority, the House passed--worked and marked up 6
of the 12 appropriations bills and sent them to the Senate, but the
Senate did not consider a single one of them. Last year the House
passed eight appropriations bills and sent them over to the Senate.
Again the Senate did not act, refused to consider them individually.
This year the futility of the efforts of the House began to show as the
House passed only four bills. Why should they pass them and send them
to the Senate if they are not going to be considered on the floor in a
normal, regular order? So they are beginning to erode what they have
been doing.
All of us, both parties, have a responsibility to reverse these
trends. All of us have a responsibility to return to regular order. It
is in the national interest. It is the right thing to do. All of us owe
our constituents an open, deliberative process, where the great issues
of the day are debated in full and open public view. Each Senator must
stand and be counted on these issues, not hide under the table and
avoid being held accountable. The democratic process is messy,
sometimes contentious, and often difficult. People disagree. But it is
precisely this legislative tug-of-war, this back-and-forth which forges
a national consensus.
While secret deals may keep the trains running on time in the short
run, sometimes they keep the train running in the wrong direction--a
direction different from what the American people would like to see.
Sometimes it hides bad spending, bad appropriations, bad legislation
that ought to be exposed in the light of day.
Secret deals rushed through without public involvement only deepen
our divisions, delay progress, increase distrust, and make it harder to
achieve the kinds of real reforms the American people have been
thirsting for and demanding.
Having to cast many votes on tough issues really does clarify those
issues and what the differences are amongst us. That process, I truly
believe, openly conducted, can lay the groundwork for more progress
than we have today and reduce contention. It will clarify facts and
then lead to the finding of common ground. Only through an open
legislative process can we create the kind of dialog, the kind of
debate, and ultimately the kind of change necessary to put this country
back on the right track.
I am going to continue to work to restore the regular order. I really
believe it is important. I respect my colleagues. I am hearing more and
more my Democratic colleagues expressing these same concerns, and I
think there is some unease at the extent to which this process in the
Senate has been undermined.
Maybe we can make progress and return to the great open debate and
regular order that has made the Senate the wonder of the legislative
world.
I yield the floor. 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 that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, pending before the Senate is something
called the consolidated appropriations bill. It is consolidated because
it consolidates the work of 12 separate subcommittees. As the chair of
the full committee, I also chair a subcommittee called commerce,
justice, science. I would like to say that what we did in our bill
advanced, really, the protection of the United States in terms of
Federal law enforcement, important domestic violence programs, but also
we promoted trade and new ideas in science. I would like to share what
we did. Before I do, I want to explain--many people do not understand,
at this point, the Budget Committee and the Appropriations Committee.
The Budget Committee gives us the macro picture, what should be spent
on discretionary spending, mandatory spending--spending for veterans
benefits, which I believe ought to be mandatory--and also what our tax
policy should be. Senator Murray of Washington State led that effort.
We passed that bill in April. We tried to go to conference, but there
was objection to it. Finally, after 3 weeks of shutdown, we were able
to get a budget.
This committee was given the job, after the budget was passed, to do
the work of the Appropriations Committee. The Appropriations Committee
takes the work of the Budget Committee and puts it in the Federal
checkbook, line by line.
I would like to elaborate on that, but I know the Senator from New
Hampshire has come to the floor--one of our newer members of the
committee, but she is not new to good government. She comes to the
Senate with an incredible background of serving New Hampshire,
particularly in the executive branch as Governor. She brings a sense of
what government can do--that Yankee frugality for which New Hampshire
is known.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
Mrs. SHAHEEN. Madam President, I thank the esteemed chair of the
Appropriations Committee for her kind words, and especially for all of
the work she has done to get us to this point where we have an
appropriations bill before us. I know she has worked very hard with
Ranking Member Shelby, the House Appropriations Committee Chairman Hal
Rogers and Ranking Member Lowey.
It was Senator Mikulski's leadership on this bill that got us to an
agreement to fund the government for the rest of 2014, and to do it in
a way that will support job creation, economic growth, and our national
security. So I thank the chairman.
I am a new member of the Appropriations Committee. I am currently the
chair of the Legislative Branch Subcommittee, and so I also want to
thank Senator Hoeven, the ranking member of our subcommittee. It has
been a real pleasure to work with him to draft the subcommittee work
for the Legislative Branch Subcommittee.
For New Hampshire, this bill includes funding for the continued
development for the new KC-46A aerial refueling tanker, of which we are
very proud. The first round of those tankers will be based at Pease Air
National Guard Base in New Hampshire.
It also makes investments in the new military construction project at
the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard. We are very proud in New Hampshire of
both Pease and the shipyard because they play a very important role in
our national defense. These strategic investments will create jobs,
boost the State's economy, and support our men and women in uniform.
I am also very pleased that this omnibus bill funds the Beyond Yellow
Ribbon Program. This is a program that connects service men and women
and their families with community support, training, and other
services. As

[[Page S403]]

we look at the men and women coming back from Iraq and Afghanistan, the
Beyond Yellow Ribbon Program has been a very important program to help
reconnect those returning servicemembers to their community. It has
also been very important in New Hampshire. The Beyond Yellow Ribbon
Program has been critical in States such as New Hampshire with many
members of our National Guard and Reserve returning from duty overseas.
The legislation before us also funds the complete activation of the
Berlin prison, just as it funds the Bureau of Prisons. In New Hampshire
that funding is going to allow us to get to a full complement of about
340 local jobs in northern New Hampshire, which is very critical to the
northern part of our State. It is going to provide a $40 million annual
boost to the economy in northern New Hampshire.
I am especially appreciative to the chairwoman of the committee and
to all of the members for the effort to help the fishing men and women
in New Hampshire who have just been devastated by declining fish
populations. The bill authorizes $75 million in disaster relief for
those members of our fishing community, so many of whom have had their
whole livelihoods taken away from them. This disaster relief money is
going to help them during these difficult times. It will help them to
recover and rebuild what I believe is one of the most critical economic
sectors still in New England. It is certainly one of the oldest.
I am also pleased that this bill reverses some of the reckless cuts
from sequestration and instead makes important investments in the
future of this country--in our education, infrastructure, and in
science and innovation.
Yet it also makes strategic cuts. For example, one of my favorites in
the bill is that it prohibits taxpayer-funded expenditures on oil
paintings for public officials. This is an idea that Senator Coburn and
I have been working on over the last year, and I think it is exactly
the kind of government spending we need to get rid of. It sends a
message--a signal. Even though it is not a lot of money, it is symbolic
for the public to know we are trying to address anything we can, and
this is one piece we can agree on, and hopefully it will lead to
others. The bill also requires all Federal agencies to become better
stewards of taxpayer dollars because it invests in inspectors general
in agencies across the Federal Government. Inspectors general help
those agencies better identify waste and cut spending.
While making smart cuts, the bill also invests in priorities, such as
science and innovation. It provides more funding for medical and energy
research and development. Very important efforts are under way at the
National Institutes of Health. They are finally going to see some
relief in this bill.
It supports education, including funding programs such as Head Start,
which have been cut under sequestration. Head Start has been cut in New
Hampshire. It is particularly important because the more we learn about
the importance of how children learn, the more we understand how
critical early childhood education--programs such as Head Start--are to
their future development.
The bill also makes infrastructure investments, something on which we
have been too far behind in this country. It is going to help us as we
look at rebuilding our Nation's deficient roads and bridges and
creating jobs.
As we all know--and I know the chairwoman would readily admit--this
bill is not a perfect bill, but the legislation before us is a product
of the kind of bipartisan compromise that we have to have more of in
Washington these days.
While I am very pleased that the bill addresses military retirement
cuts for some retirees--survivor widows, survivor benefits, and for the
disabled--we still need to keep working until those cuts are repealed
entirely for all military retirees. It is something that I have
introduced legislation on, and I will continue to work on it. I know
there is a commitment from so many of us here in the Chamber to address
that.
I will also continue to work to provide full funding for the Low
Income Home Energy Assistance Program, LIHEAP, which helps seniors and
low-income New Hampshire families pay their heating bills, especially
during the cold winter months. This bill makes a small increase in that
program, but unfortunately, it is not enough to address the challenges
so many families in New Hampshire and in the cold parts of this country
are facing as we continue through this very cold winter.

Small businesses in New Hampshire have not forgotten that during the
shutdown they faced uncertainty and declining revenues. Federal
employees in New Hampshire struggled to make ends meet while being
furloughed, and that shutdown--a completely manufactured and
unnecessary crisis--cost this economy $24 billion.
I think--in talking to business people around New Hampshire and
around the country--one of the most important things that this bill
does is it takes the prospect of another manufactured crisis off the
table. It puts in place a responsible plan to grow this economy, create
jobs, and it takes away the uncertainty that has so plagued families
and businesses across this country.
I had the opportunity this week to meet with the head of the business
roundtable. One of the things he pointed out to me is that right now we
are seeing the lowest percentage of private investment in our economy
that we have seen in a very long time--in decades. It is most important
that we in Washington provide the business community some certainty so
they will make those investments because that is how we create jobs.
We need to put people back to work, and I think this legislation goes
a long way to create that certainty and say to the business community
and to those people who are unemployed: We are going to keep working on
your behalf. We are going to try to make those investments and make
sure we create the jobs to put you back to work, to keep this economy
strong and growing, and to keep this country competitive.
In closing, I just want to say to my colleagues that now is the time
for us to build on this bipartisan success we have seen and that the
chairwoman has been able to accomplish with all of her other
negotiators. We have this opportunity to build on that and to further
promote job creation and economic growth.
Our country needs us to work together on behalf of small businesses,
on behalf of the middle class, and on behalf of families. We need to
pass this bill. We need to keep working together and address the
challenges this country faces.
I urge all of my colleagues in the Senate to support this bill.
I yield the floor, and again I thank the chairwoman for her efforts.
Ms. MIKULSKI. The Senator from New Hampshire is very generous with
her remarks, and I want to respond by saying a few things.
First of all, the way the Senator speaks about New Hampshire is the
way I also speak about Maryland. When people think about government
spending, they think it just goes out in the ether and doesn't generate
anything. As the Senator has said, what is spent by the Federal
Government really creates jobs in the private sector.
She spoke about prisons. First of all, we appreciate New Hampshire's
willingness to accept a prison. Many States don't want them, shy away
from them or are afraid of them. New Hampshire has really met a
national need, and we know that the staffing that will be provided by
the exceptional, patriotic work ethic of the people of New Hampshire
will keep our country safe.
Those same guards and administrative staff will be out in their
community spending money on housing, at the local grocery store, maybe
needing a wedding planner or whatever. So that is one area.
In terms of New England fisheries--for those of us who are coastal
Senators, we know what that means. Fishing and seafood is part of our
history, and it is actually part of our State's identity. For us in the
Senate, the coastal Senators have kind of an affinity with each other
for it.
We thank the Senator from New Hampshire for what she has done.
I also want to comment that the subcommittee on legislative affairs
that you chair also--it is not like it funds legislators. It funds
things such as the Capitol Police, who are sentry here doing their job.
I thank my colleague for her work, and we are so pleased to have her
on the committee.

[[Page S404]]

Mrs. SHAHEEN. I thank the chairwoman very much.
Mr. NELSON. Madam President, would the Senator yield?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
Mr. NELSON. Madam President, I just want to take this opportunity to
thank the two Senators who are present. In America's space program,
which was potentially on a downward slope, the two Senators have
crafted an appropriation that will keep us with a very robust American
space program, including the first ``A'' in NASA, which is aeronautics.
From science to the new big rocket, its capsule Orion, to the
commercial, to the unmanned program exploring the heavens, the
chairwoman and the ranking member have it right. I wanted to take this
opportunity to express my profound thanks. The Senators are continuing
the dream that we built on 3 years ago.
Ms. MIKULSKI. I thank the Senator from Florida. It is wonderful for
both me and Senator Shelby. Senator Nelson is an astronaut Senator. To
hear an astronaut Senator say he thinks we are doing the job right
means a lot.
The Senate has been blessed by having three astronaut Senators:
Senator Jake Garn, a Republican from Utah, Senator John Glenn of Ohio,
and Senator Bill Nelson.
Some of us have been in orbit a long time, but Senator Nelson
actually knew what he was doing. So I thank my colleague very much. We
are trying to add gravity to this bill.
Mr. NELSON. The Senators are doing it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
Mr. SHELBY. Madam President, I want to pick up on what Senator
Mikulski was talking about. Senator Nelson has not only been an
advocate for the space program for NASA--and he is. As most everybody
knows, has been up there. I was traveling with him one time, and I
believe we were over Asia, and he was showing me from the plane--we
couldn't see as well as he could--the rotation. I was very impressed.
He has been a stalwart in the advancement of the space program. We
both worked hand in glove with him.
I do believe this is a pretty good appropriation considering where we
are. I am hoping we will get back to regular order since Senator
Mikulski and I have advocated for this. We are hoping maybe later today
we can vote this bill out with a vote like the House had yesterday.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, I am pleased to come to the floor
today to follow-up on the very eloquent remarks by the Senator from New
Hampshire and the ranking member and chairwoman.
I am here today to offer a few comments about the appropriations
bill. But before I do, I thank the chairwoman and the ranking member
for really being a great inspiration to all of us. Amidst all of the
controversy and dustups and toxic atmosphere and nonpartisanship going
on--or lack of cooperation going on--it is wonderful to see the two of
them working so closely together on a bill that is so important to the
country.
As the great Senator from New Hampshire said: This is a bill for the
people, for jobs, and for our economy. It sends very positive signals
across a breadth of industries where the Federal Government is stepping
up to be a more reliable partner in these public-private partnerships
that are represented in the funding of this bill--whether it is
building our highways, building our space programs, funding our
Department of Defense, sending money to cities and counties that are
doing all sorts of innovative and remarkable things with community
development block grant funding with a lot of private partners.
Contrary to popular belief and contrary to some things you might hear
on the radio and on television these days, the Federal budget does a
lot more than fund the government. It does a lot more than funding
government employees. It is sending out literally millions of green
lights to small business contractors and to large businesses saying,
Let's go. The yellow light was blinking a few days ago; the red light
has been on for the last couple of years. This bill literally sends out
millions of blinking green lights saying: Get to work. Let's go to
business. Let's build highways. Let's build levees. Let's build a space
program. Let's invest in the middle class.

In addition, I wish to say how proud I am that under the leadership
of Senator Mikulski, she has managed to do this within budget
constraints. This is not a free spending bill; this is a smart spending
bill within constraints so we are also mindful of reducing our debt
over time, mindful about paying down our bills.
That is what is so remarkable about this and why I am so proud to
support it. I hope we can get as strong a vote as the House did on this
bill to show strong bipartisan support, because while it does address
our debt and our deficit, it does so in a smart way with investments in
what we have agreed to that make a difference to the private sector.
I can tell my colleagues that in Louisiana this is going to have
immediate positive effects, and I wish to highlight a few of those now
in terms of the Homeland Security bill. I am proud and happy to be the
chairwoman of the Homeland Security appropriations bill. I have worked
very closely with my colleague Senator Carper, who is chair of the
authorizing committee, and our ranking members, Senator Coburn and
Senator Coats, as we authorize stronger parts of Homeland Security and
then fund some of these initiatives. I will hit the highlights of just
three or four.
One of them is the Coast Guard. The Coast Guard is in our Homeland
Security bill. It is a very important component of our government. It
is one of the most popular components of our government--popular
broadly with business and with people. It is, of course, very popular
with the people the Coast Guard has saved from drowning or from wrecks
in our open seas, but also for the hundreds of companies and businesses
that have contracts with the Coast Guard to provide some real cutting-
edge shipbuilding that needs to go on in this country. The Senator from
Alabama knows this, the Senators from Mississippi know this, the
Senators from Maine, the Senators from Louisiana. We have lost a great
deal of shipbuilding in our country to other countries. It is important
that we keep as much shipbuilding here through the Homeland Security
bill and through the Defense bill here in America--ships that are made
in America, ships serving Americans, providing good, solid jobs.
I am proud to support this, along with the tremendous support of
Senator Cochran, who is a member of my committee, and particularly
Senator Begich, from Alaska, who fought very hard for a good outcome on
the Coast Guard budget, which is above the administration's request and
has a modest increase and will be supporting so many important projects
for our Coast Guard and the men and women of our Coast Guard. It
provides $10.2 billion overall, which is a significant increase, and we
did so within our budget constraints.
Another piece I wish to highlight is our enforcement of Immigration
and Customs laws. We are in a big debate about immigration reform and
the importance of finding common ground on immigration reform for the
benefit of our businesses and our economy here in America that demand
clear rules of the road, clear processes for people to become citizens
and to pay their taxes, who have come here legally, and for people who
are here without the current legal papers to give them a path to
citizenship once taxes are paid, once they get in line behind people
who have come here legally. Protecting our borders is an important
component of that as well. In our bill we have put the resources
necessary behind enforcing those tough immigration standards and
requirements.
We are protecting our border, providing resources for the bill, and
that is important to many people in this country as well as people in
Louisiana, to have an immigration system that makes sense as well as to
provide appropriate jobs and labor to come in and help with so many of
the jobs we have in Louisiana today.
We also had a focus in our bill--I think the chairwoman will be happy
to hear this--about stepping up an additional 2,000 Customs officers at
our airports. We have an international airport in New Orleans. We get a
lot of international travel. We may be a little

[[Page S405]]

city, but we fight way above our weight, as does our State, when it
comes to international travel. We are a very sought-after destination
and we are very happy about that. But there are other States such as
New York and Nevada and Chicago that have international travel. Even
the State of the Presiding Officer, North Dakota, which is a smaller
State--there is a tremendous amount of business coming into the State
of North Dakota, both domestic and international, because of their oil
and gas jobs and their energy sector jobs. What a howdy-do it is,
arriving at our airport or to work with businesses here, or to partner
with businesses here to create jobs, and one has to wait in line in
Customs for 5 hours. That is no way to greet business men and women
bearing gifts of investment and money for our country.
I have taken a strong leadership position on this with the travel and
trade organizations, both in hospitality and in international business.
I wish to thank their coalition for fighting hard to make sure this
bill reflects the fact that business is global, it is international.
Our business people are out and in all the time, building wealth for
America and, hopefully, the world, but for America, and business people
come here to help create wealth and help our middle class to grow.
Having Customs agents who operate, making lines shorter, will certainly
help that, while keeping our country safe, but also keeping it open for
business. Louisiana is a trading State and we are a big port State. We
understand trade, we understand international business, and I am happy
to be able to fight hard for those priorities.
I wish to mention two other issues. Many committees are working on
cyber security. Homeland Security does not take the lead on cyber
overall; the Department of Defense and National Security Agency do. But
when it comes to securing our government and our government private
sector partners, Homeland Security does take the lead. We have stepped
up some investments in cyber security. As the Senator from Alabama most
certainly understands in his leadership role, this is a real threat not
only to our government, to the Department of Defense, to our government
as a whole, but to many businesses in America--private, large
businesses, and medium and small. They are feeling the effects of these
saboteurs and attackers. The government has to stay focused and well
invested, working with the private sector, to make sure our defenses
and our security are up, and our bill recognizes that.
Finally, something close to my heart and close to my home is the
funding for disaster relief. I hope no one ever has to go through what
we went through along the gulf coast for Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. I
know everybody has had terrible storms and floods. But there has never
been a storm or a disaster such as this, and I pray to the Lord there
will never be another one after it. The damage that was done in dollar
amounts, the damage that was done across a vast stretch of land, from
Alabama to Texas, the devastation it caused in terms of numbers of
homes and businesses lost is unparalleled.

