[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 11]
[Senate]
[Pages 15924-15935]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




   AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND 
         RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT OF 2012--Continued


                           Amendment No. 769

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will now be 2 minutes of debate, equally 
divided, prior to a vote in relation to the amendment, as modified, by 
the Senator from Louisiana, Mr. Vitter.
  Who yields time? The Senator from Louisiana.
  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, this amendment is bipartisan. I thank the 
bipartisan coauthors. The amendment would allow the reimportation of 
small, personal use quantities of safe FDA-approved prescription drugs 
from Canada only. It is a very modest amendment. It is for personal use 
only, not large quantities, no wholesalers, Canada only, no biologics, 
and no controlled dangerous substances. It is essentially identical to 
an amendment we passed on a bipartisan basis in the last Senate.
  I urge a strong vote in favor of this.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland is recognized.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I oppose this amendment. First, it is a 
budget buster. To enforce this will take enormous amounts of resources. 
You cannot be sure that that drug coming from Canada is not a 
counterfeit, lethal death drug. You don't have any enforcement 
procedures in here, you don't have the money to enforce it, and we have 
a history of phony drugs coming into rogue Web sites through 
counterfeit countries.
  If you want a drug that has been made in a country that we view as 
predators toward the United States, when you take your Coumadin, when 
you want your wife to take her breast cancer drug, when your daughter 
is going to take that birth control pill, then you want the Vitter 
amendment. But if you want safety, then defeat the amendment.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, today I wish to support Senator Vitter's 
amendment regarding drug importation from Canada. Senator Vitter has 
been a tremendous partner and tireless advocate in supporting the 
comprehensive drug importation legislation Senator Stabenow and I 
introduced earlier this year--the Pharmaceutical Market Access and Drug 
Safety Act--which now has 20 additional cosponsors.
  The time for enactment of comprehensive drug importation legislation 
is certainly long overdue--and the critical necessity for this 
legislation is actually greater . . . not less, particularly for those 
struggling in this economic environment. Over the past decade, among 
working age adults--only those with Medicare coverage saw any 
improvement in their ability to fill their prescriptions. All others 
saw a rise in their inability to obtain needed medications. Among the 
uninsured more than 1 in 3 individuals went without a required 
prescription--and in those with chronic disease that number doubles.
  At the same time, according to AARP, over the last 5 years, the 
retail prices for the most popular brand-name drugs increased 41.5 
percent, while the consumer price index rose 13.3 percent. So despite 
manufacturer assistance programs--despite the increased use of 
generics--the high and escalating cost

[[Page 15925]]

of brand-name drugs is directly impacting the health of millions. 
Americans have learned that other countries use the very same 
medications which we do, made in the very same plants, yet pay 
considerably less.
  I look forward to working with my colleagues, as well as the FDA, on 
opportunities to advance comprehensive drug importation legislation in 
the months ahead. Not only does my legislation expand access to 
imported drugs in countries with comparable levels of regulation and 
oversight, but it also establishes a higher level of safety than exists 
today for prescription drugs sold domestically--including employing 
anticounterfeiting technologies and drug pedigrees to ensure the 
integrity of medications. In fact, it was the first to provide FDA with 
the resources to improve its inspection of foreign drug plants, many of 
which today produce medications marketed here by U.S. firms which 
consumers assume to be ``domestic''. CBO estimates the Federal 
Government alone would save $19.4 billion, so the savings from drug 
importation are undeniable and I hope that the Joint Select Committee 
on Deficit Reduction strongly considers this option.
  Until that time, Senator Vitter's legislation, which allows for 
personal use drug importation from Canada, represents a good first 
step. Without question, the price discrepancies between the United 
States and Canada are significant. For example, this week the average 
U.S. price for a 90-day supply of Nexium is $524.97 compared to $386.67 
in Canada. Another drug, Plavix, costs $565.97 in the United States 
versus $434.65 in Canada for a 90-day supply. Lipitor costs $463.97 in 
the United States compared to $378.23 in Canada for a 90-day supply.
  Today our constituents--who pay for research, who subsidize industry 
advertising, marketing, and investment--deserve access to competition 
and more affordable prices. Senator Vitter's amendment has achieved 
strong bipartisan support in the past, and I urge my colleagues to vote 
for this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment, 
as modified.
  Mr. VITTER. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  The result was announced--yeas 45, nays 55, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 172 Leg.]

                                YEAS--45

     Begich
     Bingaman
     Blumenthal
     Boozman
     Boxer
     Brown (OH)
     Cardin
     Casey
     Coburn
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corker
     DeMint
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Grassley
     Heller
     Johnson (SD)
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Leahy
     Lee
     Levin
     McCain
     McCaskill
     Merkley
     Murkowski
     Nelson (NE)
     Nelson (FL)
     Paul
     Pryor
     Reed
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Sessions
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Thune
     Udall (NM)
     Vitter
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--55

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Baucus
     Bennet
     Blunt
     Brown (MA)
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Chambliss
     Coats
     Cochran
     Coons
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hoeven
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (WI)
     Kerry
     Kirk
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Lieberman
     Lugar
     Manchin
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Moran
     Murray
     Portman
     Reid
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rubio
     Schumer
     Toomey
     Udall (CO)
     Warner
     Webb
     Wicker
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 45, the nays are 
55. Under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the adoption of 
this amendment, the amendment is rejected.


                           Amendment No. 750

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there is now 2 
minutes equally divided prior to a vote in relation to amendment No. 
750, as modified, offered by the Senator from Virginia, Mr. Webb.
  Who yields time?
  The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WEBB. Mr. President, this bill is the result of 4\1/2\ years of 
work and outreach and listening to the other side, incorporating 
recommendations from across the political spectrum. It is paid for. It 
is sunsetted at 18 months. It is balanced philosophically and 
politically. Contrary to some of the comments that were made, this does 
provide for equal participation from both parties.
  It has been endorsed by more than 70 national organizations, 
including almost all of the law enforcement organizations in America: 
International Association of Chiefs of Police, National Sheriffs 
Association, Fraternal Order of Police, National Association of 
Counties, National League of Cities, U.S. Conference of Mayors.
  It is time for us is to move forward to get the comprehensive advice 
from the best minds in America in terms of how to fix our broken 
criminal justice system.
  I urge a ``yes'' vote, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I have talked with Senator Webb. Some of 
what he wants to do is probably fine, but we are absolutely ignoring 
the U.S. Constitution if we do this. We have no role, unless we are 
violating human rights or the U.S. Constitution, to involve ourselves 
in the criminal court justice system or penal system in my State or any 
other State.
  The Association of District Attorneys is against this. There are a 
lot of times interest groups are for something, but we have no business 
deciding from a central committee in Washington whether Oklahoma is 
meeting the requirements of its constitution rather than the U.S. 
Constitution.
  I would urge a ``no'' vote against this, and that we honor our 
Constitution.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Is there time remaining on our side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 9 seconds.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, this is the most massive encroachment 
on States rights I have seen in this body. It is $5 million on a 
priority we should not have.
  I will work with the Senator from Virginia to pare it down so a 
Federal commission will look at the Federal system.
  Mr. WEBB. Mr. President, I ask the time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 7 seconds.
  Mr. WEBB. This is not an encroachment. I wouldn't support an 
encroachment. It actually convenes the best minds to give 
recommendations.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment, as modified.
  Mr. WICKER. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  The result was announced--yeas 57, nays 43, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 173 Leg.]