Sandy was a terrible superstorm, and because the northeast is more
dense than we are down South, they lost more homes technically than we
did, because the dollar damage is still far exceeding in the aftermath
of Katrina and Rita. But whether it is Sandy in the east or whether it
is floods in North Dakota, which they have had their share of, or
Colorado or whether it is storms on the gulf coast, we have to be ready
with money to send immediately when people need help.
I am going to say this because it has been a matter of argument
between some here: When a disaster strikes, I am not going to look for
an offset. I am going to look for the Coast Guard and FEMA to show up
with the equipment they have to help people who are either drowning, on
their roofs, or watching their houses burn to the ground. I am not
going to look for an offset. So as long as I am chairman of this bill,
we will have money in this bill to use on an emergency basis when
emergencies occur, as they do fairly regularly, unfortunately, in the
States we represent down in the gulf coast. Because we are right in the
middle of that hurricane alley, these storms are getting bigger and
more fierce, and we have to be at the ready.
We have helped Maryland. We have money in for Sandy recovery and
there is money in here still for the ongoing recovery. It is phasing
out now in the gulf coast, but there are still some projects that have
ongoing work, even 9 years after Katrina and Rita.
Let me say it has been a pleasure to work with my colleagues. I wish
to thank the members of my committee, particularly my ranking member
Dan Coats from Indiana, and I really want to thank Senators Begich and
Cochran for their great work with the Coast Guard and helping me
negotiate this through the process. Again, I think these are just some
of the highlights of our bill. Nothing would have been possible without
Senator Mikulski and her determination to get the green light on,
because people in my town, in my State are tired of yellow and red.
They want to work. They want to go to work. They want to build
buildings and build roads and get projects underway. We have lots of
permits pending that the money in this bill will allow to be released.
So I am proud to vote for it. This is all about jobs, economic
competitiveness for America, and good jobs for Louisiana. I am sure
every Senator, or almost every Senator, will say the same about this
bill, because it was well done. It is a job well done.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Heitkamp). The Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. ENZI. Madam President, I rise today to again express my great
disappointment about a matter of importance to Wyoming and many other
public land States that have not been properly addressed by this
omnibus bill in the Senate. Instead of producing a legislative solution
based on discussions with our colleagues, debate and consideration in
committee, and a fair and complete process on the floor, we have a bill
before us that was put together by making another deal. Simply put, the
Senate fails to do its job when we refuse to allow a fair, free, and
open debate about an issue that is of such great concern to the people
who will be affected by the decision.
It is no secret; anyone who has seen the Senate in operation as we
take up this legislation will know that the back-room deal does not
include critical funding that nearly 1,900 counties in 49 States--49
States; that is all but 1--and 3 U.S. territories rely on. One would
think this kind of participation would draw an extraordinary amount of
interest by us all to make sure this bill was written with the best
interests of all the States and all of our constituents in mind.
Unfortunately, that doesn't appear to be the case.
So what program is it that draws such interest from 1,900 counties, 3
territories, 49 States--concern from such a widespread portion of our
Nation? I am speaking, of course, of payments in lieu of taxes. It is a
program that has been in place for decades; it is not an issue that is
new to the Senate. That is why I recently led an effort by several of
my Senate colleagues urging that appropriators include this critical
funding in the Interior appropriations. If they had done that, we would
have already completed the work to produce a well-reasoned, well-
thought-out answer to an issue of such importance to the States.
Unfortunately, our efforts seem to have fallen on deaf ears, so here I
am before my colleagues hoping with all my heart that I can make the
Senate understand how crucial this funding is to almost every State in
the Union.
This body often overlooks the important role of local government in
the lives of our constituents. I know this because before I came to the
Senate I served as a mayor, as did another handful of people in this
body, and I know there are several others who have been county
officials. Communities and counties are responsible for providing fire
protection, law enforcement, sanitation, public health, and education,
just to name a few. They provide these services largely by raising
revenue. One common source is through property taxes. In States where
there is little federally owned land, local communities have a large
number of private homeowners to help provide these services. However,
there are States where the Federal Government decided to retain most if
not a majority of its ownership of the land. The problem is that these
Federal lands cannot be taxed.

[[Page S406]]

Yet local governments must still provide critical fire, law
enforcement, and health services in these areas and for the people who
work on them. In order to make up this shortfall, Congress created
payment in lieu of taxes to compensate local governments to offset the
losses caused by having nontaxable Federal lands within their
boundaries.

For decades, the Payment in Lieu of Taxes Program has provided
counties and local governments with funding to help meet critical
community needs. One of the reasons the Payment in Lieu of Taxes
Program was instituted was because of the creation of the Federal Land
Policy and Management Act, which placed a major hurdle on the Federal
Government from disposing of public lands. In place of the Federal
Government's ability to move land from Federal to private ownership
Congress decided to reimburse county and local governments with
payments that would replace the revenue lost from the property taxes
they would have received if those Federal lands had been transferred to
private ownership. It seemed the only fair thing to do back then, and
it is still only fair to live up to our obligations as a nation to
provide the States with the revenue they are losing because of the laws
we have enacted.
I have to tell you, we are talking about 1,900 counties in the United
States; 49 States. In some of those counties, it is 40 percent to 80
percent of their total revenue. That is a big cut to make--in 1 year.
No transition, just boom, gone. How do you adjust to that if you are
those local government people trying to figure out how to balance your
budget? After all, I am not aware of anybody who lives at the Federal
level. They all live at the local level. So it is the local folks who
have to take care of the people.
If we fail to adequately address this issue, we are forcing our
communities to make do with less--a lot less--because we are breaking a
promise we have made. By doing so, we are forcing them to reduce--or
even eliminate--the vital resources upon which their citizens rely.
I wish to emphasize and make it clear that this is not an additional
source of revenue. It is not a bonus. County and local governments
depend on this revenue when they plan their budgets each year. It is
part of the law. They count on it, and without it, their budgets are
stretched and strained and they will be bankrupt.
The decision by the Appropriations Committee to not include the vital
payment in lieu of taxes funding in the omnibus will place counties
across the country in very difficult positions and great financial
hardship for them all, especially since there was no transition, there
was no warning. It was just done.
We need to stop playing games with the Payment in Lieu of Taxes
Program and find a way to ensure it is adequately and fairly funded now
and for years to come. We could learn a lesson from local governments.
I remind you, that is where everyone lives. Many are obligated to have
a balanced budget. That forces communities to budget in advance, debate
priorities, and stick to considering spending measures through the
normal legislative process.
As we look for ways to adequately fund payment in lieu of taxes, we
also need to be sure we are not robbing Peter to pay Paul. I was
extremely disappointed about the provision in the conference report--
now, a conference report comes to us for an up-or-down vote. We do not
have any chance to debate them on the floor. We do not have a chance to
amend it. But the conference report for the highway reauthorization in
2012 robbed the abandoned mine land trust fund--trust fund--to pay for
the payment in lieu of taxes obligation that time. They got paid,
though, but we stole from a trust fund to do it. Again, it was a
conference report, so there was no opportunity for amendments on it--
just like this omnibus. States rely on those funds to clean up high-
priority abandoned mines. We should not pit those funds against each
other.
Yes, the Federal Government is out of money. We are going to have to
prioritize. We are going to have to move some things around. We are
going to have to bring down the deficits so eventually we can hopefully
bring down the debt. This is not the only time we have been doing this
sort of thing.
Twice now we have robbed the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.
Where do they get their money? Any private company--private company,
not Federal company--any private company that has a pension fund has to
pay a tax into this Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation so that in
case they go out of business, the people who were promised a retirement
will be compensated. They will get compensated 60 percent of what they
were promised--just 60 percent. But we have raised that amount
dramatically twice now on private corporations that were providing
retirement for their workers.
That is all voluntary. They do not have to provide retirements for
their workers. If we keep raising that amount, and it does not go to
provide assurance that their employees will get their retirement, why
would they keep their retirement going?
People are going to lose retirement in the United States. Nobody is
starting defined benefit plans right now because of the extra taxes we
are putting on it. Twice now we have raised that price, and we have put
it to something other than it was promised for. Here is the real
kicker: We said that for the next 8 years we are going to steal that
money, so we can spend that amount this year.
I am not sure it is legal. How do we force future Congresses to be
sure to pay the money--no, we will have already spent the money--so we
are asking them to pay back the money, and we are asking them to steal
it out of a trust fund. We have to quit stealing from the trust funds.
That is the same thing with the abandoned mine land trust fund. That
was stealing for 10 years to pay for 2 years. We cannot keep doing
that.
Somehow we have to have the kind of budgeting we are expecting these
local governments, these towns and cities and counties to do, where
they have to balance their budget. We do not have to balance our
budget. We just steal the money. But there is a point at which we
cannot steal the money anymore.
What do we do now next time on the Transportation bill, when we have
already obligated 8 more years of the Pension Benefit Guaranty
Corporation to the current highways? We will not have collected that
yet. Where do we steal it from next time?
Infrastructure is extremely important. We are going to have to
eventually prioritize around here. We are going to have to do the same
thing we expect of those towns and counties that we are stealing the
payment in lieu of taxes money from in order to keep this business
afloat.
The Payment in Lieu of Taxes Program represents a promise we made to
counties and local governments all across the Nation. They are looking
to us to see how we will act and to see how we will keep that promise.
If we fail to do so, it will have an impact on almost every one of us
who will surely hear about the repercussions when we go back home to
meet with our constituents. I encourage and urge the Senate in the
strongest terms to reconsider the Payment in Lieu of Taxes Program and
the impact we may be bringing to people across the Nation by failing to
include it in this legislation.
These are governments that--they have property taxes on the private
property. What happens if the people with the private property do not
pay their taxes? The local government gets to put a lien on it and gets
to put it on the market. Maybe that is what we ought to do with this
Federal land: put a lien on it, put it on the market.
It is a debt the Federal Government said they would pay and they are
not paying. It is payment in lieu of property taxes. If the property
taxes are not paid, there is a way the local government can make up for
it, but there is not if the Federal Government just decides to quit
paying, and that is kind of what we did. We said taxes are hard to pay.
If everybody in America said taxes are hard to pay and quit paying
them, we would be in one heck of a fix. We cannot do that to the towns
and counties either.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, before the Senator from Wyoming leaves
the floor, I wish to comment about some of the things he said about

[[Page S407]]

PILT and assure him that should the ambassadorship go forward for
China, should Ron Wyden become the chair of the Finance Committee, I
will become the chair of the Energy Committee, and he has my commitment
now to help him work on that.
I am very well aware, having served on that committee for 10 years,
how important PILT is--payment in lieu of taxes--to some of the States
in the West, primarily less populated States. Their tax base is very
affected by the fact that the Federal Government owns a great deal of
land.
The Senator knows only 2.5 percent of my State is Federal land.
Through the Chair, I would like to ask the Senator what percent of his
State is Federal land.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. ENZI. Madam President, 49 percent of Wyoming is Federal land. We
understand the value of having some Federal land. We like the people
who come to visit it. But there are a lot of expenses that go with
that, and to just jerk the money away--right away.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Yes.
Mr. ENZI. In the committee the Senator is talking about with Senator
Wyden, what we have always talked about is a transition to do anything.
There are a number of ways we could transition this that I do not think
would hurt the Federal Government or hurt the local counties, but it
requires a lot of flexibility, it requires going through the regular
process in committee and then coming to the floor and making some
decisions. This is wrong to just steal it one time.
Ms. LANDRIEU. If I could be recognized.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
Ms. LANDRIEU. I want to commit to work with the Senator. I am very
sympathetic and understand his position, and we will be talking to the
leadership on both sides to see what we can do. It is very hard for
that money to come away at such an abrupt time, and there are some
issues that I know are pending before the committee where that could
potentially get resolved. So I just wish to offer my help and support
at the appropriate time.
(The further remarks of Ms. Landrieu are printed in today's Record
under ``Morning Business.'')
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Warren). The Senator from Texas.

Unemployment Insurance

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, 4\1/2\ years ago the United States went
through a terrible recession, what we now know as the great recession.
But since that time we have had the slowest economic recovery since the
Great Depression, and our labor force participation rate, which is a
fancy way of saying the number of people, the percentage of people who
are actually in the workforce looking for work, is much lower than it
was at the height of the recession. So even though the unemployment
rate is coming down little by little, the main reason that is true is
because people, many people, are simply giving up looking for work.
Last month alone 345,000 people dropped out of the workforce. Even when
we look exclusively at workers between the age of 25 and 54, their
participation rate is significantly lower than it was when President
Obama took office.
Meanwhile, 4 million people who are still in the workforce have now
been jobless for more than 6 months. As I mentioned, if the Obama
economic recovery had been as strong as the Reagan recovery in the
1980s, we would currently have millions more private sector jobs. So
what is the President's big idea for helping the economy getting back
on track? Last night, according to published news reports, he was
drinking martinis and plotting his 2014 political strategy with his
fellow Democratic Party members.
He apparently told the Democrats present--at least reportedly--that
he would continue to go it alone if he could not get bipartisan support
for his agenda by issuing more Executive orders. He would do that if
Republicans did not cave in and give him every single thing he wants on
every issue.
So rather than talking to Republicans in bipartisan discussions about
how we can come together on real solutions to the problems that face
our economy and people being out of work, the President instead has
defaulted in favor of poll-tested ideas and political gimmicks leading
into the runup to the 2014 election.
Sipping martinis and plotting politics while millions of Americans
are out of work shows how out of touch the President has become, and
unfortunately so many of the folks who vote with him on each and every
issue that comes before the Senate. But putting last night's party
aside for a moment, I would ask my friends across the aisle a few
questions about the recent Senate debate about unemployment insurance.
The first question: If extending unemployment insurance benefits for
the long-term unemployed is so important, why did the majority leader
not schedule a vote last month before those benefits expired on
December 28? That is the first question.
Second question: Why would you want to add $6.4 billion to the
national debt, when the national debt is already $17.3 trillion? Why
would you want to do that if you knew the bill had no chance of
passing, because Republicans were not going to agree to a bill that
adds to the national debt?
You might ask whether it is hard to find $6.4 billion in an annual
spending budget of $3.8 trillion. I will do the math for you. The $6.4
billion is roughly .0017 percent of what the Federal Government spends
in a given year. It seems to me that would be relatively easy to do.
In fact, Republicans had amendments that would pay for the 3-month
extension as well as restore the pension benefits for the military that
were cut in the earlier budget deal. But the majority leader refused to
allow an open amendment process that would have allowed a vote on
either one of those. I would ask the majority leader, rhetorically--he
is not here in the Chamber, but I am sure he has people listening--why
is it the majority leader refused to allow any progrowth measures to
the final bill? Republicans had a number of amendments that would have
improved the education and training component of our unemployment
compensation system.
If you look at the three major causes of long-term unemployment, one
is education. We need to deal with that. The other is family choices,
harder for government to have an influence on. But the third is jobs
and the job environment.
But the majority leader blocked every single opportunity to address
either education reforms or job training or to deal with progrowth
measures which have actually created more jobs so fewer people would
have to be on unemployment and more people would be able to find work,
as I know they would prefer to do.
So if the majority leader and our Democratic friends who joined in
blocking every Republican idea to either pay for it or to help improve
job training or to improve the private sector's ability to create jobs
and allow people to go to work, I would like to hear the answer to
those.
There is a much better way to fuel job creation, reduce unemployment,
and promote upward mobility that does not involve playing politics
while millions of Americans are looking for work. For starters, let's
pick some of the low-hanging fruit. I bet the Presiding Officer, based
on some of the remarks I have seen attributed to her, would agree with
this one: The Canadian Government has spent years urging President
Obama to approve the Keystone XL Pipeline, which would create thousands
of well-paying jobs, middle-class jobs right here in the United States.
This administration, this President, actually promised Republicans in a
meeting he had with them last year that he would make a decision by the
end of last year, 2013. We are still waiting for his decision. All we
hear is the sound of crickets when it comes to the Keystone XL
Pipeline. But this President and this White House, this administration,
could effectively create those jobs with the stroke of a pen approving
the Keystone XL Pipeline. It does not get much easier than that.
Indeed, even the President's own former National Security Advisor has
said publicly he thinks the President ought to do this, because this is
not just an economic issue, this is not just a jobs issue. Every barrel
of oil we transport on the Keystone XL Pipeline from a friendly country
such as Canada means less oil we have to import from

[[Page S408]]

volatile regions of the planet such as the Middle East.
But beyond the pipeline issue, which is the lowest of the low-hanging
fruit in terms of creating jobs and getting the economy moving again,
the Obama administration should generally stop hindering our domestic
energy production. We have had a renaissance in energy in America
thanks to innovation in the private sector, primarily the now some six-
decades-old practice of fracking, which has gotten a bad rap in some
corners, but also horizontal drilling, pioneered by none other than
George Mitchell of Texas who recently passed on.

This combination of fracking and horizontal drilling has led to a
proliferation of domestic energy supply, natural gas and oil right here
at home. Again, every barrel, every MCF of gas we produce here
domestically means less energy we have to import from abroad.
We all know that nationwide the oil and gas industry represents a
rare bright spot in the U.S. economy. According to one study, by 2035,
unconventional oil and gas resources alone will be supporting 3.5
million jobs and contributing $475 billion to our economy. Why would
not the President and our Democratic friends embrace something like
that, that would create so many jobs right here in the United States,
instead of playing political games and plotting out the next election?
Yet on top of that, to make matters worse, the administration is
proposing a proliferation of new regulations on fracking that occurs on
Federal lands. I think my friends who perhaps are not familiar with
this process should listen. Fracking has been going on for at least 60
years in Texas under the regulatory authority of the Texas Railroad
Commission and local jurisdictions. But if you drill a well and you put
the casing in and you cement it properly, there is absolutely zero
threat to groundwater or drinking water, because the target of the
fracking is deep below the surface. So by using good drilling practices
and cementing of the casing, there is virtually zero threat to drinking
water and the concerns that many people have expressed but which are
not grounded in experience.
Think of it this way: If the Federal Government has made such a hash
out of health care after ObamaCare by taking over one-sixth of the
economy and our national health care, what I worry about is what they
would do if the Federal Government decides to take over regulation of
fracking. Because it has been handled appropriately at the State and
local level. I am afraid they will make a hash out of that as well.
In addition to the other regulations I am concerned about, the
administration has announced new regulations that would impose massive
additional costs and deliver very little in the way of economic or
environmental gains. More regulations are never a good idea if they put
an additional burden on business and produce no tangible benefit to the
environment. But they are especially harmful at a time when our
economic recovery is so anemic and our economic recovery remains so
fragile. We simply need to stop placing additional burden by additional
regulations on the vital sectors of our economy that we need in order
to grow and prosper and create new jobs, especially when there is no
demonstrable environmental benefit.
For that matter, let's eliminate all new regulations that do not pass
a simple cost-benefit analysis. One new study shows that the Obama
administration has imposed more than $112 billion worth of net
regulatory costs on the U.S. economy and added an equivalent of 158
million hours of additional paperwork on American businesses.
My colleagues Senator Portman and Senator Roberts have each sponsored
new legislation that would introduce safeguards against unnecessary
job-killing regulations. This brings me to ObamaCare. One of the things
that organized labor, which was one of the biggest supporters of
ObamaCare, has now come back to the White House and complained about is
the fact of the incentives for employers to take what was full-time
work, a40-hour workweek and make it part-time work.
Indeed, that is because the President's health care law defines full-
time employment as a 30-hour workweek, so people even working part time
have to be provided full benefits that those on full-time work
ordinarily would qualify for.
But as a result, as many of these labor leaders told the President a
few short months ago, many Americans have had their full-time jobs
reduced from full time to part time. This trend will only get worse as
the administration decides to enforce the employer mandates.
If the majority leader would allow, we have two bills on our side of
the aisle that would address that. Senator Collins of Maine and Senator
Scott of South Carolina have proposed defining full-time employment as
a 40-hour workweek that would provide some benefit and some relief to
people who have seen their hours cut.
One more example of low-hanging fruit: Republicans and Democrats both
agree that education is a critical need to allowing for upward
mobility.
With that in mind, we should be doing everything possible to support
successful education reform initiatives across the country. Yet the
Obama administration has done frequently the opposite. Witness what has
happened in Louisiana where the administration is trying to derail
Louisiana's school voucher program where parents get to choose where
the money goes, not the government.
This is all very easy. Some things would be harder, such as major tax
reform, although I would point out that until recently Members of both
parties agreed that the goal of tax reform would be to lower marginal
rates as we eliminate a lot of the tax expenditures or deductions or
subsidies or the like.
We want to adopt those kinds of progrowth tax reforms, but we are
never going to make any real progress as long as our friends across the
aisle insist on using this to raise more money for the Federal
Government to spend and not reduce marginal rates--in other words, to
basically undermine the benefit of progrowth tax reform only in order
to get an additional $1 trillion or $2 trillion to spend.
The stalemate on tax reform reflects a broader problem in Washington.
Despite the long-term unemployment crisis and despite the massive drop
of people in the workforce and actually looking for work, the President
has still failed to put forth any serious job creation agenda. Sure, he
wants the government to take more of your hard-earned tax dollars and
spend them, because he thinks the government can do a better job than
you can spending your own money, but it hasn't worked. Jobs and the
economy remain Americans' top concerns. Yet, unfortunately, the
President is already now in full reelection mode, recognizing that in
his second term his ability to get things done is going to be highly
dependent on the midterm elections in November 2014. Hence, rather than
working with Republicans to try to address these problems, there are
team meetings at the White House sipping martinis and planning strategy
for November 2014.
Americans deserve better. They deserve a comprehensive job creation
agenda that includes serious tax reform, serious regulatory reform, and
serious health care reform, an agenda that makes it easier for business
to hire workers and easier for families to pursue the American dream.
We have done our best to propose such an agenda but, unfortunately, we
are still waiting for the majority leader and the President to take us
up on that offer.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. MERKLEY. I am going to speak briefly. My Republican colleague
across the aisle has noted he would like to speak next.
I want to take a moment and talk about what has been unfolding on
Capitol Hill, with the House, Senate, the Republican caucus, and the
Democratic caucus working together to produce an appropriations bill, a
spending bill, a bill we refer to in Congress as an omnibus, meaning
that it covers all 12 sections that are normally allocated within the
appropriations or spending bill world.
I am a new member of the Appropriations Committee. This is the first
time I can stand on the floor and feel as though I have gone through a
process that is something similar to what our colleagues have done in a
bipartisan way over many generations. But that bipartisan collaboration
has been sorely missing in the time since I first

[[Page S409]]

came to the Senate. I am pleased to see in this particular moment it is
a ray of hope that perhaps we can restore a rational budgeting and
spending bill process to address the issues facing America.
I was delighted that Senator Murray led the Senate, working with
Congressman Ryan, to produce a budget that went through both Chambers.
I am very pleased that our two leaders in the Senate, the Senator
from Maryland and the Senator from Alabama, brought the two sides
together to work with the House to produce this spending bill, because
in the absence of a spending bill that has been deliberated on, what we
have is a continuing resolution--which means we might continue to keep
spending the money as we did in the past, even though the needs of the
present have diverged from the needs of the past. That is inherently
wasteful to keep doing the same thing we did before when different
challenges are presenting themselves to our Nation.
I wanted to note a few of the things that were done in the course of
this bill that I think are very relevant to the challenges we face in
Oregon.
Let me start with the Yellow Ribbon Reintegration Program. When I
went over to visit Oregon's men and women in uniform in Iraq and
Afghanistan, they said: When we come home, we hope we will have a job,
and we hope our public leaders will work to try to help those jobs be
there.
Indeed, when someone comes out of that theatre of war and back into
civil society, the structure of a job is very important to your sense
of purpose, your sense of rhythm, your financial stability, your role
in the family. So we have in Oregon a robust Yellow Ribbon
Reintegration Program to help bring employers together with our men and
women who were in uniform overseas but have now come home. We have so
many who serve in the Guard who have gone overseas. They don't come
home to work on a military base and still have a daily rhythm, they
come home to civilian life.
Restoring and preserving this Yellow Ribbon Reintegration Program
that was done in this bill is very important to many of our men and
women who were in uniform overseas and have come home. It was zeroed
out in the President's budget. It was restored in this process. I was
delighted to be part of the effort to make sure that happened.
A second item that is very important to Oregon is hazardous fuels
reduction in our national forests. Our forests are dryer than they were
before. We have more lightning strikes due to the changing weather
patterns and, therefore, we have had more acres, thousands of acres,
burning.
We need to invest not only on the back end when there is a fire, we
need to invest in the front end to thin out the forests that are
overgrown, to get rid of the fuels that are on the floor of the forest
that increase fire intensity and make it more likely that the fire will
go from the ground of the forest to the canopy and be out of control.
Those funds were dramatically cut by the administration and largely
restored in the appropriations process. We need more in that area. We
need to do more on the front end, but it was a big step forward to do
what was done in this bill.
A third issue affecting Oregon is small ports. The last fiscal year
there was no set-aside for small ports. I have many small ports on the
Pacific coast of Oregon, as I know many States have ports on either
coast or the gulf coast. These small ports are very important to our
economy, and they shouldn't be neglected. The set-aside is very
important to make sure they have the chance to repair their barriers,
their breakwaters, to dredge out the slips or to dredge the anchorage
in general, and so this is very good.
What about the debris that has been floating over from the tsunami in
Japan and then cleaned up on the Oregon coast? Yes, this bill says yes,
the funds that are available can be used to reimburse the communities
that had to do this on their own because we had not yet acted in this
Chamber to provide them with resources. That too is addressing an
evolving issue.
I want to speak particularly to the investment in education, the
extra $1 billion for Head Start and the extra $1 billion that will go
to support IDEA and title I funding, large formula allocations.
We have 200 school districts in Oregon. Those school districts are
often way too small to have a grant writer to compete in some
newfangled competition for X, Y, or Z. They need core funds to reduce
the number of students in the classroom, to address the challenge of
providing education for students with disabilities. This budget helps
significantly in that direction.
I wish to say thank you again to the leadership that was displayed,
the bipartisan leadership of the Senator from Alabama and the Senator
from Maryland. Well done. I am honored to be part of this process of
trying to shape our Senate spending plan, our congressional spending
plan, to address emerging challenges in America.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.

Benghazi

Mr. ROBERTS. Earlier today Senator Graham and Senator McCain spoke to
this issue. I could not speak at that time as I had a conflict, but my
remarks are pertinent to the issue they spoke about.
It has been an agonizing 16 months. But this week, through the
investigation efforts of the House Armed Services Committee and the
Senate Intelligence Committee, we have learned that circumstances
surrounding the terrorist attacks on our U.S. consulate in Benghazi and
the murder of four Americans, as told by this investigation, simply are
not factual.
A year of news reporting and these congressional findings confirms an
egregious disconnect between what the administration has alleged and
the facts of what happened. As we say in Kansas, simply put: It just
doesn't add up.
We now know this tragedy did not have to happen and, most certainly,
the hard-to-understand actions and behaviors of those involved have
added unneeded hubris, scandal, and conduct difficult to comprehend.
This is a mess that still has to be cleaned up. It demands clarity,
honesty, and simply owning up to the truth.
I come to the floor to discuss this tragedy not so much as a
Republican Senator from Kansas, but always a Marine. I fear our lack of
truth and understanding has broken a bond that those who risked their
lives for our Nation all share and believe in--the bond that if they
come in harm's way, we have their backs, and we will be there for them.
This is a speech I wish I never had to make. But I feel compelled to
make my plea to this administration yet again--specifically to
President Obama--to give the American people and the families whose
lives were lost in Benghazi a full accounting. It is long overdue.
A month after the attacks I wrote the President, as a Marine, with
the deepest concern regarding his personal handling, and that of his
administration, of the Benghazi attacks and the damage it continues to
do to that sacred bond our men and women in uniform have of sacrifice
for each other. That extends to those who serve our country overseas in
a civilian capacity as well.
I am once again asking this President, our Commander in Chief, to
actively restore the trust and sincerity once made with that promise
never to leave anybody behind. If he and others responsible for this
tragedy do not restore this trust, I truly believe the future morale
and effectiveness of our military services are at stake.
As I travel through Kansas and speak with my constituents, regardless
of their background, they want to know what really happened in Benghazi
and why. Why has it taken so long to get the answers?
Many asked me directly, when will the President be forthright with
the families of those killed and injured in the attacks? When will the
President stop covering up the bad decisions made on September 11,
2012? Most emphatically they say, please, please, do not forget about
Benghazi.
However, the response has been a dogged all too familiar tactic of
delay, nonresponse, and the hope that somehow tomorrow it will all go
away. Well, this is not going away.

I applaud my colleagues on the House Armed Services Committee for the
recent release of 450 pages documenting these classified hearings held
over the

[[Page S410]]

past year. I applaud my colleagues on the Senate Select Committee on
Intelligence for their report released yesterday detailing the events
surrounding the attacks. The headlines from this report now read:
``Benghazi could have been prevented.''
While the results of these investigations have brought more truth to
light, they have also brought more questions to mind. As a Marine, I
know there is no mission our Marines cannot accomplish or complete. If
press reports are accurate, I do not understand why our Marine rapid
response unit was delayed by an hour--required to change out of their
uniforms into plain civilian clothing--and then, ultimately, simply
turned away.
Our commanders have testified it was the State Department that
declined the Marines in Benghazi, yet they have been reluctant to point
the finger at the State Department. Somebody made this call. Someone
gave this order. Facts are stubborn things, and as more relevant facts
are now becoming public, the obvious questions increase.
In the Senate Intelligence Committee's report--and I urge every
Member to read this report because it is a good report--it is made
clear that individuals within the administration have continued to
stonewall Congress from the truth. I am not going to go into every
detail here on the floor--it is all here in this report--but enough is
enough.
Congress has the constitutional duty to ensure the Executive Branch
does not abuse its power. That power has been abused. No one who has
played a role in this debacle has been held accountable--no one--let
alone brought to justice, as promised by the President. In fact, just
the opposite. We have released individuals who have returned to start
working on the next terrorist attack.
Likewise, this report makes it clear U.S. personnel raised alarms for
months before the attacks. Requests for additional security were made
by the previous Ambassador as early as February 2012. Yet, the State
Department's Deputy Assistant Secretary for International Programs,
Charlene Lamb, rejected the request because Libya was a ``political
game,'' and the administration did not want to ``look bad,'' according
to the Senate Intelligence Committee's report.
The absurdity and egregious behavior of putting politics before
security is overwhelming. Lives were at stake. It has been confirmed
that our top military leaders, General Ham, General Dempsey, and
Secretary Panetta, knew immediately--immediately--this was a terrorist
attack and not a protest. And so did the President.
We knew AQIM, AQAP, the Muhammad Jamal Network, and Ansar al-
Shariah--founded by Sufian bin Qumu, a former detainee--were all
involved. This just raises more questions. Why were there no
contingency plans in place? We had actionable intelligence. The British
left. The Red Cross left. There certainly were no flags flying in
Benghazi by any western nation, and the consulate had already been
attacked.
Why didn't we deploy immediately, with the assumption there would be
follow-on attacks? Why were those who paid the ultimate sacrifice left
to their own devices that day--on September 11--that anyone could
anticipate would bring trouble?
Our generals have testified the United States was not even looking at
Libya, but rather Tunisia, Egypt, and Sudan. Less than 1 year after
Qadhafi, and no one was concerned about safety in Libya? Does anyone
believe this assessment? Given the turmoil and danger, did the State
Department really believe that we could normalize Libya? That the
country was stable?
This has been an incredible example of condescending arrogance and
elitism, putting politics and personal agenda ahead of protecting the
lives of Americans. The insult is that 16 months later we still can't
get the truth. We now know, without a shadow of doubt, there was
actionable intelligence. Yet no action was taken. I personally, as a
Senator and, yes, as a Marine, am fed up with the lack of
accountability this administration has taken in response.
I am fed up with the stonewalling by several of those in the State
Department who have ignored a request from the Intelligence Committee
for testimony.
When then Secretary Clinton came before Congress to testify, she
replied: ``What difference does it make?'' The difference is our
Ambassador and three other patriots did not have to die. The families
of Ambassador Stevens, Sean Smith, Tyrone Woods, and Glen Doherty
deserve better from this country. They deserve more from this
President.
With that in mind, I want to make a simple and very respectful
request of the President. I simply ask that he take the opportunity
during his State of the Union speech on Tuesday, January 28, to give
those families and all Americans the whole story.
Mr. President, I simply ask that you be forthright with the American
people. Help us get beyond this tragedy. Help us restore confidence and
faith for our personnel serving overseas and in harm's way, that the
sacred bond of always having their back is not gone.
Yesterday I had the opportunity to speak with 40 young Marines, all
second lieutenants, who are just about to finish The Basic School at
Quantico, VA. They are going to be great officers. I hope someday some
of them will be Senators and Congressmen. I looked each one of them in
their eyes and let them know, because they needed to know, that a
bipartisan majority in this Senate has not forgotten about that
promise--the same promise that was made to me when I joined the Corps.
I say to President Obama: I hope you can make that promise again soon,
too.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.
Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. Madam President, the omnibus funding
bill before the Senate today is a remarkable accomplishment and a
welcome reminder that Congress can function effectively when Members
are willing to sit down and work through their differences. The large
margin by which the omnibus passed in the House is a testament to the
bipartisan nature of the agreement and to the determination, skill, and
leadership of Chairwoman Mikulski and Congressman Rogers.
With passage of this bill in the Senate, the threat of another
government shutdown is averted and the crippling effects of the
sequester will be reversed.
America's vets are well served by this agreement. As chairman of the
Senate's Subcommittee on Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and
Related Agencies, I worked to provide the VA with robust funding to
ensure our vets receive the benefits they have earned and deserved.
The bill provides $63.2 billion for the VA, $2.3 billion above last
year. It fully funds a host of vital programs, including compensation,
pensions and health care, and it targets funding for crucial
initiatives for homeless vets, rural health care, medical research,
suicide prevention, women vets, and Iraq and Afghanistan vets, to name
just a few.
Of major importance, the agreement also includes a comprehensive plan
to address the massive backlog of vets' disability claims. In 2013 the
backlog of compensation claims for service-related disabilities soared
to record levels. In March of 2013 the backlog of claims pending for
more than 125 days had grown to over 630,000 claims--more than 70
percent of the total claims pending. As of this week there are 403,761
claims in the backlog.
The Department has made substantial progress over the past several
months, but thousands of vets continue to face lengthy delays in having
their disability claims processed. In response to this problem, I
included in the omnibus a 10-point action plan to give the VA
additional tools to address the claims backlog and to strengthen
training, oversight and accountability. This includes important
upgrades to computer hardware in VA regional offices and $100 million
in overtime and training money to work through the backlog in
processing vets' disability claims.
It is critical we do not sacrifice accuracy in the name of
expediency, and my plan also includes quality review teams, spot
audits, and additional training for claims processors.
Of special importance to South Dakota, I have worked hard to expand
VA health care to rural vets. Nationwide, nearly 30 percent of
America's vets live

[[Page S411]]

in rural areas that are often far from major VA medical centers or
clinics. The omnibus appropriations bill builds on the rural health
initiative I launched in fiscal year 2009 to close gaps in VA medical
care in rural and remote areas. The bill provides $250 million for
rural health care, including telehealth and mobile clinics for vets in
rural and highly rural areas, including Native American populations.
Our vets deserve the best and highest quality care from the VA. The
fiscal year 2014 omnibus appropriations bill provides the VA with
significant new tools and funding to carry out its mission, and I look
forward to the bill's prompt passage.
Madam President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, I thank the Senator from South Dakota
for all the great work he has done at the subcommittee level. He has an
enormous responsibility in that subcommittee. It is all about military
construction--over there and here.
Many don't realize our military bases are really towns, and they need
roads and water supplies. If you talk to a garrison commander, such as
those in Maryland, they are small cities. Fort Meade employs over
35,000 people in Maryland--that is a lot of people--from those who work
in the commissary to some of our most sensitive national security
projects.
So he has done a great job. But what he has really thrown his heart
into is veterans. His son is a veteran. One of the things early in my
chairmanship we discussed was this issue of the veterans' disability
backlog. Senator Johnson led the way, along with Senator Mark Kirk, his
ranking member, on extensive hearings and due diligence, where we don't
throw money at the problem, but we really work on solving the
problem. There are very specific line items here that should help with
this review process. But, as Senator Johnson has said, also accuracy,
because if they are not accurate then they present other problems,
either for the veteran or for the taxpayer.