                                YEAS--57

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Blumenthal
     Boxer
     Brown (MA)
     Brown (OH)
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Conrad
     Coons
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Inouye
     Johnson (SD)
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Manchin
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Nelson (FL)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Snowe
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--43

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coats
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Enzi
     Grassley
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (WI)

[[Page 15926]]


     Kirk
     Kyl
     Lee
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rubio
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Thune
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Wicker
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Manchin). On this vote, the yeas are 57, 
the nays are 43. Under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the 
adoption of this amendment, the amendment is rejected.
  The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, would it be in order for me to speak as in 
morning business for up to 5 minutes at this point?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The remarks of Mr. Kyl are printed in today's Record under ``Morning 
Business.'')
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask the Chair to please inform me when 
I have spoken 10 minutes. For other people who want to speak, I don't 
think I will speak that long.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will do so.


                           Amendment No. 860

  Mr. GRASSLEY. My amendment No. 860 is a good government amendment for 
which I hope we can get broad support. There are special interests in 
Washington making the rounds opposing this amendment. These groups have 
argued this amendment will unduly burden the Justice Department, take 
away grant money for worthy causes or erroneously ban grantees from 
future funds. These special interests are trying to protect their 
income streams of Federal grants and don't want somebody looking over 
their shoulder to make sure they are spending taxpayer dollars wisely.
  This amendment is a response to the lack of oversight, 
accountability, and responsibility for how American taxpayer dollars 
are spent by grant recipients. It is a response to my work in the 
Judiciary Committee, uncovering fraud, misappropriation of funds, 
offshore bank accounts by nonprofit organizations.
  Can you understand that? Nonprofit organizations in America have 
offshore bank accounts, and many other shenanigans are occurring in 
grant programs administered by the Justice Department.
  To fix this, my amendment includes an accountability and fraud 
prevention package for grants administered by the Department of 
Justice. I am glad to report the National Taxpayers Union, an 
independent nonpartisan advocate for taxpayers, supports the amendment.
  For the last decade the inspector general has continuously labeled 
grant management at the Department of Justice a top management and 
performance challenge. That is from the inspector general. Despite the 
large sums of money the Department provides the grantees, the inspector 
general has repeatedly found inadequate controls on spending, 
inadequate oversight, and a general failure to ensure that taxpayer 
dollars are spent by grantees in accordance with the programs.
  Each year, the inspector general audits only a small fraction of 
grants awarded by the Department. In fact, last year the inspector 
general audited 21 grant recipients. Keep the figure 21 in mind. The 
inspector general questioned more than one-quarter of all the taxpayer 
dollars these grantees received. These questioned costs occurred on a 
random selection of grantees and represent less than 1 percent of the 
total grant recipients. So we only audit--go over 1 percent, but of 
that 1 percent, 25 percent of them were found to have a waste of 
taxpayers' money or not proper accounting.
  Perhaps the most concerning part of these audits is that they are 
randomly selected. If the inspector general's random selection of 
grantees universally uncovers unauthorized errors, then we can see why 
we have a much larger problem. If the findings of the audit from 2011 
were extrapolated through all the grants, that would mean nearly $500 
million in questionable costs annually.
  My amendment requires the inspector general to audit 10 percent of 
the grants. It also requires the Attorney General to ban grantees for 2 
years if they are found to have serious problems that have gone 
unremedied for longer than 6 months after the inspector general makes a 
negative finding. By requiring this remedy within 6 months, it ensures 
there is enough time to fix inadvertent mistakes but also ensures that 
truly bad actors are taken off the government rolls.
  My amendment also requires the AG to reimburse the Federal Treasury 
from the Justice Department budget if funds are given to an excluded 
entity and then requires the Department to recoup lost grant money from 
those grantees. It also includes a limitation on conference spending at 
the Department. Just a few weeks ago, the inspector general issued an 
audit on conference spending at the Department.
  We all heard about this audit, which revealed $16 muffins, the $32 
Cracker Jack snacks, $5 cans of cola, the beef wellington appetizers, 
and other abuse of the money of the taxpayers by the Justice 
Department. What we have not heard is how, by this administration, 
spending at the Justice Department increased from $47 million in fiscal 
year 2008 to 1 year later $73 million and now 2 years later $91 
million. Despite the biggest Federal deficit in history, the Justice 
Department, under this administration, has doubled spending on 
conferences in just 2 years. This is unacceptable, and it is why my 
amendment requires the Deputy Attorney General to sign off on all 
conference spending.
  My amendment would prohibit the Attorney General from providing any 
grant to a nonprofit charity that holds money in offshore bank accounts 
for the purpose of evading Federal taxes. If it is nonprofit, one would 
think they would be using their money for nonprofit purposes.
  This provision was the result of an investigation I conducted into 
the Boys and Girls Club of America, the national umbrella organization 
for thousands of local clubs. In response to my inquiry, the Boys and 
Girls Club of America admitted that, despite closing hundreds of clubs 
nationwide, it held nearly $222 million in investment, of which $54 
million was in offshore investments and another $54 million in 
partnerships. When asked why this money was held offshore, I was told 
it was held to `` . . . avoid issues with unrelated Business Income Tax 
generated by hedge funds that use leverage.''
  I support the mission of the Boys and Girls Clubs, truly I do. It is 
true nothing they did was illegal. However, given our current fiscal 
crisis, I cannot support Federal tax dollars being awarded as grants to 
those who hold millions of dollars offshore--I should say tens of 
millions of dollars offshore.
  Finally, I will note that my amendment includes a 25-percent matching 
requirement for grantees, as I heard the special interest lobbyists 
have been calling and sending panicked messages to many Members in the 
Senate opposing the matching requirement, arguing it would shut off 
Federal money to many grantees.
  This provision mirrors one recently included at a Judiciary Committee 
markup supported by all Judiciary Committee Democrats and some 
Republicans. Matching requirements are often required by grant programs 
that virtually all members have supported. The Government 
Accountability Office even reported in a 2006 report on grant 
management that to strengthen grant management, Congress should 
``ensure mechanisms are of sufficient value'' when implementing grants. 
This is GAO speak for including a matching requirement so grantees are 
financially involved, not simply spending Federal taxpayer dollars.
  That said, I wanted to modify my amendment and strike this provision. 
However, I understand people on the other side of the aisle objected to 
that request so it would be easier to defeat my amendment. Remember, 
this is an amendment Republicans and Democrats accepted in the 
Judiciary Committee. This is big money at stake with Federal grants. 
Talk about special interests, the special interests have spoken. Those 
who oppose my amendment oppose holding grantees accountable for how 
they spend taxpayer dollars. Those who oppose my amendment are

[[Page 15927]]

supporting giving nonprofit charities with money in offshore bank 
accounts taxpayer dollars. It will be interesting to see who opposes 
this provision, especially given the fact that everyone should oppose 
giving taxpayer dollars to those who hold money offshore.
  My amendment is a commonsense way to ensure that taxpayer dollars are 
protected. It is something we should have done long ago. I encourage 
all my colleagues to join me and send a signal that waste, fraud, and 
abuse of taxpayer dollars has no place in a Federal grant programs at 
the Department of Justice. That would include all of them but 
particularly to organizations that hold money offshore to avoid taxes.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.


                     Amendment No. 879, as Modified

  Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, when our American government spends money 
on infrastructure, core infrastructure, we should look first to 
American companies and American workers. But this doesn't always 
happen. In fact, recently, there was a bid proposal in Alaska to build 
a bridge with America's taxpayer money and a Chinese company employing 
Chinese steel outbid the American company using American steel. This 
was a big surprise in that normally there is a framework that helps 
ensure American companies and American workers are able to do the 
infrastructure projects we are funding with our taxpayer dollars so we 
are creating jobs here at home.
  It turns out there is a loophole; whereas, this basic framework 
covers highways, it covers commuting rail, it covers passenger rail but 
doesn't apply to freight rail. This was a freight bridge on tracks that 
do not also have passenger trains on them. I don't know how many tracks 
in America only have freight and not passenger, but when everything got 
sorted out through the appeal process, that is what it came down to.
  This afternoon, we will have a simple amendment that makes this piece 
of the infrastructure more consistent with the rest of the 
infrastructure world. The industrial might of this Nation was built on 
American railroads made from American steel. We often say: Wow, there 
is a loophole you can drive a freight train through. In this case, you 
actually can drive a freight train through the loophole. That is what 
we need to fix.
  At a time when Americans everywhere are searching for jobs, we should 
be supporting American companies that employ and hire Americans, use 
American steel when American taxpayer dollars are employed.
  In the framework for infrastructure, there are some exceptions. Those 
exceptions in this amendment are exactly the same exceptions that are 
provided in the rest of the infrastructure picture; that is, the 
Secretary of Transportation can waive this requirement for U.S.-
produced steel, iron, and manufactured products if the application is 
inconsistent with the public interest. That is a pretty broad ground on 
which the Secretary can make a determination; more specifically, if the 
materials and products are not available in sufficient quantity or 
quality from the American manufacturer or if the inclusion of the 
domestic material would increase the cost of the project by my more 
than 25 percent. This is a small change that fills in or eliminates a 
loophole you can drive a freight train through.
  The bottom line is this: If we don't build things in America, we will 
not have a middle class in America. Our taxpayer dollars should go to 
create good, living-wage jobs for our workers here at home in these 
core infrastructure projects, not to create jobs in China.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  I note 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 Illinois.
  Mr. KIRK. 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. KIRK. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for 
3 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                                 Libya

  Mr. KIRK. Mr. President, we all saw the news, yet to be confirmed, 
that General Qadhafi is dead. This is a victory for our men and women 
in uniform, for the United States, for the administration, but, most 
importantly, for the people of Libya.
  Senators McCain, Graham, Rubio, and I had the privilege 20 days ago 
of traveling to Tripoli. I was quite surprised at what I saw. 
Considering other war zones, Tripoli did not appear to be one of them. 
The rebels took the capital largely intact. Only the Qadhafi compound 
was blown away. There was anti-Qadhafi graffiti--obviously 
spontaneous--everywhere, and some of the most popular people in the 
city were U.S. citizens.
  While many people in Libya do not fully know the position of Senator 
McCain, they knew he was an American leader. Throughout our visit, they 
came out to thank him for the aircraft they saw overhead that they felt 
equalized the battle between them and their government, between the 
professional army of Muammar Qadhafi, the people of Misrata, the people 
of Tripoli, and the people of Benghazi.
  We have the makings of a very pro-U.S. ally. Millions of Libyans 
right now are very thankful for the United States. They feel the 
aircraft overhead that equalized this battle were almost all American. 
In reality, many of those aircraft were British and French from our 
NATO allies. But because of that pro-American feeling, the new 
government there is likely to be overwhelmingly pro-American.
  As we look to a now-secure post-Qadhafi environment, we have to make 
several points.
  First, when we were there, leaders were obviously afraid that as long 
as he lived, Qadhafi could make a comeback. That now no longer looks 
possible at all.
  Second, to head off Islamists who may try to form a party, Prime 
Minister Jibril wanted to call for early elections. We should help him 
call early elections because right now the rebel TNC government is 
overwhelmingly popular and would be elected.
  Next, we have to unify military authority with the new rebel 
government. We were briefed that there are 28 separate militias in 
Tripoli. We should unify military command under them to make sure any 
sectarian violence does not break out with the victory that has come at 
hand.
  Libya is a unique country that does not need foreign assistance from 
the United States. We have seized 34 billion of their dollars and over 
$100 billion in a seized account worldwide. They need assistance. They 
need medical backup, training for their army, support for their 
elections, but they can pay for it.
  One thing they asked of us that we should provide is a hospital ship. 
USNS Comfort should be allowed to go to Libya to care for those who 
were wounded in this battle. We were told 25,000 citizens of Libya died 
in this revolution and 60,000 were wounded. The United States should 
help care for them, and the Libyan Government should reimburse us for 
that effort.
  When we look to the future, we also have a couple of key challenges. 
We were briefed that Qadhafi's chemical weapons stockpile was secure, 
and I think it is, but we need to keep it that way. We were also 
briefed that the arsenals of Libya were looted, including thousands of 
handheld surface-to-air missiles. It should be a top priority of the 
United States to buy or gain custody of those missiles again before 
they become a threat to civil aircraft around the world.
  In the end, as I said, this is a victory for the administration, for 
the men and women of the U.S. military, but especially for the people 
of Libya. If we take the steps I just outlined--security for the 
chemical weapons arsenal, recovery of the surface-to-air missiles, 
support for early elections, and medical care with the provision of a 
U.S. hospital ship--I think we will lock in

[[Page 15928]]

the winning of a new, very pro-U.S. ally in the Middle East.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. President. I rise to speak on amendment No. 
874, my amendment on housing discrimination. My understanding is, when 
we assemble for a series of votes at 2 o'clock, this vote will be voice 
voted, and I particularly appreciate the work of Senator Collins, the 
ranking minority member of the subcommittee, and chairwoman Patty 
Murray for her work and Senator Sanders for his support and 
cosponsorship.
  Housing discrimination, as we know, prevents hard-working families 
from buying homes in the neighborhood of their choosing. Housing 
discrimination not only violates Federal law, it is a barrier to 
economic mobility. It is a morally wrong practice with real-world 
implications.
  A study by the Miami Valley Fair Housing Coalition, located in 
Dayton, OH, found that foreclosed properties in predominately African-
American neighborhoods in that city are kept in significantly worse 
condition than foreclosed properties in White neighborhoods. That is 
bad for local property values, and it is bad for local governments that 
rely on property tax revenues because we know what that does for home 
prices.
  That is why the Department of Housing and Urban Development 
instituted the Fair Housing Initiatives Program, so-called FHIP. FHIP 
invests in the private fair housing organizations that help enforce 
antidiscrimination laws.
  My amendment would put FHIP funding on equal footing with the House 
legislation, increasing it to near its fiscal year 2011 level--exactly 
what the House did.
  This is about maintaining level funding so fair housing organizations 
will not be forced to lay off hundreds of employees across the country.
  This amendment is effective. Fair housing organizations investigated 
65 percent of the Nation's complaints of housing discrimination--nearly 
twice as many as all government agencies combined.
  This amendment is efficient. It saves money by streamlining the 
claims investigation process.
  My amendment is fully paid for, transferring money from HUD's Working 
Capital Fund.
  Discrimination should never be tolerated. Especially in these 
challenging economic times, it would be particularly devastating to cut 
fair housing programs any further.
  I again thank Senator Murray and Senator Collins, the top two 
members--one in each party--of the Transportation, Housing, and Urban 
Development Subcommittee. I thank Senator Sanders for cosponsoring this 
amendment.
  I urge a ``yes'' vote from my colleagues when this amendment comes 
forward for a voice vote in a few minutes.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 60-affirmative vote 
requirement under the previous order for the Brown amendment No. 874, 
as modified, be vitiated.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, on behalf of myself and 32 cosponsors--both 
Republicans and Democrats--I ask unanimous consent that the current 
matter be set aside and amendment No. 875 be called up and made 
pending.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I understand there is an agreement 
regarding the disposition of amendments already in place, but I believe 
this amendment deserves consideration and a vote.
  It is a noncontroversial matter, as far as I am concerned. It would 
simply make permanent 10 separate appropriations riders relating to 
firearms. The House CJS bill did the same thing, but these changes have 
been taken out of the Senate substitute amendment.
  Each of these riders has been in place for a long time--some more 
than 30 years. These clarifying provisions have been enacted year after 
year to preserve the rights of law-abiding gun owners and prevent 
encroachments on the part of the executive branch.
  It does not need to be a yearly exercise. There is widespread support 
for each of these provisions contained in my amendment. Once again, 
they have never been the subject of any significant controversy. My 
amendment would simply make them permanent so we do not have to bring 
them up all the time.
  This amendment would likely pass with more than 60 or 70 votes. I 
hope the leadership and the managers on the other side of the aisle 
will not simply accede to the wishes of a minority of Senators who are 
hostile to second amendment rights by preventing a vote on this 
amendment.
  I ask again for unanimous consent to set aside the pending matter and 
call up amendment No. 875.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I object. We have a good number of 
amendments already pending, and we have a list of amendments already in 
order to be made pending. Until we are able to dispense or dispose of 
some of these pending amendments, I must object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I hope to be able to work with my 
colleagues on the other side. This should not be a difficult exercise. 
It is just a smart thing to do. Once again, I am certain this amendment 
would have the support of a broad majority, a bipartisan majority, of 
my colleagues.
  If the other side wants to prevent a vote--keeping in mind that the 
vast majority of the American people support these provisions--I hope 
they will be able to explain it to their constituents. I hope there 
will be a reconsideration of this amendment and that we can get it up 
and get this matter solved once and for all. I understand the 
distinguished Senator has to object, and I feel very disappointed in 
that, but sooner or later we are going to vote on this amendment, one 
way or the other.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.