He has done a great job. In another way he chairs the Banking
Committee as the authorizer, of which the Presiding Officer is well
aware, and his wise counsel for many of the aspects we needed to deal
with on financial services was most welcome.
I must say to the Senator he is a great Member. The way he and
Senator Kirk worked was outstanding. Senator Kirk himself is a veteran,
a Naval Reserve officer. They knew just how to tackle the problem, and
tackle it they did. I think veterans all over should know we are going
to meet their health care needs. We are going to deal with the
disability backlog area. We are also going to make a downpayment on
this working-age military COLA for both the disabled and the survivors.
And we are going to say: Promises made, promises kept.
I thank the Senator and his counterpart Senator Kirk. We appreciate
what they have done. I think it has been an enrichment to the overall
bill to have done what has been done in the Military-VA.
Madam President, we are waiting for other Senators to come to the
floor. I have to talk about my own subcommittee.
I chair the Commerce, Justice, Science Subcommittee, and my ranking
member is also the vice chairman of the full committee, Senator Shelby.
We worked very hard on this bill, also with our counterparts in the
House, Chairman Frank Wolf and Ranking Member Chaka Fattah. The CJS
bill we agreed upon provides $51.6 billion in discretionary spending.
It focused on community safety, on our jobs and our economy. We used
those priorities to guide funding decisions, from Federal law
enforcement to space exploration. What could keep America safe? What
could make America great? We cannot have vital communities unless they
are safe.
The CJS bill has money in here for key grants to help State and local
police departments. The legislation we worked on adds money toward the
COPS Program that will put cops on the beat.
We also want to deal with the prevention of violence as well as the
prevention of crime. This bill includes money for the Violence Against
Women Act, $29 million more than sequester. What it will mean is more
help to local enforcement to prosecute, more money to help with
prevention for those who are victims of domestic violence and to be
able to provide lifesaving shelters and then transitional housing. We
are very proud of that.
As we add more police to the streets and neighborhoods in our
communities, we want to make sure the police are safe, and we were able
to have funding in here to provide a grant program to buy bulletproof
vests. We are often disturbed when we talk to our local police chiefs
that the crooks and drug dealers and bums have better equipment,
technology, better guns, more rapid guns, or they have bulletproof
vests while our police officers are out there defending us without
vests. We wanted to make sure our officers have what they need.
We also have money in here to deal with prevention. We have money for
youth mentoring programs but also to tackle gang violence in our
communities.
This is where bipartisanship really worked. Our colleague Senator
Kirk of Illinois, who struggled with terrific gang problems in Chicago,
acknowledges we have gang problems in every city. He worked very hard
to present to the committee a gang violence program and we were able to
put money in that so that there can be local solutions.
Acknowledging that indeed schools need to be safe, we also helped
create a grant program, modest in funds, where local police departments
working with the Department of Education and the parents can come up
with ways to keep those schools safe.
This bill also has a strong focus on cyber security where we have
money in here to fund the Department of Justice, to prevent attacks in
case criminals, particularly organized crime, are behind the keyboard.
Before it was Al Capone raiding banks. Now it is hackers, both in this
country and around the world, stealing credit cards, stealing our
identity. Over 46 million people were victimized. This provides money
particularly to the FBI and the National Institutes of Standards to
develop the tools and techniques and actually implement them to do it
and to work with the private sector on advice and guidance on what
steps they could take voluntarily to be able to protect themselves.
We also funded Federal law enforcement. In this legislation we have
added more money for the FBI, the Drug Enforcement Agency, and the U.S.
Marshals.
What is the U.S. Marshals? Is this the days of Wyatt Earp? Do they
ride the range? Actually they ride our roads, making sure they are
going after the most-wanted fugitives. When we have on TV the 10 most
wanted, it is the marshals who are in hot pursuit, with the authority
to go across State lines. They do it. They also have the legislative
mandate to implement the sexual predator laws. They are the ones who
are charged with actually finding, identifying, to make sure they are
filing their registration, and keeping our children safe. Then they are
charged with the responsibility of keeping our courthouses safe. You
may recall a few years ago the terrible shootout in Atlanta. Many of
our courthouses themselves could be in danger. Because of the violence
when you have these types of prosecutions, they can also invite
violence against the judges. These marshals do that job. We believe
while the high profile agencies may be the FBI and DEA, and we
recognize that, there is also the Marshals Service.
In the area of science, Senator Shelby of Alabama, my ranking member,
and I also funded America's space program. This total funding will be
$17.6 billion. Working with Senator Shelby, we wanted to have a
balanced space program to assure America's premier leadership in human
space exploration and in space science and also in aeronautics. We
worked with the SLS rocket, which will take human beings beyond the
Earth orbit. The bill has $1.6 billion for that development. But we
also funded operations and research on the International Space Station.
The Presiding Officer might have read recently that NASA has extended
the duration and operation of the space station. It costs a lot of
money to build it and there was a lot of risk of human lives to go up
there and assemble it. ``Gravity'' might win in the Academy

[[Page S412]]

Awards, but we have real-life astronauts who keep that space station
together, kept it operating, and now that we have been able to
accomplish it, it is time to do the compelling research that could be
done only by a lab in the sky in microgravity or no gravity at all, to
be able to do this. We look forward to being able to conduct the
research.
Also, because we are Americans and we believe in the private sector,
we now will have commercially crewed vehicles going to the space
station. It is going to be amazing.
We had the space shuttle. What a workhorse the space shuttle was. It
took astronauts, researchers, up to the space station. That useful life
came to an end. We depend on the Russians, with the Soyuz, to do that.
We appreciate that, making the Soyuz available--I might add at a really
hefty, hefty, hefty price. But we know we wanted to have our own way of
getting up there. Thanks to the development of commercial crews--again
the American way of competition for the best, most safe vehicle, at the
best price--they are going to be able to do it.
I am very proud that a company based in Virginia but hiring
Marylanders, Orbital, has a rocket being launched from Wallops Island
that now takes cargo, an unmanned vehicle taking cargo--not risking the
life of an astronaut, taking cargo to the station.
We also have funding for space science to understand and protect the
planet. We think we have done a very good job in that.
Also in the area of science, yes, funding for the National Science
Foundation and also in weather, what we have done in terms of weather.
Most people think they get weather from the Weather Channel. I bet if
they are from Boston, like the Presiding Officer, you are mesmerized by
it. But the Weather Channel gets its information from the Weather
Service that is operated by NOAA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration. We want to make sure we have the best mathematical
models and the best satellites working with international partners to
make sure we make the best weather forecasts. It saves lives and it
also saves money.
For every mile we can be accurate in the prediction of a hurricane,
we save $1 million in evacuation costs. In Maryland, Ocean City, we are
vulnerable. So every dollar we can save--and Key West--all of us,
hurricanes, or a nor'easter--we will understand that. We have put money
in there. And we have done other things to promote the economy. I am
proud of what we did in Commerce, Justice to keep America safe, to do
the jobs today and the jobs tomorrow.
I note the subcommittee chairman on Labor, Health and Human Services,
and Education is here.
I yield the floor and such time as he may use.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I come to the floor to speak in favor of
the Omnibus appropriations bill we now have before us. First and
foremost, it is noteworthy that this is a bill, not a continuing
resolution. For the first time in years, Congress has returned to
regular order in the appropriations process. Senior members of the
Appropriations Committee from both parties have come together to
negotiate their priorities, program by program.
As the chairman of the Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human
Services, Education, and Related Agencies, I view this as a huge step
onto a better path. The Labor-H bill, as it is sometimes called, has
been in continuing resolution every other year since 2009. This is an
irresponsible way to allocate $160 billion in taxpayer funds, and I am
pleased that we are putting a stop to that kind of destructive trend
today.

For the past year I have had people come up to me and say: There is
no way you are going to have an agreement on Labor-HHS. Labor-HHS will
be left behind, and it will be folded into a continuing resolution.
I guess no one could imagine that Democrats and Republicans would be
able to sit down and come to a fair agreement on health and education
issues. I think that attitude sold our subcommittee short. I am proud
to say we have worked out a fair agreement with my ranking member
Senator Jerry Moran from Kansas, as well as my colleagues on the House
side, including Chairman Jack Kingston and ranking member Congressman
Rosa DeLauro. No one got 100 percent of what they wanted in this bill,
which is often a sign of a pretty good deal.
Despite the fact that I wanted to do more to alleviate the disaster
cuts for 2013, I would like to speak about a few of the essential
investments in this bill that I hope my colleagues will join me in
supporting.
First, the bill advances my long-standing priority of shifting the
American health care system--so-called--from a sick care system to a
genuine health care system, emphasizing prevention, wellness, and
public health. It provides a $1 billion increase for the National
Institutes of Health, as well as major new funding for brain research
and a new initiative to discover ways to prevent and cure Alzheimer's
disease.
In addition, this bill allocates nearly $1 billion from the
Prevention and the Public Health Fund, which I created in the
Affordable Care Act, title IV, which I was in charge of drafting. There
has been some confusion about this fund in news reports, so I will
correct the record.
In the past years resources from the fund have been diverted to other
health care purposes. This year, however, this omnibus allocates 100
percent of the resources from the fund to prevention and wellness
activities. It has been reported that the omnibus cuts or eliminates
the fund. I read that in the paper this morning. I read that the
prevention and wellness fund was cut by $1 billion.
Well, that is just not so. That is a misinterpretation. Believe me,
if they cut $1 billion from prevention and wellness, I would not be
here supporting the bill. Section 219 of division H of this bill
allocates the money, so that is what we did. Far from eliminating the
money, we identify where that money is to go, including $160 million
for immunization programs, $104 million for cancer screenings, and $105
million for smoking cessation programs. On October 1, another
appropriation of $1 billion will be deposited in the fund under the
Affordable Care Act, and, again, I intend to allocate the fund just as
we did in this omnibus.
If there is any doubt in anyone's mind that the fund is alive and
well and fulfilling the purpose for which it was intended, consider
this: The American Public Health Association has praised this Omnibus
bill specifically for allocating the prevention fund. They said:

We are also pleased that the bill fully allocates available
funds from the Prevention and Public Health Fund for the
first time.

As the author of that fund, I consider the allocation of these
resources to prevention and wellness as a major achievement in this
bill.
This bill also includes significant new investments to support early
learning initiatives. We included an increase of over $1 billion for
Head Start, which will more than restore cuts from sequestration.
Nearly half of that increase will be used to expand early Head Start
for kids from birth through age 3. In addition, the bill provides $250
million which can be used to help States develop high-quality early
learning programs for low- and middle-income 4-year-olds. Both of these
investments improve access to high-quality early learning experiences
for children from birth to kindergarten. I truly believe these
investments lay the foundation for future prosperity by preparing
America's next generation.
One of the reasons it is important to reassess programs every year is
to respond to current events and changing needs. The Nation was
devastated by the tragic shootings that occurred last year in Newtown,
CT. This bill provides increased resources for providing the mental
health and school safety activities we have been talking about for over
a year. The bill includes $140 million--an increase of $29 million--for
specific activities that support safe school environments. The bill
also provides $1.13 billion--an increase of $213 million--for mental
health programs, such as mental health first aid training grants, the
National Child Traumatic Stress Initiative, suicide prevention, and the
mental health block grant.
Other highlights of this bill: It supports the economic recovery by
providing workers with job training and by protecting workers' rights.
In education, it makes it possible for the

[[Page S413]]

maximum Pell grant to rise by an estimated $85, to $5,730 this year. It
allocates an additional $700 million for community health centers,
which is so important to my State of Iowa and, quite frankly, to every
State in this Nation. It provides higher funding for activities that
support safe and healthy workplaces and, as I said, school
environments.
Most in Washington know that the staff of the Appropriations
Committee worked diligently on this bill all through the holidays. We
all appreciate and commend their excellent work. I would like to thank
these unsung heroes for all of the long days and nights and weekends
they worked.
I first wish to thank my clerk, the head of my group on Labor-HHS,
Adrienne Hallett, and her team: Mark Laisch, Lisa Bernhardt, Mike
Gentile, Robin Juliano, Kelly Brown, and Teri Curtin. On the minority
side, I thank Laura Frih-Dell, Jennifer Castagna, and Chol Pak.
I also thank Chuck Keifer and Gabriel Batkin--on the full committee--
for their hard work and diligence and for sticking with us through this
to make sure we got it done. On the minority side, I thank Bill Duhnke
for all his hard work.
I also thank the two principals who are here today. First, I will
thank my longtime friend, going back to our days in the House together,
Senator Dick Shelby from Alabama. These were long and tough
negotiations, but the one thing I have always appreciated about my
friend from Alabama is that he is fairminded and willing to negotiate.
He understands it is a two-way highway around here. You give a little,
you take a little, and we work these things out. Again, I thank my
friend for hanging in there and getting this hammered out.

There are not enough accolades in my book or any book I know that has
been written to say what a great job Senator Barbara Mikulski did. She
gave it her all and really worked hard with Senator Shelby and her
counterparts on the House side to bring this bill to fruition.
There were a lot of doubters who said: No, we won't get it done; they
are not going to be able to hammer it out.
Barbara Mikulski never gave up. She was willing to stay there for
long hours days on end to get this job done. Again, I think a lot of us
who served on the Appropriations Committee for a long time--30 years
for me--I guess in all the time I was on appropriations, we had four
chairmen. We had John Stennis from Mississippi when I first got here
and, of course, Senator Byrd, Senator Ted Stevens from Alaska, and
Senator Dan Inouye from Hawaii. We think of them as sort of the giants
of the Senate, which is a well-earned accolade or praise, I might say.
People probably wondered what would happen now that they are gone. We
had the sad passing a year ago of Dan Inouye. Well, I can tell you, no
longer are they wondering who is going to take over the Appropriations
Committee. Senator Mikulski has stepped in and pulled us all together--
I think on both sides of the aisle--and worked this out. Again, I give
my highest compliments to Senator Mikulski for her hard work, her
intellectual approach, and her rigor in working with others to make
sure we got to this point.
Most in Washington, as I said, know that our staff works very hard,
but there is just one other person I want to single out. He is not
here. In fact, he is not even on the Senate side, but I worked with him
for a long time, going back to when Congressman Obey chaired the House
committee on Labor-HHS back in the early 1990s. He has been a longtime
member of the House appropriations staff. David Reich is currently the
minority clerk for Labor-HHS. He is retiring once this bill passes.
David has spent nearly his entire career working on the issues in this
bill. He has been on or around the Labor-HHS subcommittee since 1996.
His collaborative nature, his insightful questions, and his thoughtful
approach to the drafting of this bill will be sincerely missed. I wish
David well and thank him for his dedicated public service to our
country and especially to this committee.
In light of the investments I mentioned, plus many more that I simply
don't have time to talk about, I urge all of my colleagues to support
the Omnibus appropriations bill. Given the tight overall budget, these
are all remarkable achievements.
I have always taken pride in the fact that the Labor-HHS bill, as it
is called--Labor, Health and Human Services, Education bill--is a bill
where we invest in America's human infrastructure, and that is what
this bill does. We have had to make some tough choices, but this new
bill lives up to that high calling of investing in America's human
infrastructure.
Again, I thank my friend and colleague from Alabama. We were together
on the Labor-HHS committee until he took the position as the ranking
member on the full Appropriations Committee, but we always had good
comity of working together, and I appreciate it very much.
With that, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
Mr. SHELBY. Madam President, I would like to respond to some of the
remarks by my colleague and friend from Iowa. I think he is right on
point when he said this is the first time we have been able to bring
the appropriations process--I hope--back to regular order, which is
what we need. No one wants to shut the government down. My goodness,
neither side wants to do that. It is no good, and the American people
don't want it. This is a good bipartisan effort. Senator Mikulski and
other members of the Appropriations Committee have worked together.
I have been at odds sometimes--and a lot of times together--with
Senator Harkin. I first met him 35 years ago when I first went to the
House. He had been there a couple of years--a veteran. We have worked
together on a lot of issues.
Senator Harkin is absolutely right when he says we can't say enough
about the leadership of the chairperson of this committee, Senator
Mikulski. She has reached out to both sides. She wants the process to
work, as do most of us, and this is an example of that.
I hope later this afternoon that we are going to get a good vote,
just as the House did, on this bill. This a big step in how we should
be running the government.
I yield the floor.