                           Amendment No. 860

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I rise in my capacity as chair of the 
Judiciary Committee to say I oppose amendment No. 860. It is a one-
size-fits-all approach. It would have catastrophic consequences to the 
Justice Department and on the important work the Justice Department 
does in supporting local law enforcement, crime victims, and justice 
across the country.
  I have worked with my good friend from Iowa, Senator Grassley, on 
many issues. We have been able to, in a bipartisan way, develop 
accountability measures to ensure that particular grants administered 
by the Department of Justice operate efficiently and effectively. That 
is particularly important at a time of budget austerity. We have done 
it in specific contexts when those measures make a lot of sense.
  For example, in the course of our negotiations of a bipartisan 
version of the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act, we 
worked out specific proposals. Nonetheless, six of the eight 
Republicans on the Judiciary Committee opposed this bill.
  But one size does not fit all. Measures that make sense in one 
program cannot willy-nilly be applied to others without careful 
consideration of the consequences to the programs and, to the intended 
beneficiaries in local law enforcement, and crime victims.
  A one-size-fits-all measure actually might harm rather than help 
important functions at the Department of Justice.
  For example, this amendment would prevent grants to the Boys and 
Girls Clubs of America. I know some have criticized some aspects of the 
Boys and Girls Clubs, and I would be happy to work with any Senator to 
work out these issues. But the Boys and Girls Clubs of America do great 
work.
  I remember one police chief in my State, when asked if I could help 
him get a couple more police officers to help out because of crime 
problems, said: No. Get me a Boys and Girls Club. Get me a place for 
young people to go.
  I know in Vermont they do a great deal, as they do in most States. If 
there

[[Page 15929]]

are reforms that should be made, let's do them, but not just cut out 
the funding in a one-size-fits-all way at a time when we are doing 
everything possible to give young people a different goal than going 
out into a life where they might do things none of us would agree with.
  This amendment would greatly restrict the Department of Justice's 
ability to spend funds for salaries of its own people. Is that going to 
lead to huge cuts in prosecutors and agents? Are we going to be 
imposing a salary cap on top of the one the President has already 
imposed? Are we going to be losing some of our best people? Are we 
going to be unable to develop experienced law enforcement officers or 
prosecutors?
  I know, in law enforcement and prosecution, we value experience. We 
do not want to go for the lowest common denominator. We want people who 
are experienced.
  Again, a willy-nilly amendment does not help.
  The amendment includes a grant-matching requirement. But in some 
programs, grant matching is not a good idea. Let me tell you about one, 
legislation that former Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell and I put 
together. It has worked very well. It is the Leahy Bulletproof Vest 
Partnership Grant Program for local jurisdictions. We have, in some 
local jurisdictions, the ability to waive matching provisions.
  We have seen a rise in the number of assaults and murders of police 
officers across this country. Many officers' lives have been saved 
because they have had bulletproof vests under the Leahy program. They 
would have died otherwise. But they are in small departments, in small 
departments in States that could not afford the $500 or $600 per 
bulletproof vest. Yet we expect these police officers to be out at 3 
o'clock in the morning, usually with no backup. But if they are in a 
small, rural park in West Virginia or Vermont or all these other 
States, they do not have any backup. They are out there alone. We ought 
to give them the kind of protection they need.
  I want our police officers in rural communities who do not have the 
budgeting of a big city department to have this kind of protection. So 
if we put a matching requirement by fiat--again, one-size-fits-all--we 
have a lot of rural police departments that are going to be badly hurt.
  What about crime victims? Crime victims have already suffered great 
loss. Are we going to say: We can help you out, but pony up some money. 
Pony up a matching requirement, and then we will come in and help you. 
We are going to spend a fortune on the guy we lock up who committed a 
crime. We will spend $30,000, $35,000 a year on that person. We are not 
going to ask for any matching money from the criminal. But we are going 
to say to the victim: We can help you, but, sorry--I know you lost all 
this money; I know you have been beaten, you have been bruised, you 
have been injured--you have to come up with some money before we can 
help you. The guy who did it, we will take care of him. We will pay for 
that. But we cannot help you.
  No, no, no, no, no, no, no. I was a prosecutor for 8 years. I know 
how these victims suffer. They are usually the forgotten person in the 
criminal justice system. The headlines are: So and so was arrested. 
They are marched off. We are going to prosecute them. That is good. 
They should be. I prosecuted a lot of those people. But the victim is 
the one forgotten. Victims and others most in need of assistance are 
those least likely to be able to provide matching funds. Rural 
communities, small nonprofit providers, tribes, and States that are 
facing their own problems should not have another funding mandate put 
on them from Washington.
  The new matching requirement and other requirements in this amendment 
would impose new burdens on all money going to State and local law 
enforcement through the COPS Program and many of the Byrne-JAG 
programs. It would prevent many police departments from hiring and 
keeping the officers they need. That is why the National District 
Attorneys Association and the National Association of Police 
Organizations have expressed their opposition to this amendment.
  At one time, I had the honor of serving as vice president of the 
National District Attorneys Association. They care. They care about law 
enforcement. They care about prosecutors. They care about victims. We 
ought to listen to them.
  It also would burden grants awarded through the Debbie Smith Act to 
reduce backlogs in testing rape kits. There are rapists who go free 
because we do not have the money to test the rape kits. Tell that to a 
victim. Tell that to the victim: We do not have the money to go get the 
person who did this. I am not going to vote in a way that I am going to 
be telling that victim: We cannot help you. We cannot test that rape 
kit.
  The Debbie Smith grant program has received bipartisan support. It 
helps to ensure that rape victims will not have to continue to live in 
fear because somebody said: It is going to take a few months to test 
this because we do not have the money. By the way, lock your door. He 
might come back.
  I am not going to vote for that.
  The matching requirement would be devastating to the National Center 
for Missing and Exploited Children, which works hard every day to keep 
our children safe from those who would do them harm. It is hard to 
think of any work more important than protecting our children from the 
evils of abuse and exploitation, but this amendment would make that 
work much harder because the National Center receives Justice 
Department grants, but it does not have matching funds.
  Time is running out. I could tell some stories. I could tell some 
stories about what happens to these children who are exploited and 
abused, and it would have everybody in tears. It did me when I saw them 
as a prosecutor, and it does every day when I read these reports as 
chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
  My God, if we can go and try to protect people around the world, 
let's protect our children here at home.
  I agree with Senator Grassley that we need rigorous accountability 
measures. Of course, we should. We do this in our hearings every week 
in the Judiciary Committee. GAO does it. The inspector general does it. 
But do not do a one-size-fits-all that is going to say to our victims, 
that is going to say to rape victims, that is going to say to exploited 
children or that is going to say to our police officers, who are told 
to go out there without a bulletproof vest but to defend you and me in 
the middle of the night: Sorry, sorry, sorry. The wealthiest Nation on 
Earth cannot help you.
  No; I oppose this amendment.
  I yield the floor.