USE OF FUNDS FOR GUAM

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I rise today together with Senate Armed
Services Chairman Levin and Senator McCain to clarify the intent of
section 8102 of the Department of Defense Appropriations Act contained
in the consolidated appropriations bill, 2014. This language should not
be interpreted to supersede section 2822 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014.
I concur with the reporting requirements and limitations established
by section 2822 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2014 and fully expect the Department of Defense to comply with
them prior to obligating funds for projects in Guam.
We have also sent a letter to Secretary Hagel from me, Vice Chairman
Cochran, and Chairman Frelinghuysen and Ranking Member Visclosky of the
House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee directing the Department to
comply with the requirements in section 2822 prior to obligating funds.
Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the joint letter sent
to Secretary Hagel on this subject be printed in the Record.
Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Senator from Illinois for addressing this
important issue. I appreciate both his assessment and his clarification
of the relationship between the provision in the National Defense
Authorization Act and the provision in the DOD Appropriations Act.
Senator McCain and I have spent a long time working on this issue, and
we believe that the reporting requirements and limitations established
by section 2822 are in the best interests of the Department of Defense
and the country. I appreciate the willingness of the Senator from
Illinois to work with us to ensure that the Department abides by this
provision.
Mr. McCAIN. I thank Senate Armed Services Chairman Levin for working
with me to clarify language in the consolidated appropriations bill of
2014 that directly contravenes section 2822 of the Fiscal Year 2014
National Defense Authorization Act. To date, Congress has not received
sufficient cost-analysis supporting the Department of

[[Page S414]]

Defense's proposed movement of troops from Okinawa to Guam. For this
reason, in the authorization bill, the Armed Services Committees
explicitly prohibited any premature investments in Guam until the
Secretary of Defense provides Congress with, among other things, a
report on military resources necessary to execute the U.S. force
posture strategy in the Asia-Pacific region.
I also appreciate Defense Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman Durbin
for agreeing that the reporting requirements in section 2822 of the
NDAA must be satisfied before the Department of Defense can obligate
funds for investments in Guam if the report finds they are needed. In
furtherance of these requirements, I fully expect the Senate Armed
Services Committee will provide close and careful oversight over the
use of any monies that may be appropriated for the transfer of forces
covered in this section and obligated by the Department for that
purpose and, specifically, hold hearings to determine the extent to
which any plan to realign forces from Okinawa to Guam will sufficiently
support our operational requirements in the Asia-Pacific region.
Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Chairman and Senator McCain for their
leadership on this issue.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

Congress of the United States,

Washington, DC, January 15, 2014.
Hon. Chuck Hagel,
Secretary of Defense, U.S. Department of Defense, The
Pentagon, Washington, DC.
Dear Secretary Hagel: We are writing to clarify the intent
of Section 8102 of the Department of Defense Appropriations
Act contained in the Consolidated Appropriations Bill, 2014.
This language should not be interpreted in any way to
supersede Section 2822 of the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-66).
We concur with the direction contained in the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 and fully
expect that funds will only be obligated for projects in Guam
once the Department complies with Section 2822.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Thad Cochran,
Vice Chairman, Senate Committee on Appropriations,
Subcommittee on Defense.
Richard J. Durbin,
Chairman, Senate Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee
on Defense.
Pete Visclosky,
Ranking Member, House Committee on Appropriations,
Subcommittee on Defense.
Rodney Frelinghuysen,
Chairman, House Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee
on Defense.

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President. The bill before us is an important
compromise. Neither side got exactly what it wanted, but this
legislation will provide much-needed certainty across the government.
It keeps the government open for business and helps us turn a corner
toward a more regular funding process. It represents much-needed relief
from the cycle of crisis and shutdown which has dominated here for too
long.
This bill will fund a strong military, cutting edge research
projects, and investments in our Nation's families and young people.
For Michigan, the bill will provide much needed funding exciting new
research at Michigan State University, for long overdue harbor
dredging, to prevent Asian carp from entering the Great Lakes, for new
transportation projects, and for small airports.
This bill isn't perfect. It shortchanges our financial regulators,
zeroes out funds for some local communities with large amounts of
Federal land, and leaves some other programs at lower levels than is
required. Hopefully the PILT funding will be authorized in the farm
bill.
This bill is a significant improvement from years of shutdown threats
and continuing resolutions that have put our Nation's government on
autopilot. This is the first time in 3 years that we will have
completed all 12 appropriations bills to properly allocate funding for
all Federal agencies.
For the military, the bill provides $487 billion in base DOD
appropriations--the funding level established in the budget agreement--
and $85 billion for overseas contingency operations. As a result, it
appears that DOD's operations and maintenance funding will be reduced
by about $9 billion this year--a substantial reduction, but less than
we feared would be the case. While this is a tight budget, I am more
concerned at this point about the much greater reductions in DOD
funding that will be required in fiscal year 2015 and subsequent fiscal
years.
I am pleased that the Defense appropriations bill is consistent with
key actions that we took in the National Defense Authorization Act,
including provisions on Guantanamo detainees, measures to address
sexual assault in the military, and the implementation of the New START
Treaty. I also commend the Appropriations Committee for amending the
military retired pay COLA change included in the budget agreement to
exempt medical retirees and survivor benefit plan annuitants. The Armed
Services Committee will be holding hearings to review this issue.
While I have concerns about a few specific provisions, I believe that
this is a good Defense appropriations bill and one that deserves our
support.
For cutting-edge research, the bill restores $1 billion of much-
needed funding for the National Institutes of Health that was cut last
year due to sequestration. This funding is needed to avoid further loss
of promising research and make the investments needed to ensure that
NIH can continue to support the next generation of scientists and fund
cutting-edge research.
For families and children, the bill will fully fund Head Start. Last
year, 1,800 children across Michigan were forced out of early childhood
programs due to sequestration, and the new funding in this bill is
expected to restore and even grow this important early childhood
program.
In addition to Head Start funding, the bill also includes a
significant increase in funding to educate children with disabilities.
Now, I'd like to talk about a few specific projects that are
especially important to Michigan.
First, the bill includes the full $55 million requested for the
Department of Energy for fiscal year 2014 to help fund the Facility for
Rare Isotope Beams, FRIB, at Michigan State University. FRIB will let
scientists, for the first time, create rare isotopes like those
produced in supernovae.
These isotopes will be studied, advancing our knowledge of the
origins of elements and the universe, as well as furthering applied
science fields like biomedicine, nuclear physics and nuclear chemistry.
The facility will attract top scientists from around the globe, and
is a key piece in attracting and training the next generation of
nuclear scientists. FRIB will help keep Michigan, and the United
States, at the forefront of cutting edge science.
Second, the bill provides important funding for Great Lakes projects.
I'm pleased that restoration and protection of our treasured Great
Lakes will advance with the funding provided in the bill.
Appropriators fully responded to a request from the Senate Great
Lakes Task Force, which I co-chair by including $300 million for the
Great Lakes Restoration Initiative which strategically targets funding
at the most significant problems facing the Great Lakes.
In addition, the bill provides more than $30 million for the Corps of
Engineers to fight Asian carp and other invasive species from getting
into the Great Lakes. The bulk of that funding will be used for the
electric dispersal barrier, which was designed to keep the carp from
advancing through the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal. We need to
recognize that this barrier is only a short-term fix, however, and
focus on separating the two basins for a permanent solution. I'm
pleased the omnibus includes $3 million for the Corps to refine its
design of such a solution and I will press to speed its implementation.
I'm also glad the bill includes language that I requested that would
authorize the Corps of Engineers to implement emergency measures to
prevent invasive species from dispersing into the Great Lakes by way of
any hydrologic connection to the Mississippi River basin.

[[Page S415]]

I'm also pleased the bill increases funding by about $12 million from
last year for dredging of Great Lakes harbors and channels, operation
and maintenance of locks, and repair of breakwaters. The Great Lakes
navigation system handles over 160 million tons of cargo, and it is
critical this system operates effectively to support our economic
growth and international competitiveness.
I will continue to work with my Senate colleagues to restore the
payments in lieu of taxes, which are used for such critical needs as
public schools, emergency response, and road maintenance.
The bill also restores funding for drinking and wastewater
infrastructure by providing about $2.4 billion to states for investing
in these vital water projects, which will both protect public health
and our water resources.
Finally, this bill includes important provisions to help our State's
transportation system.
I am pleased the bill again includes language allowing the M-1 Rail
project in Detroit to use private funds as a match to federal dollars.
In addition, I am pleased that the bill provides funding that for the
FAA to keep open contract control towers at the W.K. Kellogg Airport in
Battle Creek, the Coleman A. Young Airport in Detroit, and the Sawyer
International Airport in Marquette.
This bill is an important compromise, and I am glad that Democrats
and Republicans, from the House and Senate, were able come together to
craft this measure.
Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I first want to congratulate Chairwoman
Mikulski and Vice Chairman Shelby for their leadership in bringing
these appropriations bills to the floor for final consideration. While
I would have preferred these bills to have been brought to the floor
individually so that they could be amended, this nevertheless is a
noteworthy achievement.
The 2-year budget agreement negotiated by Senator Murray and
Congressman Ryan provided the framework for the bill we are considering
today, allowing the Appropriations Committees to begin our work of
developing bills that will responsibly fund the government.
Since passage of the budget agreement, the Appropriations Committee
members have worked tirelessly to craft a true compromise.
As the ranking member for the Transportation and Housing
Subcommittee, I worked with Chairman Murray to negotiate a bipartisan
Transportation and Housing bill. While this bill makes prudent spending
reductions--it is $3.2 billion below the original Senate bill and
nearly $1 billion below the fiscal year 2013 enacted level--it
continues to invest in important transportation and housing programs. I
would like to mention a few highlights:
First, the TIGER program, which supports transportation
infrastructure and economic development in our local communities, is
funded at $600 million. Given the current state of our Nation's
highways and bridges with so many being structurally deficient, we
included additional resources to help eliminate some of the backlog of
vital construction projects.
Second, while the overall funding level for the FAA is reduced by
$167 million from the fiscal year 2013 enacted level, we worked to
provide sufficient funding to ensure air traffic controller and safety
inspector staffing losses are made whole. The bill also fully funds the
Contract Tower program to prevent administration officials from
arbitrarily closing towers as they attempted to do last year.
Further, the bill includes program reforms for the Department of
Housing and Urban Development, which will streamline program
requirements, increase oversight, and reduce costs to the taxpayer.
I am proud that the THUD bill strikes the right balance between
fiscal responsibility and meeting our Nation's housing and
infrastructure needs.
The other divisions of the bill are equally important--from national
security, to energy, to health and human services--and I would also
like to acknowledge the work of the other subcommittee chairs and
ranking members in completing action on their bills.
For our military and our Nation's security, I particularly appreciate
that this bill includes $100 million for the procurement of the fifth
DDG-51 from Bath Iron Works, which Senator King and I advocated. This
funding will allow the Navy to send a tenth DDG-51 to sea that is
capable of performing many roles and missions in support of our
national defense. Not only will it add stability to the workforce at
Bath Iron Works in Maine, but it also will result in significant
savings for the taxpayers. The multiyear, 10-ship procurement will save
approximately $1.5 billion--that is the equivalent of an extra
destroyer at no cost. I thank Chairwoman Mikulski, Vice Chairman
Shelby, Subcommittee Chairman Durbin, and Subcommittee Ranking Member
Cochran for this important funding.
I am also grateful to see the $11.5 million in military construction
funding that will go toward the consolidation of structural shops and
improve the efficiency of operations at the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard.
While the Department of Defense has delayed or cancelled $4.1 billion
in military construction projects during the next five budget years,
this project was accelerated to 2014 due to efforts by members of the
Maine and New Hampshire delegations to increase investments to address
long overdue modernization needs at PNSY.
For our veterans, I am pleased this bill restores the full cost-of-
living increase for disabled military retirees and for survivor
benefits, rectifying provisions in the recently-passed budget agreement
that unfairly singled out current retirees. Unfortunately, this will
not protect all military retirees from a decreased cost-of-living
adjustment on their pensions. We must continue to work on behalf of our
retired servicemembers and their families to ensure that they receive
the full benefits they have been promised and have earned by their
service to this country. Congress should act quickly to pass
legislation I have cosponsored that completely restores the COLA for
all military retirees.
This bill also provides several million dollars in additional funding
for medical research, including for Alzheimer's Disease research,
treatment, and caregiver programs. This is an important initial step
toward the goal of doubling funding for Alzheimer's research and
eventually reaching the level of $2 billion over five years, as
recommended by the Alzheimer's Advisory Council. We must continue our
efforts in 2015 to increase Alzheimer's research given the tremendous
human and economic price of this devastating disease. We are spending
$142 billion annually in Medicare and Medicaid costs on caring for
people with Alzheimer's.
I also want to thank Agriculture Subcommittee Chairman Pryor and
Ranking Member Blunt for addressing the needs of our Nation's farmers
and growers, providing critical support for research, and making
important nutrition and food security investments during difficult
economic times. In particular, I am pleased that the agreement expects
USDA to amend its arbitrary decision to exclude the fresh white potato,
the only fresh vegetable or fruit to be excluded, from the Women,
Infants and Children, or WIC program. Fresh white potatoes are a
healthy, affordable, and delicious food choice, and it only makes
common sense to include this nutritious vegetable in the WIC package.
This bill also makes important commitments to our energy
infrastructure. I would like to thank Subcommittee Chairwoman Feinstein
and Ranking Member Alexander for recognizing the potential for creating
jobs by providing robust funding for the Department of Energy wind
program, which funds the offshore wind demonstration projects. Federal
seed money is helping overcome barriers to the development and
implementation of new and innovative technologies, such as deepwater
offshore wind, which can position the U.S. as a global leader in this
promising clean energy field.
To help address the high cost of residential energy, particularly for
those living in northern, rural states such as Maine, funding is
provided in this bill for the weatherization program. This program
plays an important role in permanently reducing home energy costs for
low-income families and seniors and training a skilled workforce.
Moreover, for our most vulnerable families and seniors, the increased

[[Page S416]]

funding for LIHEAP will help ensure that recipients do not have to
choose between paying their energy bills and paying for other
necessities such as food or medicine. LIHEAP continues to be an
indispensable lifeline for many Americans during these challenging
economic times and exceptionally cold winter.
Helping to meet the water infrastructure needs of smaller States and
regions is another vital piece of our national infrastructure. I am
pleased this bill includes funding for the operation and maintenance of
Army Corps projects at ``small, remote, or subsistence harbors.'' Ports
and harbors are the economic lifeblood for many rural communities--a
fact not fully accounted for under the Corps' budget metrics, which
tend to favor larger ports.
The bill also continues to support our Nation's fisheries, which are
so important to the economies of our coastal communities, particularly
in Maine. In September 2012, the Commerce Department declared a
disaster in the Northeast groundfish industry. A vital $75 million is
included in this bill to help fishermen in Maine and in other areas of
the country who have had their livelihoods affected by fisheries
disasters in recent years. This funding could be used to provide both
immediate economic relief to Maine and the region's struggling
groundfish industry, and to make targeted investments that will allow
the fleet to survive and become more sustainable in the years ahead.
The American people are weary of watching a Congress that can't work.
We saw the result of this dysfunction when the government shut down in
October. We simply must avoid another shutdown and put our Nation back
on sound financial footing. That is why I urge my colleagues to support
the compromises the Appropriations Committees worked so hard to
achieve.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today I come to the floor to discuss the
consolidated appropriations bill of 2014, upon which we will soon be
voting. While I am pleased that this bill will prevent another
government shutdown and hopefully signal to the American people that we
can actually work together, I will not be voting for this bill due to
serious concerns surrounding specific policy riders and spending
provisions. I am also seriously concerned about the process whereby we
are passing a 1,582 page, $1.012 trillion spending bill that we
received at 8 p.m. Monday night--giving us very limited time to time to
carefully review or debate and no ability to amend.
Now, this is not a new occurrence in Congress. According to the
Congressional Research Service, between 1977 and 2013, there were only
4 years when all appropriations were enacted on time--fiscal year 1977,
fiscal year 1989, fiscal year 1995, and fiscal year 1997: ``[O]ver half
of the regular appropriations bills for a fiscal year were enacted on
time in only one instance (1978). In all other fiscal years, fewer than
six regular appropriations acts were enacted on or before October 1. In
addition, in 12 out of the 37 years during this period, none of these
regular appropriations bills were enacted prior to the start of the
fiscal year.'' This is unacceptable and must change.
With our country facing a rapidly growing $17.3 trillion debt, which
amounts to more than $54,000 per citizen, it is time for Congress to go
back to the ``regular order'' and consider each one of the 12
individual appropriations bills in turn to fund the activities of our
government before the end of the fiscal year, with ample time for
debate and amendments, instead of ramming through a massive 1,582-page
Omnibus appropriation bills like the one before us today. The American
taxpayer expects more and deserves better than what we are giving them
in this bill.
The Omnibus includes appropriations policy riders and pork barrel
projects that should raise red flags for all of my colleagues. For
example, tucked away in the classified portion of this bill is a policy
rider that has serious national security implications and is a prime
example of the appropriators overstepping their bounds. This provision
will halt the transfer of the U.S. drone counterterrorism operations
from the CIA to the Department of Defense. In doing so, it summarily
changes a very important policy that guides how we do certain
counterterrorism operations abroad from a direction that the President
has specifically prescribed. And how did most of us become aware of
this major policy change? By reading this morning's Washington Post;
that is how. This is outrageous, and it should not have happened. While
there may be differing opinions on who should control drone
counterterrorism operations, we should be able to debate these
differences in the committees of jurisdiction and eventually on the
Senate floor. The fact that a major national security policy decision
is going to be authorized in this bill without debate or authorization
is unacceptable and should not be the way we legislate on such
important national security issues.
The $1 trillion Omnibus also includes a wasteful provision directing
the U.S. Department of Agriculture, USDA, to continue developing the
duplicative Catfish Inspection Office--even though the FDA has a
similar inspection office. According to the Government Accountability
Office, GAO, this duplicative office will cost taxpayers roughly $15
million a year once up and running. Both the Office of Management and
Budget, OMB, and GAO have recommended that Congress repeal the catfish
program because it is ``wasteful and duplicative'' of FDA's seafood
inspection services.
The fact remains that the Catfish Office won't improve food safety.
Its true purpose is to ban catfish imports for several years while USDA
bureaucrats iron out their procedures with foreign inspectors. A New
York Times article from November 2013 explains how this program would
disrupt our trade relations with Asian countries. Some nations,
including Vietnam, have threatened WTO retaliation against our
agriculture exports, like beef and soybeans.
During the Senate debate on the farm bill, I was joined by Senator
Shaheen and 11 other Senators in offering an amendment to that bill
that would have eliminated the Catfish Office, but the managers blocked
a vote on our amendment. The House version of the farm bill includes an
amendment to eliminate the USDA Catfish Office, but Senate conferees
are, likewise, blocking a vote in conference. I urge the Senate
conferees to the farm bill to drop their opposition and allow a vote in
conference on this important provision. Appropriators should have not
included this policy rider in the omnibus. Instead, we should move to
eliminate the duplicative and wasteful USDA Catfish Office.
In addition, the Omnibus bill includes $120 million in unrequested
funding for Guam in direct contravention of the bicameral decisions of
the Armed Services Committees. There is absolutely no justification for
this. That is why the Armed Services Committees have expressly
prohibited such funding in the NDAA. To date, Congress has not received
sufficient cost-analysis supporting the Department of Defense's
proposed movement of troops from Okinawa to Guam. For this reason, in
the authorization bill passed just last month, the Armed Services
Committees explicitly prohibited any premature investments in Guam
until the Secretary of Defense provides Congress with the strategic
plan which includes, among other things, costs associated with the
movement to Guam and a report on military resources necessary to
execute the U.S. force posture strategy in the Asia-Pacific region.
While this language will stay in the Omnibus bill due to the
inability to offer an amendment to strip it, I am thankful to Senate
Armed Services Chairman Levin for working with me to clarify the
language. I also appreciate Defense Appropriations Subcommittee
Chairman Durbin and Vice Chairman Cochran for agreeing that the
reporting requirements in section 2822 of the NDAA must be satisfied
before the Department of Defense can obligate funds for investments in
Guam if the report finds they are needed. I fully expect the Senate
Armed Services Committee will provide close and careful oversight,
including hearings, over the use of any monies that may be appropriated
for the transfer of forces covered in this section and obligated by the
Department for that purpose.
Yet another example of the abuse of the appropriations process is the
continued inclusion of a misguided policy rider that prohibits the
Postal Service from moving to 5-day mail delivery, which would save the
Postal Service $2