                     Amendment No. 879, as Modified

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there is now 2 
minutes equally divided prior to a vote in relation to amendment No. 
879 offered by the Senator from Oregon, Mr. Merkley.
  Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I have a modification at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment will be so modified.
  The amendment, as modified, is as follows:

       On page 264, between lines 9 and 10, insert the following:

     SEC. 153. BUYING GOODS PRODUCED IN THE UNITED STATES.

       (a) Compliance.--None of the funds made available under 
     this title to carry out parts A and B of subtitle V of title 
     49, United States Code, may be expended by any entity unless 
     the entity agrees that such expenditures will comply with the 
     requirements under this section.
       (b) Preference.--
       (1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, the Secretary of Transportation may not obligate any 
     funds appropriated under this title to carry out parts A and 
     B of subtitle V of title 49, United States Code, unless all 
     the steel, iron, and manufactured products used in the 
     project are produced in the United States.
       (2) Waiver.--The Secretary of Transportation may waive the 
     application of paragraph (1) in circumstances in which the 
     Secretary determines that--
       (A) such application would be inconsistent with the public 
     interest;
       (B) such materials and products produced in the United 
     States are not produced in a

[[Page 15930]]

     sufficient and reasonably available amount or are not of a 
     satisfactory quality; or
       (C) inclusion of domestic material would increase the cost 
     of the overall project by more than 25 percent.
       (c) Labor Costs.--For purposes of this subsection 
     (b)(2)(C), labor costs involved in final assembly shall not 
     be included in calculating the cost of components.
       (d) Manufacturing Plan.--The Secretary of Transportation 
     shall prepare, in conjunction the Secretary of Commerce, a 
     manufacturing plan that--
       (1) promotes the production of products in the United 
     States that are the subject of waivers granted under 
     subsection (b)(2)(B);
       (2) addresses how such products may be produced in a 
     sufficient and reasonably available amount, and in a 
     satisfactory quality, in the United States; and
       (3) addresses the creation of a public database for the 
     waivers granted under subsection (b)(2)(B).
       (e) Waiver Notice and Comment.--If the Secretary of 
     Transportation determines that a waiver of subsection (b)(1) 
     is warranted, the Secretary, before the date on which such 
     determination takes effect, shall--
       (1) post the waiver request and a detailed written 
     justification of the need for such waiver on the Department 
     of Transportation's public website;
       (2) publish a detailed written justification of the need 
     for such waiver in the Federal Register; and
       (3) provide notice of such determination and an opportunity 
     for public comment for a reasonable period of time not to 
     exceed 15 days.
       (f) State Requirements.--The Secretary of Transportation 
     may not impose any limitation on amounts made available under 
     this title to carry out parts A and B of subtitle V of title 
     49, United States Code, which--
       (1) restricts a State from imposing requirements that are 
     more stringent than the requirements under this section on 
     the use of articles, materials, and supplies mined, produced, 
     or manufactured in foreign countries, in projects carried out 
     with such assistance; or
       (2) prohibits any recipient of such amounts from complying 
     with State requirements authorized under paragraph (1).
       (g) Certification.--The Secretary of Transportation may 
     authorize a manufacturer or supplier of steel, iron, or 
     manufactured goods to correct, after bid opening, any 
     certification of noncompliance or failure to properly 
     complete the certification (except for failure to sign the 
     certification) under this section if such manufacturer or 
     supplier attests, under penalty of perjury, and establishes, 
     by a preponderance of the evidence, that such manufacturer or 
     supplier submitted an incorrect certification as a result of 
     an inadvertent or clerical error.
       (h) Review.--Any entity adversely affected by an action by 
     the Department of Transportation under this section is 
     entitled to seek judicial review of such action in accordance 
     with section 702 of title 5, United States Code.
       (i) Minimum Cost.--The requirements under this section 
     shall only apply to contracts for which the costs exceed 
     $100,000.
       (j) Consistency With International Agreements.--This 
     section shall be applied in a manner consistent with United 
     States obligations under international agreements.
       (k) Fraudulent Use of ``Made in America'' Label.--An entity 
     is ineligible to receive a contract or subcontract made with 
     amounts appropriated under this title to carry out parts A 
     and B of subtitle V of title 49, United States Code, if a 
     court or department, agency, or instrumentality of the 
     Government determines that the person intentionally--
       (1) affixed a ``Made in America'' label, or a label with an 
     inscription having the same meaning, to goods sold in or 
     shipped to the United States that are used in a project to 
     which this section applies, but were not produced in the 
     United States; or
       (2) represented that goods described in paragraph (1) were 
     produced in the United States.

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I yield back all time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEAHY. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sanders). Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. 
Lautenberg) is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 55, nays 44, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 174 Leg.]

                                YEAS--55

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     Boxer
     Brown (OH)
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coons
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Johnson (SD)
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Manchin
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Nelson (FL)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--44

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Boozman
     Brown (MA)
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coats
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Enzi
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (WI)
     Kirk
     Kyl
     Lee
     Lieberman
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rubio
     Sessions
     Thune
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Warner
     Wicker

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Lautenberg
       
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 55, the nays are 
44. Under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the adoption of the 
amendment, the amendment is rejected.


          Amendment No. 874, As Modified, to Amendment No. 738

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there is now 2 
minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote in relation to 
amendment No. 874, as modified, offered by the Senator from Ohio.
  The Senator from Ohio is recognized.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 874.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Ohio (Mr. Brown), for himself and Mr. 
     Sanders, proposes an amendment numbered 874, as modified, to 
     amendment No. 738.

  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

 (Purpose: To increase amounts made available to carry out section 561 
of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1987, and to provide an 
                                offset)

       On page 333, line 9, strike ``$35,940,000'' and insert 
     ``$42,500,000''.
       On page 336, line 1, strike ``$199,035,000'' and insert 
     ``$192,475,000''.
       On page 333, line 8, strike ``$64,287,000'' and insert 
     ``$70,847,000''.

  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. President, housing discrimination not only 
violates our laws, it is a barrier to economic mobility. This amendment 
would put FHIP funding on equal footing with the House legislation. It 
is about maintaining level funding so that fair housing organizations 
won't be forced to lay off hundreds of employees across the country. 
The amendment is effective. Fair housing organizations investigated 65 
percent of the Nation's complaints--nearly twice as many as all other 
government agencies combined. It is efficient and saves money by 
streamlining the claims process.
  My amendment is paid for by transferring funds from HUD's working 
capital fund. I thank the chair and ranking member, Senators Murray and 
Collins, for supporting this amendment, and Senator Sanders for 
cosponsoring it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time in opposition?
  Mr. KOHL. I yield back our time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 874) was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 815

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 2 
minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote on amendment No. 815, 
offered by the Senator from Kansas, Mr. Moran. Who yields time?
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, we yield back our time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas is recognized.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, the pending business before the Senate is 
an amendment I offered yesterday, Moran

[[Page 15931]]

No. 815. There has been agreement that it will be accepted on voice 
vote, and I appreciate the leadership of Chairman Kohl and Ranking 
Member Blunt.
  I yield the remaining time, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 815) was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 860

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there is now 2 
minutes equally divided prior to a vote in relation to amendment No. 
860 offered by the Senator from Iowa, Mr. Grassley.
  The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, this is a good-government amendment, and 
it goes after the Justice Department grant management program because 
the inspector general has had grant management at the top of his 10 
major management challenges. The inspector general says that management 
of grants at the Justice Department is abominable, so this amendment is 
trying to take care of what the inspector general has said is needed to 
be done for a long period of time. Grant recipients would be held to 
basic principles of accountability. There are only a handful of grants 
audited each year, but out of that handful 25 percent talk about 
mismanagement, fraud, and things of that nature.
  A vote against my amendment would be a vote to allow fraud, waste, 
and abuse of taxpayer-funded grant programs. A vote against my 
amendment would allow nonprofit charities to continue to hold money in 
offshore bank accounts for tax purposes and still receive Federal 
grants. I have a letter in my office that justifies $54 million in 
offshore accounts.
  I hope my colleagues will vote for this good-government amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I have worked with my good friend from Iowa 
on accountability measures and will continue to do so but not for this 
amendment.
  This is a one-size-fits-all. There is a reason the National District 
Attorneys Association and a reason the National Association of Police 
Organizations oppose it. This would make it impossible for small, rural 
communities to get bulletproof vests under the Leahy-Campbell 
bulletproof vest program. This would make it impossible for some of the 
small departments to have the money to pay for rape kits, so they would 
have to tell the rape victim: Sorry, we can't go after the person who 
raped you, even though they might come back, because we don't have the 
money. We don't have the money to test this rape kit.
  This is a one-size-fits-all that is going to hurt law enforcement. It 
is going to hurt victims. We will pay the price of the person we lock 
up, but we won't do anything to help the victim? I oppose it.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. It is supported by the National Taxpayers Union.
  Mr. LEAHY. I stand with the prosecutors and the police who oppose it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
  The question is on agreeing to the Grassley amendment No. 860.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. 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.
  The result was announced--yeas 46, nays 54, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 175 Leg.]

                                YEAS--46

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coats
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Enzi
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (WI)
     Kirk
     Kyl
     Lee
     Lugar
     Manchin
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moran
     Paul
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rubio
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Thune
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Wicker

                                NAYS--54

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Blumenthal
     Boxer
     Brown (MA)
     Brown (OH)
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Conrad
     Coons
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Johnson (SD)
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Nelson (FL)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 46, the nays are 
54. Under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the adoption of 
this amendment, the amendment is rejected.
  The Senator from Oklahoma.


Amendments Nos. 794 through 797, 799 through 801, and 833, to Amendment 
                                No. 738

  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to call up the 
following amendments en bloc, displacing the amendment that is present, 
but considering each one of them individually: amendments Nos. 794 
through 797, amendments Nos. 799 through 801, and amendment No. 833.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendments are pending 
en bloc.
  The amendments are as follows:


                           amendment no. 794

  (Purpose: To provide taxpayers with an annual report disclosing the 
  cost of, performance by, and areas for improvements for Government 
                   programs, and for other purposes)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       Sec. __. (a) Each fiscal year, for purposes of the report 
     required by subsection (b), the head of each agency shall--
       (1) identify and describe every program administered by the 
     agency;
       (2) for each such program--
       (A) determine the total administrative expenses of the 
     program;
       (B) determine the expenditures for services for the 
     program;
       (C) estimate the number of clients served by the program 
     and beneficiaries who received assistance under the program 
     (if applicable); and
       (D) estimate--
       (i) the number of full-time employees who administer the 
     program; and
       (ii) the number of full-time equivalents (whose salary is 
     paid in part or full by the Federal Government through a 
     grant, contract, subaward of a grant or contract, cooperative 
     agreement, or other form of financial award or assistance) 
     who assist in administering the program; and
       (3) identify programs within the Federal Government 
     (whether inside or outside the agency) with duplicative or 
     overlapping missions, services, and allowable uses of funds.
       (b) With respect to the requirements of subsections (a)(1) 
     and (a)(2)(B), the head of an agency may use the same 
     information provided in the catalog of domestic and 
     international assistance programs in the case of any program 
     that is a domestic or international assistance program.
       (c) Not later than February 1 of each fiscal year, the head 
     of each agency shall publish on the official public website 
     of the agency a report containing the following:
       (1) The information required under subsection (a) with 
     respect to the preceding fiscal year.
       (2) The latest performance reviews (including the program 
     performance reports required under section 1116 of title 31, 
     United States Code) of each program of the agency identified 
     under subsection (a)(1), including performance indicators, 
     performance goals, output measures, and other specific 
     metrics used to review the program and how the program 
     performed on each.
       (3) For each program that makes payments, the latest 
     improper payment rate of the program and the total estimated 
     amount of improper payments, including fraudulent payments 
     and overpayments.
       (4) The total amount of unspent and unobligated program 
     funds held by the agency and grant recipients (not including 
     individuals) stated as an amount--
       (A) held as of the beginning of the fiscal year in which 
     the report is submitted; and
       (B) held for five fiscal years or more.
       (5) Such recommendations as the head of the agency 
     considers appropriate--
       (A) to consolidate programs that are duplicative or 
     overlapping;
       (B) to eliminate waste and inefficiency; and
       (C) to terminate lower priority, outdated, and unnecessary 
     programs and initiatives.
       (d) In this section:
       (1) The term ``administrative costs'' has the meaning as 
     determined by the Director of the Office of Management and 
     Budget under section 504(b)(2) of Public Law 111-85

[[Page 15932]]