[[Page S417]]

billion a year. This congressional mandate was initially put in place
in 1984 and is the only roadblock keeping the Postal Service from
transforming the way it delivers mail, while still being able to
provide universal service. The Postal Service continues to lose
billions of dollars each year; however, some in Congress have decided
that they know better than the Postal Service leadership and continue
to prohibit the Postal Service from modernizing and transforming the
way it does business. Congress must accept the fact that the Postal
Service's current way of doing business is no longer viable. The
American public communicates and conducts business in a completely
different way than they did even 5 years ago. We must allow the Postal
Service to adapt to changing times in order to have a Postal Service in
the future, and this includes 5-day mail delivery to save $2 billion a
year.
In addition to these unacceptable policy riders, the bill also
includes other examples of pork barrel spending for programs, some
duplicative, such as $65 million for Pacific Coast salmon restoration
for States including Nevada, a program that even President Obama has
called duplicative and mocked in his 2011 State of the Union Address;
$80 million in additional funding for Amtrak, which continues to
operate in the red year after year; $15 million for an ``incentive
program'' that directs DOD to overpay on contracts by an additional 5
percent if the contractor is a Native Hawaiian-owned company.
There is language that makes it easier for the DOD to enter into no-
bid contracts for studies, analysis, and unsolicited proposals. The
language in the bill makes it ripe for wasteful spending and earmarks
for pet projects. For example, Department of Defense may eliminate
competition and use a no-bid contract for a ``product of original
thinking and was submitted in confidence by one source.'' With the
Department facing cuts now and into the future, this type of vague
language could lead to costly wasteful spending on programs that DOD
neither needs or can afford.
There are $600,000 for a program at Mississippi State University to
research how to grow trees faster for replanting after hurricanes.
There are numerous ``Buy America'' provisions that hurt competition
and innovation, drive up the costs of procurement, and further
increases the taxpayer burden; $10 million for the USDA High Energy
Cost Grants Program that go to subsidize electricity bills in Alaska
and Hawaii; $10 million for a DOD Youth Challenge Program that was
neither requested by the President nor authorized to receive funding in
the fiscal year 2014 NDAA; and $3.3 million increase in the STARBASE
Program. According to the Internet, this ``nice-to-have'' but not
``necessary-to-have'' program ``focuses on elementary students,
primarily fifth graders. The program's goal is to motivate these
students to explore Science, Technology, Engineering and Math, STEM, as
they continue their education. Military volunteers apply abstract
principles to real-world situations by leading tours and giving
lectures on the use of STEM in different settings and careers.'' With a
war going on and budget crisis at our doorstep, this is how we elect to
spend our increasingly scarce defense dollars? We should leave the
education of our children to our teachers and parents and not our
military.
There is a $7.7 million increase for the Civil Air Program, or CAP.
CAP is a volunteer organization that provides aerospace education to
young people, runs a junior cadet program, and assists when possible in
providing emergency services. Its members are hard-working and we are
grateful for their volunteerism. This year, as in the past, the Senate
Armed Services Committee authorized CAP funding. However, CAP is
auxiliary and thus should not be funded given the need for the military
to tighten its purse strings and fund programs that are a priority to
our national defense, not auxiliary.
The bill also includes $375 million for Army, Navy, and Air Force
``alternative energy research'' initiatives. As I have stated in the
past, this type of research has yielded such shining examples as the
Department of the Navy's purchase of 450,000 gallons of alternative
fuels for $12 million--over 26 dollars per gallon.
There is over $460 million in funding for Defense Department to do
research dealing with research for alzheimer, autism, prostate and
ovarian cancer, HIV/AIDS and numerous other diseases and illnesses.
While this type of research is important, it should not be funded by
Department of Defense. It should, instead, be funded by the National
Institutes of Health, the budget of which this bill more than doubles
over last year's.
We cannot continue this process where massive, unamendable, thousand-
plus page spending bills totaling trillions of dollars are voted on 2
days after being made available to Members of this body. No Senator
could have read and fully understood the long-term impact the policy
and spending provisions this bill will have on the future of this
Nation. It is a shameful way to do business. The American taxpayers are
tired of Washington and our uncontrollable spending habits as well as
our inability to cut wasteful, underperforming, and duplicative
programs. Furthermore, our refusal to reform our broken tax system and
our unsustainable mandatory programs have contributed greatly not only
to the current fiscal crisis in our country, but to Americans'
unfavorable opinion of the institutions of our government. We must
change course and have a fair and open process to fund the Federal
Government, not a closed process. For all of these reasons, I will not
be voting for this appropriations bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I appreciate the comments from my two
dear friends, the Senator from Iowa and the Senator from Alabama. They
have been friends of mine for decades, and we have traveled and
conspired together--always conspiring for the good of the country, of
course. We have shared our thoughts, our philosophy, and our plans, and
because we have joined together, we have better legislation.
I want to add my voice to those who have spoken in support of the
Omnibus appropriations bill. I spoke about it earlier this week, so I
won't repeat others, but I want the American people to understand the
importance of what we are doing.
Only Chairwoman Mikulski could have said it as well as she did. This
compromised bill represents the end of--and hopefully for a long time--
``shutdown, slowdown, slamdown politics.'' If I spoke for an hour, I
would not say it as well as the senior Senator from Maryland did. It
shows that the people here want to govern. When they have had enough of
political stunts and are no longer intimidated by extremists, they can
work together to get it done.
Chairwoman Mikulski, Ranking Member Shelby, Chairman Rogers, and
Ranking Member Lowey made it possible for the House and Senate
Appropriations Committees to do what we all do if we are given the
chance. Democrats and Republicans come together and we forge
agreements.

Two days ago I spoke about the portions of this omnibus bill that
fund the Department of State and foreign operations. But I also know--
and I can say this as the most senior member of the Appropriations
Committee--the bill also provides funding for many vital domestic
programs that have suffered some very painful cuts in recent years. It
provides increased funding for public health, including mental health.
It is going to increase the National Institutes of Health budget by $1
billion.
In Vermont, local community health centers are essential for rural
families. This bill includes nearly $700 million more for these health
centers nationwide. I know how important they are. I remember during my
first term in the Senate helping to start one of our first community
health centers in the tiny county of Grand Isle, with a beautiful
archipelago of violets in Northern Lake Champlain. We also have Head
Start Programs. These are some of the hardest hit by sequestration and
the bill will help rebuild these programs by investing nearly $1
billion.
The bill invests $194 million more in the Women, Infants, and
Children Program, providing nearly 90,000 more mothers and children
with nutrition assistance. Talk about something that has a rebounding
effect in this country. We all know a hungry child going to school is
not going to learn, and they

[[Page S418]]

are not going to be as productive a member of society later on. None of
us in this Chamber goes hungry. No Senator goes hungry except by
choice, but a lot of children and a lot of infants go hungry. Now,
90,000 more can be given nutrition assistance.
Many Americans are struggling to pay for college, and this bill
maintains funding for the Pell Grant Program and increases funding for
TRIO and GEAR Up Programs that help low-income and first-generation
students get a college education. Many of these programs reach
Vermonters through the Vermont Student Assistance Corporation. I am
pleased this bill includes investment in this and similar nonprofits
around the country.
The omnibus includes funding for programs authorized by the Violence
Against Women Act for grants to rural areas, for transitional housing,
for sexual assault services, for legal assistance for victims, and
support for Native American victims.
I remember how we joined together in a bipartisan way to pass the
Violence Against Women Act, and when they wanted to diminish it in the
House of Representatives, some very brave Democrats and Republicans
stood and said: No, let's pass the bill the Senate passed. We added a
number of things, including Native American victims--something that
even some of the previous supporters of the bill were going to take
out. We kept it in.
The bill raises the cap on the Crime Victims Fund by $15 million,
which is a historic high. It means more money for victims assistance
grants at the State and local levels. How I wish we had such money when
I was a prosecutor so we could help victims of crime.
It also makes a lifesaving investment in the bill the former Senator
Ben Nighthorse Campbell and I wrote, the bulletproof vest program, to
protect police officers and other first responders. Every year we hear
of police officers whose lives have been saved because of the
bulletproof vest program.
We provide increases for homeless assistance grants and the Low-
Income Energy Assistance Program. We preserve funding for Rural
Economic Area Partnership Zones--something extremely important in the
basically rural State of Vermont.
The omnibus also lifts the pay freeze impacting thousands of Federal
workers in Vermont and millions across the country and all 50 of our
States.
The bill makes strong investments to support our National Guard. I
was the cochair of the National Guard Caucus, along with Senator
Lindsey Graham, who will agree with me on how important that investment
is. It overturns a provision in the Bipartisan Budget Act that would
have reduced cost-of-living adjustments for medically retired
servicemembers and survivor benefit plan recipients. It paves the way
for Congress to repeal the reductions for all impacted military
retirees.
This bill is not exactly what I might have written, what Chairwoman
Mikulski would have written, what any one of us would have written if
we could write it alone. But after years and years of gridlock on
appropriations, we wrote a bill that can pass. So there are
compromises. There are programs that are not funded at the levels many
of us wanted, including some provisions important to Vermonters.
I am disappointed that because of limited budget caps we were unable
to make larger investments in the Byrne JAG Program and the juvenile
justice program, which continue to face steep cuts year after year.
I am disappointed the omnibus includes authorizing language we have
been debating as part of the ongoing farm bill negotiation. This
antifarmer policy rider will tie the hands of the Grain Inspection,
Packers & Stockyards Administration and is an unfortunate case of
legislating on behalf of powerful corporations while leaving our family
farmers out in the cold.
But I would say that even on the things I would have wanted to
include, and many of us would want to include, the alternative was
another continuing resolution and more sequestration, which, without
question, would have been far worse, especially for programs that I
support and I believe the distinguished Presiding Officer supports and
most of us support.
So we have taken an important step back from the destructive politics
of the past few years. Let's hope it is only the first step. Let's hope
we can go on from here to make progress on other important issues the
American people sent us to address.
I do not see any Senators seeking recognition. I suggest the absence
of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Markey). The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the
quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, as have so many of my
colleagues, I rise to speak to this important Omnibus appropriations
bill that we have before us today, and I too wish to thank the Senator
from Alabama, whom I count as a friend, and the Senator from Baltimore
and the great State of Maryland, more broadly, for all the great work
they have done and their colleagues on the Appropriations Committee as
well. We are showing the country we can work together. We are going to
start the new year on a different note. I am excited to be a part of
that effort. I will support the bill.
I come to the floor, as have a number of my colleagues, to speak
about some of the business yet unfinished, to set the stage for more
work we can do going forward. But before I do that, I wish to mention
some of the specific good news in the bill.
I am looking at my good friend from Alabama. We have had a lot of
fires in Colorado over these last number of years. This bill takes some
important steps to help us combat the threat posed by what are now very
fast-moving, indiscriminately burning, modern mega fires. We have had
mega hurricanes and mega tornadoes. We have mega fires now in the great
State of Colorado. We have seen those fires not just in my State but
all over the West. In the Southeast we have seen increasing fires as
well. So the budget includes about $3 billion for firefighting and
wildfire prevention programs, which is essentially the same level we
have seen in recent years.
I am a little disappointed that the bill doesn't include the
bipartisan Wildfire Disaster Funding Act. This is a bill that I worked
on with Senators Wyden and Crapo. It is, therefore, bipartisan. It
would allow the U.S. Forest Service and the Department of the Interior
to access funding to support emergency wildfire suppression efforts. It
is a lot cheaper to suppress fires at the beginning than to let them
get out of control. It is also a lot cheaper to prevent fires from
happening in the first place, and I will talk more about that. If we
look at current projections, they only suggest that fires are going to
increase in intensity and duration, and it underscores the need for us
to get ahead of this growing threat to our communities--again, not just
in Colorado but all over our country.
There are fiscally responsible reforms in this Wildfire Disaster
Funding Act which would help us confront the skyrocketing threat that
modern fires pose to our States' fiscal health as agencies work to
protect life and property while being responsible stewards of taxpayer
dollars. That is just one of the many reasons I am going to continue to
lead the fight--it is a bipartisan fight, a bipartisan cause--to see if
we can't get this approach in place. This is a plan that will truly
help us with these fires that threaten our communities.
I am also proud that Colorado is leading the way in pioneering
commonsense wildfire prevention strategies that cut through redtape and
then leverage private sector know-how to create jobs while reducing the
fuel loads in our forests. We don't have enough Federal employees. We
don't have enough government moneys to do all we need to do in our
forests. One of the ways we can do more of that with this private-
public sector type of partnership is to reauthorize the Good Neighbor
Authority.
The Good Neighbor Authority was a pilot project in Colorado
initially, and it has been successful. We want to expand it and apply
it in other locales and in other States, and we have succeeded in doing
that. It will allow agencies to work collaboratively across arbitrary
Federal boundaries to improve forest health and reduce wildfire risks.

[[Page S419]]

This bill also reauthorizes the job-creating Stewardship Contracting
Authority, which allows the Forest Service and the BLM to partner with
local businesses to improve fire safety on our public lands. This has
been a critical tool in Colorado, and it is important that we include
it in this bill.
So where do I think we have some shortcomings? I mentioned a couple
of successes and important provisions in the bill. The bill doesn't
address several key needs in my State, including support for the
Emergency Watershed Protection Program and Payment in Lieu of Taxes
Program. It is known as PILT. I listened to the Committee on
Appropriations chairwoman and I listened to the Senator from New Mexico
Tom Udall and others speak about PILT today. I wish to touch on both
the EWP, Emergency Watershed Protection Program, and the Payment in
Lieu of Taxes Program. We had real devastation in my State last year
during the fall with historic amounts of rainfall and then the floods
that followed. We had enormous support from all over the country. We
deeply appreciate that outpouring. It was the most destructive natural
disaster in our State's history. Now the floodwaters have subsided,
thankfully--some 3 months ago--but we are still learning the true
extent of the damage. Families and towns are clearing debris from their
neighborhoods and from their water sources. They are working to rebuild
their communities house by house and business by business.
Yet, despite this widespread damage from the floods and the broad
consensus that more help is needed, this budget does not fund the
Emergency Watershed Protection Program. This is a very important and
crucial flood recovery program, and it has been applied all over our
country, I think in almost every State.
If we do not get support sooner rather than later, we could see
additional flooding this spring. We have a spring thaw that happens all
over our State. Streams will overrun their banks, particularly because
we have so much debris still in many of those stream courses. So we
need these resources. It is simply not acceptable that we would not
have them in hand before the spring runoff.
The Federal Government's Natural Resources Conservation Service, the
NRCS, estimates that we need at least $122 million to protect lives and
property from future flood damage. That support, as I have said, is not
included in the bill, but I am going to continue fighting to secure
this critical aid for Colorado's flood-ravaged communities.
Finally, I want to turn to the Payment in Lieu of Taxes Program. As I
mentioned earlier, many of my colleagues from both sides of the aisle
have expressed their disappointment that the budget does not include
PILT funding. It includes--when it works--funding for rural counties
across the country. Fifty-five of our 64 counties in Colorado qualify
for payment in lieu of taxes funding. Those counties qualify because
there are Federal lands within those counties.
Those lands are an important part of the character and heritage of
the West. But because Federal lands are not subject to local property
taxes, they do not support essential services such as schools, roads,
teacher hires, our firefighters, and our police.
I want to give you an example of what I am talking about.
Ouray County is in the southwestern portion of Colorado in the San
Juan Mountains. It is home to about 4,400 people. Over half that county
is public land, and half of the local school kids are already on free
or reduced-price lunch programs. That county's budget is picked to the
bone. Without $400,000 in PILT funds, Ouray County will not be able to
maintain local roads or provide other basic services that residents
there depend on.
Those funds may seem small by the standards here in Washington, DC,
but they are indispensable for the rural communities in my home State
of Colorado and across the West. That is why this week I introduced a
bill that would fully fund PILT, and I am really pleased Senator Heller
from Nevada has joined me. That fully funded PILT approach would give
our rural communities certainty when it comes to their budgets and
their futures. This is a commonsense approach. Let us pass it without
delay. I am going to continue to work with all of my colleagues who
support the PILT Program to ensure that we do the right thing.
I want to take a minute to speak to my county commissioners all over
Colorado from those 55 counties I mentioned. I know you are wondering
how you are going to keep critical public services going over this next
year. To you I want to make this pledge: I will fight doggedly, I will
fight every way possible, to make sure you have those PILT funds to
which you are entitled and you need to make sure your communities are
secure, are safe, and are preparing for the future.
I want to conclude by saying, again, I intend to vote for this bill,
in part because of the critical functions across our government that it
supports and because, as the Senator from Alabama mentioned just a
while ago, it avoids another costly and unnecessary government
shutdown. But I do raise some concerns. I know we will tend to the
unfinished business that I mentioned. I am going to continue working
with everybody on both sides of the aisle. I am going to keep fighting
for the great State of Colorado in the process. We will do our part to
be a great State in the United States of America.
I appreciate the Presiding Officer's attention. I appreciate the
Presiding Office's service.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, with the distinguished senior Senator from
Alabama on the floor, I ask unanimous consent that the time until 4:45
p.m. be equally divided and controlled between Senators Reed of Rhode
Island and Durbin; further, that the time from 4:45 p.m. until 5:15
p.m. be controlled by the Republican leader or designee; that at 5:15
p.m. there be 15 minutes equally divided between Senators Mikulski and
Shelby or their designees; that at 5:30 p.m. today the mandatory quorum
required under rule XXII be waived and the Senate proceed to vote on
the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to concur; that if cloture
is invoked, the motion to concur with an amendment be withdrawn, all
postcloture time be yielded back, and the Senate proceed to vote on the
motion to concur; that if the motion to concur is agreed to, the Senate
proceed to the consideration of H. Con. Res. 74; that the concurrent
resolution be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the
table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. SHELBY. No objection.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair hears none.
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LEAHY. I tell the distinguished Presiding Officer, he can tell by
all the various clauses of that why we Senators are merely
constitutional impediments to our staff who write it up, and why I held
it in my hand to read it and make sure it was done right.
With that, Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair notes the excellent work of the
Senator from Vermont, and the clerk will please call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I never would have imagined that today the
Senate would be meeting without one of our true heroes, a recipient of
the Congressional Medal of Honor, Senator Danny Inouye of Hawaii. He
and Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska guided the Subcommittee on Defense of
the Senate Appropriations Committee for decades with a steady hand and
a commitment to working on a bipartisan basis.
I have been fortunate in working on this appropriations bill to have
as my ranking member Senator Thad Cochran of Mississippi. He has
carried on that legacy of bipartisanship. He is my friend. We trust one
another. That has made this job so much more complete and satisfying.
We have conferenced a massive Defense appropriations bill on an
expedited schedule and we encourage our colleagues to vote for it on
final passage.
Virtually 60 percent of all of the domestic discretionary spending of
the United States of America is included in this one appropriations
bill. Now for