     (31 U.S.C. 1105 note), except the term shall also include, 
     for purposes of that section and this section, with respect 
     to an agency--
       (A) costs incurred by the agency as well as costs incurred 
     by grantees, subgrantees, and other recipients of funds from 
     a grant program or other program administered by the agency; 
     and
       (B) expenses related to personnel salaries and benefits, 
     property management, travel, program management, promotion, 
     reviews and audits, case management, and communication about, 
     promotion of, and outreach for programs and program 
     activities administered by the agency.
       (2) The term ``services'' has the meaning provided by the 
     Director of the Office of Management and Budget and shall be 
     limited to only activities, assistance, and aid that provide 
     a direct benefit to a recipient, such as the provision of 
     medical care, assistance for housing or tuition, or financial 
     support (including grants and loans).
       (3) The term ``agency'' has the same meaning given that 
     term in section 551(1) of title 5, United States Code, except 
     that the term also includes offices in the legislative branch 
     other than the Government Accountability Office.
       (4) The terms ``performance indicator'', ``performance 
     goal'', ``output measure'', and ``program activity'' have the 
     meanings provided by section 1115 of title 31, United States 
     Code.
       (5) The term ``program'' has the meaning provided by the 
     Director of the Office of Management and Budget and shall 
     include, with respect to an agency, any organized set of 
     activities directed toward a common purpose or goal 
     undertaken by the agency that includes services, projects, 
     processes, or financial or other forms of assistance, 
     including grants, contracts, cooperative agreements, compacts 
     loans, leases, technical support, consultation, or other 
     guidance.
       (e)(1)(A) Section 6101 of title 31, United States Code, is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(7) The term `international assistance' has the meaning 
     provided by the Director of the Office of Management and 
     Budget and shall include, with respect to an agency, 
     assistance including grants, contracts, compacts, loans, 
     leases, and other financial and technical support to--
       ``(A) foreign nations;
       ``(B) international organizations;
       ``(C) services provided by programs administered by any 
     agency outside of the territory of the United States; and
       ``(D) services funded by any agency provided in foreign 
     nations or outside of the territory of the United States by 
     non-governmental organizations and entities.
       ``(8) The term `assistance program' means each of the 
     following:
       ``(A) A domestic assistance program.
       ``(B) An international assistance program.''.
       (B)(i) Section 6102 of title 31, Untied States Code, is 
     amended--
       (I) in subsection (a), in the matter preceding paragraph 
     (1), by striking ``domestic'' both places it appears; and
       (II) in subsection (b), by striking ``domestic''.
       (ii) Section 6104 of title 31, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (I) in subsections (a) and (b), by inserting ``and 
     international assistance'' after ``domestic assistance'' each 
     place it appears; and
       (II) in the section heading, by inserting ``and 
     international'' after ``domestic''.
       (f) Section 6104(b) of title 31, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (2);
       (2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (3) and 
     inserting a semicolon; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following new paragraphs:
       ``(4) the information required in paragraphs (1) through 
     (4) of section 419(a) of the Transportation, Housing and 
     Urban Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 
     2012;
       ``(5) the budget function or functions applicable to each 
     assistance program contained in the catalog;
       ``(6) with respect to each assistance program in the 
     catalog, an electronic link to the annual report required 
     under section 419(b) of the Transportation, Housing and Urban 
     Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2012, 
     by the agency that carries out the assistance program; and
       ``(7) the authorization and appropriation amount provided 
     by law for each assistance program in the catalog in the 
     current fiscal year, and a notation if the program is not 
     authorized in the current year, has not been authorized in 
     law, or does not receive a specific line item 
     appropriation.''.
       (g) Section 6104 of title 31, United States Code, is 
     further amended by adding at the end the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(e) Compliance.--On the website of the catalog of Federal 
     domestic and international assistance information, the 
     Administrator shall provide the following:
       ``(1) Contact information.--The title and contact 
     information for the person in each agency responsible for the 
     implementation, compliance, and quality of the data in the 
     catalog.
       ``(2) Report.--An annual report compiled by the 
     Administrator of domestic assistance programs, international 
     assistance programs, and agencies with respect to which the 
     requirements of this chapter are not met.''.
       (h) Section 6103 of title 31, United States Code, is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(d) Bulk Downloads.--The information in the catalog of 
     domestic and international assistance under section 6104 of 
     this title shall be available on a regular basis through bulk 
     downloads from the website of the catalog.''.
       (i) Section 6101(2) of title 31, United States Code, is 
     amended by inserting before the period at the end the 
     following: ``except such term also includes offices in the 
     legislative branch other than the Government Accountability 
     Office''.
       (j)(1) Not later than 120 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Director of the Office of 
     Management and Budget shall prescribe regulations to 
     implement this section.
       (2) This section shall be implemented beginning with the 
     first full fiscal year occurring after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.


                           amendment no. 795

 (Purpose: To collect more than $500,000,000 from deadbeat developers 
              for failed, botched, and abandoned projects)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       Sec. __.  The Secretary of Housing and Urban Development--
       (1) shall cancel any funding obligated for a construction 
     or renovation project for which the Department of Housing and 
     Urban Development committed to provide $50,000 or more that--
       (A) commenced before the date that is 5 years before the 
     date of enactment of this Act;
       (B) is not complete;
       (C) did not draw funds against a Department of Housing and 
     Urban Development account during the 18-month period ending 
     on the date of enactment of this Act;
       (D) on the date of enactment of this Act, is vacant and has 
     not been sold or leased; or
       (E) has not drawn funds against a Department of Housing and 
     Urban Development account, if, on the date of enactment of 
     this Act, funds have been obligated for the project for more 
     than 1 year;
       (2) may not provide any funding on or after the date of 
     enactment of this Act for a project described in paragraph 
     (1); and
       (3) shall transfer any funds deobligated under paragraph 
     (1) or made available to carry out a project described in 
     paragraph (1) to the general fund of the Treasury and are 
     hereby rescinded.


                           amendment no. 796

  (Purpose: To end lending schemes that force taxpayers to repay the 
  loans of delinquent developers and bailout failed or poorly planned 
                            local projects)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       Sec. __.  A person or entity that receives a Federal loan 
     using amounts made available under division A, division B, or 
     division C of this Act may not repay the loan using a Federal 
     grant or other award funded with amounts made available under 
     division A, division B, or division C of this Act; Provided 
     further, a grant or other award funded with amounts made 
     available under division A, division B, or division C of this 
     Act may not be used to repay a Federal loan.


                           amendment no. 797

(Purpose: To delay or cancel new construction, purchasing, leasing, and 
           renovation of Federal buildings and office space)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       Sec. __. (a) Except as provided in subsection (b), none of 
     the funds made available by this Act or an amendment made by 
     this Act may be used to pay for renovation projects that have 
     not commenced as of the date of enactment of this Act 
     (including renovation projects for which plans have been 
     created, but for which physical renovation has not begun) to 
     any Federal building or office space in existence on the date 
     of enactment of this Act, or for the purchase, execution of a 
     leasing agreement, or construction of any Federal building or 
     office space that has not commenced as of the date of 
     enactment of this Act (including construction or purchase or 
     lease agreements for which plans have been established, but 
     for which physical construction has not begun or an agreement 
     has not been executed).
       (b) Subsection (a) shall not apply to the renovation of, 
     purchase of, leasing agreement for, or construction of 
     (including renovation, construction, or purchase or leasing 
     agreements for which plans have been established, but for 
     which physical renovation or construction has not begun or an 
     agreement has not been executed) any Federal building or 
     office space needed to address a safety or national security 
     issue.


                           amendment no. 799

 (Purpose: To prohibit the use of funds to carry out the Rural Energy 
                          for America Program)

       At the appropriate place insert the following:
       Sec. ___.  None of the funds made available under this Act 
     may be used to carry out the Rural Energy for America Program 
     established under section 9007 of the Farm Security and Rural 
     Investment Act of 2002 (7

[[Page 15933]]

     U.S.C. 8107): Provided further, any funds appropriated by 
     this Act for this purpose are hereby rescinded.


                           amendment no. 800

     (Purpose: To reduce funding for the Rural Development Agency)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       Sec. _.  Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, 
     the total amount of funds made available under this title to 
     the Rural Development Agency are reduced by $1,000,000,000, 
     to be applied proportionally to each budget activity, 
     activity group, and subactivity group and each program, 
     project, and activity of the Rural Development Agency carried 
     out under this title.


                           amendment no. 801

  (Purpose: To eliminate funding for the Small Community Air Service 
                          Development Program)

       On page 226, strike lines 1 through 5, and insert ``and not 
     less than $29,250,000 shall be for Airport Technology 
     Research: Provided further, no funds made available under 
     this Act may be used to carry out the Small Community Air 
     Service Development Program.''


                           amendment no. 833

   (Purpose: To end the outdated direct payment program and to begin 
     restoring the farm safety net as a true risk management tool)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       Sec. _.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used by the Secretary of Agriculture to provide direct 
     payments under section 1103 or 1303 of the Food, 
     Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 8713, 8753).

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.