[[Page S420]]

nearly 2 years the Department of Defense has been in a state of
paralysis because of budget uncertainty caused by the Budget Control
Act, sequestration, the threat that was never supposed to become a
reality, and, sadly, the 16-day totally unnecessary government
shutdown.
This bill is the first step in regaining stability and providing a
solid foundation for our Department of Defense to plan for its future.
It represents a return to regular order for both the Budget and
Appropriations Committees and for Congress. Finally, we are going to
exert our constitutional responsibilities over the power of the purse,
to make certain that every Federal tax dollar is spent responsibly.
We are really indebted in particular to two of our colleagues.
Chairwoman Patty Murray of Washington, chair of the Senate Budget
Committee, sat down with Paul Ryan, the House Republican chair, and
hammered out a budget agreement, the first in I believe 5 or 6 years.
Then the assignment was sent to the Appropriations Committee chair,
Barbara Mikulski of Maryland. She was able to sit down with Chairman
Rogers from the House of Representatives. The two of them worked out an
agreement on the actual spending that would follow this budget
resolution. That was no small feat.
It is also a fiscally responsible bill. It provides $572 billion for
the current fiscal year in this appropriation, meeting the spending
caps that were established in the budget. It meets the spending target
$25 billion before the President's request, by making 1,065 more
strategic and thoughtful reductions--1,065 reductions in spending from
the President's budget request.
The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff warned us and the Nation
several years ago: If we do not get the people right, the rest will not
matter when it comes to our national defense. This agreement implements
the wisdom of General Dempsey. It provides necessary resources to the 3
million men and women who proudly serve America in the Department of
Defense. Passage of this bill means that nearly 800,000 civilian
employees at the Department of Defense finally will get the pay raise,
at least some pay raise, which they certainly deserve, rather than face
the threat of furloughs which they faced over and over.
Unfortunately, this is the first pay raise since fiscal year 2010,
but it will make it a little bit easier for middle-class families who
work for our government in defense of our Nation to make ends meet. The
agreement also contains a pay raise for our military. We all heartily
support it.
It funds operations of readiness at $11 billion higher than it would
be under a full-year continuing resolution. It means our soldiers,
sailors, airmen, and marines can get the training they need before
deploying into harm's way. Training and readiness means survivability.
It provides a $1 billion increase in the National Guard and Reserve
equipment account, includes $218 million for TRICARE to ensure
servicemembers and their families will not pay higher out-of-pocket
costs for medical care, $25 million to fully implement the
implementation of Senator Murray's Special Victims Counsels, so that
the victims of sexual assault in the military through this
appropriation will have the advocates, have the counselors, and have
the champions they need.
We have increased an already robust budget for suicide prevention by
$20 million, to encourage the Department to expand community-based
initiatives, offering greater support as well for the Guard and
Reserve. We made sure that the medical care our servicemembers receive
will still be the most advanced in the world. It adds $200 million to
peer-reviewed medical research programs. No apologies.
Some Members may come to the floor and criticize the Department of
Defense for being engaged in medical research. I can stand and defend
every single line item. I will tell you, it will not only benefit our
military and their families, it will benefit America and the world for
this medical research to take place.
It has $125 million for traumatic brain injury and psychological
health, $10 million for prosthetic research. I want to thank
Congresswoman Tammy Duckworth of Illinois. She has joined me in this
effort. She, more than any other Member of Congress, understands the
critical importance to have the modern prosthetics and orthotics for
those members of the military who suffer a loss of limb during their
course of serving our country.
For embassy security, which is a topic we hear from the other side on
almost a daily basis, we have added marine security guard detachments
at 35 more State Department posts overseas, as well as Marine Corps
response forces around the globe.
Finally, we add a technical correction. I want to make it clear,
because this has been the subject of great debate on the floor of the
Senate and the House, we added a technical correction to the COLA
offset regarding military pensions to make it clear that Congress
never, ever intended this to impact medically retired personnel or
their survivors. I appreciate the leadership of three of my colleagues
on this issue: Senator Murray, Senator Pryor, and Senator Shaheen.
We protect the Defense industrial base. We increase science and
technology funding for all the branches by $400 million. We add $175
million for the Rapid Innovation Program and $75 million for the
Industrial Base Innovation Fund.
I had the good fortune of visiting Rhode Island during the course of
this week. Make no mistake. The men and women who work in these
facilities to build the most advanced, innovative, and technical
defense equipment in the world constitute a precious national resource.
We want to make sure we are committed to them so they will be ready to
help us in the future to defend America.
There are two provisions in this bill I want to mention quickly that
relate to Illinois. The first is related to the James Lovell Federal
Health Care Center in North Chicago. It is a multiyear pilot program to
try to do something which seems so obvious, to blend the medical
facilities and hospital at the Great Lakes Naval Training Station with
the North Chicago Veterans Hospital. It is one of the most challenging
things I have ever seen in government. We are getting it done. This
bill continues to invest in that concept. I want to thank Senator Kirk.
He has been my partner in making sure that this happens from the start.
Second, the bill takes a major step forward in preserving and
sustaining the skilled workforce at manufacturing arsenals in support
of the Department of Defense. Coming out of two wars, we know the value
of these workers. When we had to put shields on humvees to save the
lives of our servicemembers, we turned to the Rock Island Arsenal. In
dramatic fashion they responded with the very best equipment to save
our men and women in uniform. We want to make sure they are ready for
the next challenge, whatever it may be. So we have included $150
million in industrial mobilization capacity to stabilize their rates,
to make sure they will continue to serve our military so well.
I see my colleague Senator Reed has come to the floor. I know we have
a limited amount of time. I want to make a point which I think he will
appreciate. When it comes to major Defense programs, this bill contains
$1.2 billion to fully fund two Virginia-class submarines under a
multiyear contract.
I visited with the engineers, welders, electricians, and machinists.
They have been worried about their jobs through the sequester, and
further sequestration would have meant a major disruption.
The agreement also supports the strong view of Congress that we
should not retire 9 ships with a century of useful life left in them.
We fully funded Navy Growlers, P-8s, and other aircraft, as well as
added advanced procurement for additional Super Hornets.
In the Army, we protected procurement of Army Chinook, Apache and
Black Hawk helicopters, as well as provided an additional 14
helicopters to the Army National Guard.
We also remain a steadfast partner with Israel. The bill fully funds
U.S.-Israel cooperative missile defense programs. It adds an additional
$173 million for the Arrow programs and David's Sling, and also fully
funds Iron Dome procurement.
We also had to make a lot of tough decisions to reach our spending
cap.

[[Page S421]]

Some programs have significant cuts, and that is going to have an
impact somewhere.
But what is the alternative to this bill? The only answer is a full-
year continuing resolution. The Department of Defense has never
operated under a full-year CR, and I hope it never does.
A full-year CR would mean untold billions of dollars would have to be
realigned from literally thousands of programs. It would be a financial
management nightmare. Programs might be forced to stop in their tracks
because funds were not provided in the right lines, and the effects
would ripple throughout the defense industry and American jobs.
This bill takes care of our highest priorities, but not everything
can be a priority. I ask that Senators recognize that we had to make
some hard choices, that we managed to do more with less, and that the
alternatives are much worse.
I inherited an awesome responsibility from Senator Inouye. I also
inherited his tremendous staff.
They have worked especially hard this year over the holidays with no
fanfare and at great personal sacrifice to ensure that we could get to
this day. So I would like to take a moment to thank them.
On the Democratic staff: Betsy Schmid, Colleen Gaydos, David Gillies,
Katy Hagan, Kate Kaufer, Erik Raven, Jennifer Santos, Teri Spoutz, Andy
Vanlandingham, and Maria Veklich.
On the Republican staff, I would like to thank: Stewart Holmes,
Alycia Farrell, Brian Potts and Jacqui Russell.
This defense bill provides for the national defense in a responsible,
thoughtful way.
It reverses the harshest impacts of sequestration, and provides
additional funds to ensure that our troops get the training and
equipment they need.
It also looks toward the future, boosting research in medical care,
science and technology, and manufacturing innovation.
I hope all of my colleagues who support a strong military and a
strong national defense will support this good bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, first let me thank the Senator from Illinois
for his great leadership on the Appropriations Defense Subcommittee and
for joining me in Rhode Island to see those great workers at Electric
Boat and many other defense industries in Rhode Island.
I too want to commend Chairwoman Barbara Mikulski and Chairwoman
Patty Murray. We would not be here today without their extraordinary
efforts, Herculean efforts by two extraordinary individuals. I also
want to thank my colleague from the great State of Alaska, Lisa
Murkowski, for her work. She is an extraordinary colleague,
collaborator. We have worked together to make this Interior
subcommittee bill a very good one.
Chairman Ken Calvert of the House, ranking member Jim Moran, both
superb participants and collaborators in this effort. Jim is retiring.
I want to thank him for his distinguished service to Virginia and to
the Nation.
I am very pleased in particular in this Interior subcommittee bill
that we could make a strong investment in clean water and drinking
water through the revolving fund or, as it is known, the SRF fund. This
is not only about the environment and public health, it is about jobs.
In fact, adopting our provisions in contrast to the House's lower
numbers will keep approximately 97,000 more Americans on the job this
year. That, I think, is significant. It is not just about the
environment, it is also about keeping people at work.
We have also ensured that we can staff all of our agencies, including
the EPA, so they do not have to face furloughs, so they can have
continuity of operations, so they can do their jobs more efficiently
and more effectively.
For the Department of the Interior, the bill provides solid funding
for resource agencies, including the National Park Service, Fish and
Wildlife Service, the Bureau of Land Management, the Bureau of Indian
Affairs, as well as the U.S. Geological Survey. The bill also includes
$306 million for the Land and Water Conservation Fund.
With respect to our cultural agencies, we have also been able to
restore sequester cuts to the National Endowment for the Arts and
Humanities, and we increased funding of the Smithsonian, which will
help them complete the National Museum of African American History and
Culture for its opening in 2015.
One challenge in the Interior bill is the firefighting costs. These
are costs that cannot be avoided and they continue to increase. We have
fully funded these costs and we have done that by increasing resources
significantly. But we have to be aware, if these costs continue to
grow, it will be something that is very difficult to sustain. So we
have to apply our efforts going forward to see if we can, through
suppression efforts, through other efforts, begin to control the cost
of firefighting. This is something, particularly for our Western
colleagues, that is absolutely essential. We responded to this need
completely and thoroughly.
I want to also commend my colleagues on the Appropriations Committee
for the other aspects of the bill, Senators Harkin, Feinstein, Murray,
and Durbin. Their subcommittees produced great results. The Low Income
Heating Assistance Program, LIHEAP, the Weatherization Program has been
adequately funded, funding for Job Corps, TIGER grant funding, and
Chairman Mikulski particularly effectively added $75 million for
fisheries disasters, which the Presiding Officer from Massachusetts and
myself are very keenly aware of and very appreciative of.
Funding for the Securities and Exchange Commission, funding for the
Commodity Futures Trading Commission. This is going to help make sure
the Dodd-Frank legislation that we passed is actually implemented and
the markets are operating efficiently. This is critical to our economic
viability and our economic progress.
As Senator Durbin mentioned, I am extremely pleased that two
Virginia-class submarines were included in this appropriations bill.
They are built in Groton. They all begin in Quonset Point, RI, but they
are built in Groton finally and often in Newport News. This is a
program vital to our national security, vital to employment. About
2,800 people in Rhode Island will benefit from these important
programs.
I think we have to do more to invest in our people, invest in our
economy, infrastructure, et cetera, but this bill goes a very long way.
Let me also pay tribute to people who really deserve, as they say, a
shoutout. That is the staff members who did this work: Rachael Taylor,
Ryan Hunt, Virginia James, Rita Culp, and Tiffany Taylor on my side.
Senator Murkowski's extraordinary staff: Leif Fonnesbeck, Brent Wiles,
and Emy Lesofski. They did extraordinary work.
Before I leave the floor. Let me conclude one point: We will come
together this evening on a strong bipartisan basis to pass this
appropriations bill. But we still have remaining work to do on the
unemployment insurance bill. I hope in the intervening days that we can
find a path forward to pass an unemployment insurance bill on a
bipartisan basis because if we do not, there are 1.5 million Americans
without benefits, 70,000 more a week lose their benefits, and our
economy is losing out, because it is approximately $600 million a week
that is being sapped from the economy, as estimated by Professor
Lawrence Katz at Harvard if we do not act.
Now is the time not only to put these appropriations to work, but
also to put our UI programs to work, so that not only can we help
Americans, but we can also help our economy. I want to thank in this
regard, with respect to the UI efforts, Senator Heller and Senator
Collins. They are extraordinarily thoughtful Members, who are
committed, as I am, to helping their constituents and doing it in a
wise and prudent way.
With that, let me recognize the chairwoman who has come to the floor
and say, thank you, chairwoman, for an extraordinary bit of work. Not
surprising coming from a giant like yourself. Thank you.
Ms. MIKULSKI. I thank the Senator from Rhode Island for his comments.
I appreciate them. They were well said. But the compliments should be
reversed. This is a committee effort. What I am so excited about for
this bill is that it is bipartisan, bicameral. It

[[Page S422]]

was agreed upon in the House by an overwhelming vote of 359 to 67.
I look forward to this same type of vote in the Senate, but we did it
because we listened to each other, we functioned with maximum respect,
and saw where we could compromise without capitulating on principle.
I note that other Senators will be coming shortly.
I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. CRUZ. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call
be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CRUZ. I rise to speak of pragmatism and irresponsibility.
Four years ago, when this body was debating the law known as
ObamaCare, reasonable minds perhaps could have differed as to whether
that law might work. The essence of pragmatism is looking to the facts
as they are today and responding.
Today reasonable minds can no longer differ in terms of whether
ObamaCare is working.
Today it is abundantly clear that millions of Americans are being
harmed right now by this failed law.
Today it is the essence of pragmatism to acknowledge the facts of the
future of ObamaCare and for Congress to step up and act to stop the
harm that has been caused by this body.
Irresponsibility, on the other hand, is seeing undeniable harm,
undeniable facts, and saying, nonetheless, we will do nothing.
What are the facts from the American people?
The facts that we now know today are that already at least 4.7
million Americans have received cancellation notices, have had their
health care plans cancelled because of ObamaCare.
This was, of course, after President Obama repeatedly looked in the
TV cameras, spoke to the American people, and made the promise: If you
like your health care plan, you can keep it, period.
We now know that promise was false, and for over 4.7 million people
painfully false in their lives.
Pragmatism is responding to the facts and doing something about it.
Unfortunately, what have the Senate majority leader and the Senate
Democrats done to protect Americans from ObamaCare? Nothing.
These facts are known and Senate Democrats have done nothing. At
least 4.7 million Americans lost their health insurance because of this
body. The omnibus bill that this body is galloping to approve does
nothing for the 4.7 million Americans who have had their health
insurance canceled.
It is not only health insurance plans. What else are the facts that
we know now?
As Time magazine observed: ``Keeping your doctor under ObamaCare is
no easy feat.''
President Obama looked at the American people and said: If you like
your doctor, you can keep your doctor, period.
We now know that promise too was deliberately, repeatedly, false.
Millions of Americans are facing the very real prospect of losing their
doctor.
A good friend of mine, a cancer survivor, is facing the very real
prospect--because Texas Oncology has suggested it does not intend to
participate--of losing his cancer doctor, not being able to go to the
doctors who saved his life. This is the father of two young children
facing the terrifying reality of losing his doctor because of the
conduct of the Congress.
In response to millions of Americans losing their doctors, what have
the Senate majority leader and Senate Democrats done? Nothing. The
essence of irresponsibility is seeing a harm, seeing the facts, and
refusing to act.
What else do we know? We know ObamaCare is killing jobs all across
the country. Indeed, ObamaCare is the biggest job killer in this
Nation.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has said:

Of small businesses that will be impacted by the employer
mandate, one-half of small businesses say they will either
cut hours to reduce full-time employees or replace full-time
employees with part-time workers to avoid the mandate. 24
percent say they will reduce hiring to under 50 employees.

The President has recently been talking about income inequality. This
exacerbates income inequality. It is why the rich have gotten richer
under President Obama. But the people who are struggling--young people,
Hispanics, single moms, people like my dad, who 56 years ago washed
dishes for 50 cents an hour as a teenage immigrant--those are the
people getting their hours reduced because of ObamaCare; those are the
people getting laid off because of ObamaCare.
Income inequality is increasing. What have the Senate majority leader
or Senate Democrats done to protect Americans from ObamaCare? The
answer is simple: Nothing. In response to the millions of Americans
being forced into part-time work, losing their jobs, nothing from
Senate Democrats.
What else do we know? The New York Times front-page headline
explained ``New Health Law Frustrates Many in Middle Class.''
I recognize that not everyone is inclined to listen to a Republican
from Texas. So let me instead quote that famed rightwing rag, The New
York Times, discussing ObamaCare.

Ginger Chapman and her husband, Doug, are sitting on the
health care cliff. The cheapest insurance plan they can find
through the new federal marketplace in New Hampshire will
cost their family of four about $1,000 a month, 12 percent of
their annual income . . .

Mr. Chapman is a retired fireman who works on a friend's farm and he
and his wife have two sons. Mrs. Chapman had this to say about the cost
of that insurance:

That's an insane amount of money. How are you supposed to
pay that?

In response to the middle class, frustrated at getting hit with
skyrocketing premiums, what have the Senate majority leader and Senate
Democrats done? The answer is the same: Nothing.
But going beyond that, it is not just the middle class that is
getting hurt. If we were to look at one demographic group that is
getting hammered the worst by ObamaCare, it is young people. ObamaCare
is a law designed to be a massive wealth transfer from young people to
older wealthier Americans.
Forty percent of young Americans today believe ObamaCare will bring
worse care, 51 percent believe it will bring higher costs, and 57
percent of young people disapprove of ObamaCare. And what is the source
of this information? Another famed rightwing institution--Harvard, a
Harvard Institute of Politics poll.
Young people in particular are getting hammered by ObamaCare, and
what have the Senate majority leader and Senate Democrats done to
listen to the young people who are losing their jobs, who are forced
into part-time work, who are facing skyrocketing premiums? The answer
is simple: Nothing.
Looking beyond that, Forbes reported that ObamaCare is to increase
individual market premiums by an average of 41 percent--41 percent.
That is real money from hard-working people who are being hurt because
of the failures of this body. And what have Senate Democrats done in
response? Nothing.
Looking beyond that, in my home State of Texas, the average premium
increase for Texans will be 26 percent in the individual market. But
let's take a 27-year-old Texas man. The average premium increase will
be 70 percent; for a 27-year-old Texas woman, 22 percent. These are
young people who are struggling, who are starting to build a family,
and their premiums are going up because of ObamaCare. What have the
Senate majority leader and Senate Democrats done to listen to young
people who are being hurt? The answer is simple: Nothing.
Let's look beyond that, though. Let's look beyond Texas and let's
talk about State by State some of the very real harm. Let's take a
State picked at random--the State of Nevada. If we look at the State of
Nevada, 24,600 policies have been canceled in Nevada; in the individual
market, a 179-percent premium increase.
One might hope that these 24,600 people who had their health
insurance canceled would have Senators representing them. One might
hope these people paying 179-percent premium increases would have
Senators representing them standing up and saying: Let's act right now.
But what have the Senate majority leader and Senate Democrats done to
respond to the people of Nevada? The answer is absolutely nothing.

[[Page S423]]

Let's look at some other States. The State of California. In
California, that bright blue State on our west coast, 1.1 million
policies have been canceled; a 27-percent increase on average premiums.
What have Senate Democrats done to respond to Californians suffering
because of ObamaCare? The answer is simple: Nothing.
Let's take another State: Arkansas. Arkansas people are hurting
because of ObamaCare. The State is not tracking cancellations, but in
the individual market in Arkansas a 138-percent increase in premiums.
For the millionaires, many of whom populate this Chamber, 138 percent
may not be that much. But if you are struggling in Arkansas, you need
help. You need relief. And what have Senate Democrats done for the
people hurting in Arkansas because of ObamaCare? The answer is nothing.
Let's look at another State: Louisiana, 92,790 policies canceled
because of ObamaCare; a 53-percent increase in average premiums because
of ObamaCare in the individual market.
I will note, one Senator from Louisiana has fought hard for those
92,790 people in Louisiana who have had their health insurance
canceled, and another Senator in this Chamber has fought hard to ensure
the response is not to relieve them from ObamaCare. What have Senate
Democrats done in response to the people in Louisiana who are hurting?
The answer is simple and it is tragic: Nothing.
Let us look at another State: New Mexico, 26,000 policies canceled;
142-percent increase in the individual market. What have Senate
Democrats done to listen to the citizens of New Mexico being hurt
because of ObamaCare? The answer is nothing.
Let's take one more State: The State of North Carolina, 183,800
policies canceled.
I want my colleagues to think of the single mom raising three kids
who receives a notification in the mail that her policy has been
canceled not because of anything she has done but because of Congress's
law that is not working.
A 136-percent increase. I want my colleagues to think of the
immigrant struggling hard--like my dad was when he was washing dishes--
who discovers his premium has gone up 136 percent. What have Senate
Democrats done to respond to the people of North Carolina who are being
hurt because of ObamaCare? The answer, tragically, is nothing.
Four years ago, reasonable minds might have differed, but today these
are the facts. And the facts are Senate Democrats are not listening to
the American people. They are not responding to the harm they have
caused. I am going to suggest that is the essence of irresponsibility.
I have filed two amendments. One amendment to the omnibus bill would
simply provide that ObamaCare would be defunded so long as it is the
case that ObamaCare is causing Americans to lose the health insurance
policies they wish to keep, increasing their premiums, and preventing
them from seeing the doctors they want to see.
All of those, by the way, were promises President Obama and Senate
Democrats made to the American people that ObamaCare wouldn't do, and
it is exactly what they are doing.
This amendment, if Senate Democrats disagree that they have done
nothing, presents the opportunity for them to do something. Right now
they can step in and say: It is the essence of pragmatism to recognize
this isn't working, people are hurting, so let's start over.
So, accordingly, I am going to ask the first of two unanimous consent
requests:
I ask unanimous consent that my amendment No. 2685, to prohibit the
funding of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act so long as
the Act is harming the healthcare of Americans, be called up and agreed
to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Hirono). Is there objection?
Ms. MIKULSKI. I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. CRUZ. Madam President, I want to turn to a second amendment I
have introduced. This second amendment provides real relief to the
millions of Americans who are being hurt because of ObamaCare, but it
also corrects something this body did just recently that was wrong.
Recently, this body acted to decrease the pensions of millions of
veterans--millions of men and women who have served our Nation, who
have fought for our Nation, and who have bled for our Nation. This body
decreased their pensions irresponsibly. So this second amendment I
would introduce defunds ObamaCare because millions of Americans are
hurting, and it uses the savings from defunding ObamaCare to restore
the pensions to the hard-working men and women of the military, which
never should have been taken away in the first place.
This is an opportunity for all 100 Senators to demonstrate we stand
together with the working men and women in the military and with all
Americans who are struggling to make ends meet, struggling to achieve a
better life.
Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that my amendment No. 2686,
to prohibit funding of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
and to fulfill our Nation's promise to our military retirees, be called
up and agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Ms. MIKULSKI. I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. CRUZ. Madam President, last year Members of this body could say
they didn't know. They didn't know people's plans would be canceled.
They didn't know premiums would skyrocket. They didn't know people
would be shut off from seeing their doctors. Now they know. Now they
know. And the response of the majority leader and Senate Democrats,
tragically, is to do nothing.
This body faces a choice--a choice between pragmatism and
irresponsibility. Once this body makes this choice, ultimately, in
November, the American people will have a choice as well. At the end of
the day, every elected official should not ignore the facts but should
listen to the American people. We need to make DC listen.
The majority leader and Senate Democrats right now are not listening
to the American people. Instead, they have chosen a course of conduct
of doing nothing, that is not responsible, and I hope that, in time,
they reconsider.
Madam President, I yield the floor.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SHELBY. 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. SHELBY. Madam President, we have had a spirited debate today for
very important reasons, and I will conclude my remarks on this bill by
observing that, with very few exceptions, we have heard nothing but
positive comments from our colleagues today here in the Senate.
We have also heard what an important step this will be to reestablish
the regular order of the Senate appropriations process. In the
appropriations world, regular order means receiving the President's
budget, holding hearings, marking up bills, and bringing them to the
floor of the Senate with an open amendment process, which both sides of
the aisle need and want.
The passage of this omnibus bill will be a giant step, I believe, in
that direction, which is in the best interests, in the long run, of
each individual Senator as well as this entire institution.
I would be remiss if I did not once again recognize the chair of the
Appropriations Committee Senator Barbara Mikulski, my colleague, and
the leadership that she demonstrated in creating an environment in
which a compromise could be reached here. Anyone who has attempted to
bring a single bill to the floor of the Senate understands what a
difficult undertaking that can be. This particular legislation contains
12 separate appropriations bills.
I also recognize the efforts of the respective ranking members of
each subcommittee. The Christmas holiday, as we all know, is usually an
opportunity to refocus their attention on their families and their home
States. This past year, however, we asked them to once again go the
extra mile, to skip their

[[Page S424]]

holidays, to make this bill a reality. Because of that and their work,
they have done that--without hesitation.
As has already been mentioned by a number of my colleagues, no bill
ever reaches the floor of the Senate without the effort of many
different staff members. In this instance it took the effort of
literally dozens of staff from both sides of the aisle to bring this
together. I personally thank them all for their incredible dedication
and professionalism and literally unceasing effort over the past
several weeks.
I urge my colleagues once again to support this important
legislation, to fund the government and move this body one step closer
to being the place we would all like it to be.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, we are coming to the end of a long day
and a really long journey. This journey began last year when this
committee was dealing with a crisis situation in December 2012 when our
beloved and esteemed chairman Senator Dan Inouye passed away.
Simultaneously, we were dealing with the emergency legislation to fund
Hurricane Sandy relief. At that time I was asked by my colleagues,
based on our seniority system, to become the chair of this committee.
It was my goal in taking over the committee that I wanted to continue
the great tradition of Senator Byrd, of Senator Ted Stevens, of Senator
Danny Inouye, of Senator Thad Cochran, that we would work on a
bipartisan basis in the interests of the United States of America.
Although we come from different places, different States, and have even
different priorities, we are one country. It requires us to make sure
we do our job.
An Appropriations Committee is one of two committees that are
constitutionally referenced. When our Founders wrote the Constitution,
they said that there should be a committee that has an annual
Appropriations Committee for public review and public vote, and there
should be a finance committee to raise the revenue. They didn't call it
the finance committee, but a revenue committee to raise the money to
pay the bills.
This bill meets its constitutional responsibility. This is the bill
that funds the Federal Government for fiscal year 2014. We are a little
late, but we have gotten the job done, and we have done that job with
due diligence, starting with President Obama giving the Congress his
budget.
Remember, the President proposes, the Congress disposes. We took the
President's budget request, and we held our due diligence hearings.
However, we faced a real problem. The Budget Committee, which sets the
overall cap on discretionary spending, had not passed that. Many said
you must have a budget. Thanks to the leadership of Senator Murray,
through hard work, we voted on a marathon budget bill that
overwhelmingly passed in March. I was so optimistic. I thought: Great,
the Budget Committee is done. They have an April 15 deadline. They are
going to go right over to the House and begin negotiations, and we will
get our allocation with our cap. Remember, we have a cap on
discretionary spending. We cannot be wild spenders.
However, it was not meant to be. There are those in the Congress, in
the Senate, who did not allow the Budget Committee to meet. Some 22
times Senator Murray asked to go to conference. We were delayed. We
missed our October 1 deadline. We did not bring up our individual
bills. But we did have all our bills marked up in full committee in
full view by August 1. That is what we operated on.
Then in the fall, when we did get our budget, we did get our
discretionary spending and a very stringent deadline. On December 20 we
began to move to work with the House to come up with an agreement.
We did. We worked across the aisle, and I thank the Senator from
Alabama, my vice chairman, for helping me create the environment. Our
mutual respect for each other enabled us to work in a mutual way to
move our bill forward.
We reached across the dome to the House Members. We have worked
together, and we have finished the bill. We brought to the floor what I
think people could vote for. Yesterday it passed the House with 359
votes, with only 67 votes against it. I hope we have a successful
margin today. These efforts show that we Democrats and Republicans can
work together for the good of the country; that we can avoid drama
politics with cliffhangers and fiscal cliffs; we can avoid shutdowns;
we can avoid government on autopilot.
Most of all, those are process arguments. I did not come to be a
member of the appropriations committee to be a process guru. Process
gets you to the objective you seek, and the objective that I seek is to
make sure that the United States of America is the best country in the
world; that we lead the world in demonstrating American exceptionalism;
that the greatest deliberative body continues to deliberate rather than
delay; that the greatest country in the world, through American
exceptionalism, knows how to resolve conflict, which we were able to
do.
We compromised without any side capitulating on principles--give and
take on money, give and take on policy. But that is what America is,
give and take.
We were able to do that. At the same time, when I say the greatest
country in the world, we ensured national security. We met compelling
human need. We continued the opportunity ladder that enabled my family
to rise as an immigrant family, and the family of the Presiding Officer
to rise as an immigrant family. The Senator from Texas, he speaks so
eloquently, often, and frequently about his father. We need an
opportunity ladder in this country, and we have it in this bill.
We also wanted to make sure that we have jobs today and are looking
for those investments in research and development for jobs tomorrow.
But we will never forget our veterans. We have money in this bill for
adequate funding for veterans health care, fixing the disability
backlog. I know earlier in this debate the COLA for disabled military
retirees and survivors of working age was raised. We have fixed that,
waiting for a comprehensive solution later on in the year.
I think we have a bill that meets the test of working to ensure
America's exceptionalism, protecting our national security, continuing
that great opportunity ladder that made the United States of America
great. At the same time, we made those public investments; we were a
frugal committee that kept an eye on public debt.
I urge my colleagues to pass this bill.
There have been many accolades for me today. I thank you for them.
This is a committee. This bill is not about a ``me.'' Behind a ``me''
there is a whole lot of ``we.'' Working on a bipartisan basis, I thank
my vice chairman, the Senator from Alabama, Mr. Shelby, for being a
gentleman of the old school, meaning courteous and civil. He was
insistent, he was persistent on those priorities that he represented,
and also on keeping that frugal eye that he is known for. But we were
able to work together to create a climate in our committee where there
was confidence that everybody could be at the table and everybody could
have their say.
I thank his staff for their professionalism: Bill Duhnke, Dana Wade,
Chris Ford, Jane Lee, and Shelby Begany.
My own staff were no slouches either, and I thank Chuck Kieffer,
Gabrielle Batkin, Melissa Zimmerman, Brigid Houton, Vince Morris, Kali
Matalon, and Eve Goldsher who helped.
But also, all of us had fantastic subcommittee staff, and that staff
has backed those subcommittee chairmen. They worked every single day
since December 20, with the exception of Christmas Eve and Christmas
day.
Now we are at the end of this journey. As we conclude and vote on the
omnibus, the consolidated appropriations bill, I hope the overwhelming
majority of the Senate votes yes. Then, later on this month we will
hear President Obama's State of the Union. He will give us his budget.
We are going to start all over again with the same atmosphere of
respect, openness, and due diligence.
Madam President, I know there are just minutes left before the vote.
If there is no objection, I yield back the time and urge the Senate
vote.

cloture motion

We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to

[[Page S425]]

concur in the House amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R.
3547, Space Launch Liability Indemnification Extension Act
and the Omnibus Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2014.
Harry Reid, Barbara A. Mikulski, Benjamin L. Cardin,
Christopher A. Coons, Patrick J. Leahy, Brian Schatz,
Jack Reed, Tom Udall, Jeanne Shaheen, Tim Kaine, Patty
Murray, Richard Blumenthal, Jeff Merkley, Mark Udall,
Tom Harkin, Mark Begich, Mary L. Landrieu.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent the mandatory quorum call
has been waived. The question is, Is it the sense of Senate that debate
on the motion to concur in the House amendment to the Senate amendment
to H.R. 3547 shall be brought to a close?
The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. The clerk will call
the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the
Senator from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss) and the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr.
Coburn).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 72, nays 26, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 12 Leg.]

YEAS--72

Alexander
Ayotte
Baldwin
Baucus
Begich
Bennet
Blumenthal
Blunt
Booker
Boozman
Boxer
Brown
Burr
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Coats
Cochran
Collins
Coons
Donnelly
Durbin
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Hagan
Harkin
Hatch
Heinrich
Heitkamp
Hirono
Hoeven
Isakson
Johnson (SD)
Kaine
King
Kirk
Klobuchar
Landrieu
Leahy
Levin
Manchin
Markey
McCaskill
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Moran
Murkowski
Murphy
Murray
Nelson
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Shelby
Stabenow
Tester
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Vitter
Warner
Warren
Whitehouse
Wicker
Wyden

NAYS--26

Barrasso
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
Cruz
Enzi
Fischer
Flake
Graham
Grassley
Heller
Inhofe
Johanns
Johnson (WI)
Lee
McCain
McConnell
Paul
Portman
Risch
Roberts
Rubio
Scott
Sessions
Thune
Toomey

NOT VOTING--2

Chambliss
Coburn

The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote the yeas are 72, the nays are 26.
Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in the
affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
Cloture having been invoked, the motion to refer falls as being
inconsistent with cloture.
Under the previous order, the motion to concur with an amendment is
withdrawn. All postcloture time is yielded back.
The question is on agreeing to the motion to concur.
Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There appears to
be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the
Senator from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss) and the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr.
Coburn).
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Udall of New Mexico). Are there any other
Senators in the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 72, nays 26, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 13 Leg.]

YEAS--72

Alexander
Ayotte
Baldwin
Baucus
Begich
Bennet
Blumenthal
Blunt
Booker
Boozman
Boxer
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Coats
Cochran
Collins
Coons
Donnelly
Durbin
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Graham
Hagan
Harkin
Hatch
Heinrich
Heitkamp
Hirono
Hoeven
Isakson
Johnson (SD)
Kaine
King
Kirk
Klobuchar
Landrieu
Leahy
Levin
Manchin
Markey
McCaskill
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Moran
Murkowski
Murphy
Murray
Nelson
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Shelby
Stabenow
Tester
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Vitter
Warner
Warren
Whitehouse
Wicker
Wyden

NAYS--26

Barrasso
Burr
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
Cruz
Enzi
Fischer
Flake
Grassley
Heller
Inhofe
Johanns
Johnson (WI)
Lee
McCain
McConnell
Paul
Portman
Risch
Roberts
Rubio
Scott
Sessions
Thune
Toomey

NOT VOTING--2

Chambliss
Coburn

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion to concur in the House amendment to
the Senate amendment to H.R. 3547 is agreed to.
Ms. MIKULSKI. I move to reconsider the vote and I move to lay that
motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

____________________