                           Amendment No. 753

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am going to speak now against the pending 
amendment of Senator Ayotte, which would prohibit the prosecution of 
terrorists in Federal courts.
  We need all available tools against terrorists, including the 
possibility of prosecution in Federal courts or before military 
commissions. While there is no doubt we have made use of military 
commissions in the course of previous wars, we have never enacted 
legislation closing the Federal courts to the prosecution of our 
enemies. We have always left it up to the executive branch to determine 
which tool best suits an individual case.
  Indeed, both the Bush administration and the Obama administration 
have repeatedly used the Federal courts to bring terrorists to justice. 
For example, the Bush administration successfully used the Federal 
courts to prosecute Richard Reid, the so-called shoe bomber, in October 
of 2002. The Bush administration used the Federal courts to 
successfully prosecute Ahmed Omar Abu, who was convicted and sentenced 
to 30 years in 2005. The Bush administration used the Federal courts to 
prosecute and sentence Zacarias Moussaoui, the so-called twentieth 
hijacker, convicted in 2006, and sentenced to life in prison for his 
role in the 9/11 attacks.
  The Obama administration successfully used the Federal courts when 
they prosecuted Najibulla Zazi in 2009 for his role in the New York 
subway bombing plot; when they prosecuted Faisal Shahzad in 2010 in 
connection with the Times Square bombing; and when they prosecuted Umar 
Farouk Abdulmutallab, the so-called underwear bomber, in 2011 in 
connection with the attempted Christmas Day bombing in Detroit.
  If the Ayotte amendment had been law, these successful court 
prosecutions would have been thrown into doubt. In fact, prosecution 
might not have been possible in any forum, because if a court 
determined that a military commission lacked jurisdiction and if the 
Ayotte amendment precluded jurisdiction of a Federal court, there 
couldn't be prosecution in any forum whatsoever.
  That could have actually been the outcome in the case of Ahmed 
Warsame, an accused member of the terrorist group al-Shabaab. He was 
indicted in Federal court earlier this year on charges of providing 
material support to al-Shabaab and al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula. 
In the Warsame case, our national security and legal teams determined 
that the Federal courts provided the best forum in which to prosecute 
Warsame for his alleged crimes.
  This decision was reached for two reasons:
  One, Warsame is alleged to have violated a number of Federal 
statutes, including sections of the criminal code prohibiting 
trafficking in explosives, use of dangerous weapons, acts of 
international terrorism, providing material support to foreign 
terrorist organizations, and receiving military type training from 
foreign terrorist organizations. Only the Federal courts have 
jurisdiction to try violations of those sections. Those offenses are 
not listed as crimes under the Military Commissions Act.
  There is a second reason why it was decided that Warsame was best 
prosecuted in a Federal court, which could not happen under the 
amendment of Senator Ayotte. Warsame appears to have engaged in acts of 
terrorism and material support to terrorism, both of which are crimes 
under the Military Commissions Act, but--and this is the problem--only 
if they are committed ``in the context of and associated with 
hostilities'' against the United States.
  The administration concluded it would have been difficult to prove 
beyond a reasonable doubt before a military commission that Warsame met 
those jurisdictional thresholds. As a result, if the Ayotte amendment 
were law, it might be impossible for the United States to prosecute 
Warsame in any forum.
  Our Federal prosecutors have a proven track record of prosecuting 
terrorists in Federal courts. Two years ago, the Justice Department 
informed us that there were 208 inmates in Federal prisons who had been 
sentenced for crimes relating to international terrorism, and an 
additional 139 inmates who had been sentenced for crimes related to 
domestic terrorism. Those were crimes which were prosecuted in Federal 
courts.
  By contrast, only four enemy combatants have been convicted by 
military commissions since 9/11, two of them, by the way, as a result 
of plea agreements, sending them to Australia and to Canada.
  Critics of the decision to try Warsame in Federal court apparently 
would prefer that he be tried before a military commission even though 
he might be less likely to be convicted there due to the jurisdictional 
issues.
  The most appropriate forum for trial should be determined, as it was 
in Warsame, on the basis of the nature of the offense, the nature of 
the evidence, and the likelihood of successful prosecution. The 
executive branch officials who make these determinations are more 
likely to reach a sound conclusion after weighing those factors than 
would be the result of a one-size-fits-all legislative restriction that 
we would impose under the Ayotte amendment.
  Yesterday afternoon we received a letter from the Secretary of 
Defense and the Attorney General expressing their ``strong opposition'' 
to the Ayotte amendment. The letter states as follows:

       Whether a given case should be tried in an Article III 
     court or before a military commission is a decision that 
     should be based on the facts and circumstances of the case 
     and the overall national security interests of the United 
     States. It is a decision best left in the hands of 
     experienced national security professionals.

  The letter continues:

       If we are to safeguard the American people, we must be in a 
     position to employ every lawful instrument of national 
     power--including both courts and military commissions--to 
     ensure that terrorists are brought to justice and can no 
     longer threaten American lives. By depriving us of one of our 
     most potent weapons in the fight against terrorism, the 
     amendment would make it more likely that terrorists would 
     escape justice and innocent lives would be put at risk.

  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the letter be printed in the 
Congressional Record immediately following my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1)
  Mr. LEVIN. This issue, as the Presiding Officer may recall, came up 
in the Armed Services Committee during our markup of the Defense 
Authorization Act. Our bill expressly allows the transfer of detainees 
for trial by a court or competent tribunal having

[[Page 15934]]

lawful jurisdiction. The amendment of Senator Ayotte to delete that 
authority was defeated in the Armed Services Committee by a vote of 19 
to 7.
  The bottom line is that Congress has never before attempted to 
prevent the prosecution of terrorists in Federal court. We should not 
do so now. We should continue to use military commissions in cases 
where they are the best place for prosecution and for trial. We should 
not foreclose prosecution and trial in Federal courts.

                               Exhibit 1

     Hon. Harry Reid,
     Majority Leader, U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Mitch McConnell,
     Minority Leader, U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Leader Reid and Leader McConnell: We write to express 
     our strong opposition to the Ayotte amendment to H.R. 2112, 
     which would severely curtail the ability of the Executive 
     branch to prosecute alleged terrorists in Federal court.
       The amendment represents an extreme and unprecedented 
     encroachment on the authority of the Executive Branch to 
     determine when and where to prosecute terrorist suspects. 
     Whether a given case should be tried in an Article III court 
     or before a military commission is a decision that should be 
     based on the facts and circumstances of the case and the 
     overall national security interests of the United States. It 
     is a decision best left in the hands of experienced national 
     security professionals.
       If we are to safeguard the American people, we must be in a 
     position to employ every lawful instrument of national 
     power--including both courts and military commissions--to 
     ensure that terrorists are brought to justice and can no 
     longer threaten American lives. By depriving us of one of our 
     most potent weapons in the fight against terrorism, the 
     amendment would make it more likely that terrorists will 
     escape justice and innocent lives will be put at risk.
     Leon E. Panetta,
       Secretary of Defense.
     Eric H. Holder, Jr.,
       Attorney General.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts. Madam President, I rise to speak today as 
in morning business for about 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. McCaskill). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                       Withholding Tax Relief Act

  Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts. Madam President, I rise to speak in 
strong support of a bill we will be voting on, I hope, later today, S. 
1726, the Withholding Tax Relief Act of 2011, which has over 30 
cosponsors. You are one of them, Madam President, and there are many 
others. It is based on legislation I have introduced on three separate 
occasions which currently has almost one-third of the entire Senate 
cosponsoring it. As I said, I brought it up before, and I am glad it 
will finally be getting a vote.
  This is exactly the type of bipartisan jobs bill that the American 
people are yearning for and that we should be focusing on, and I am 
glad we are finally able to bring the repeal of this job-killing tax 
provision to the floor for a serious vote. This is a jobs bill, plain 
and simple. I don't know how else you can phrase it.
  Section 3402(t) of the Tax Code will require, beginning in January of 
2013, Federal, State and local governments to withhold 3 percent of 
nearly all contract payments made to private companies, as well as 
Medicare payments, construction payments, and certain loan payments. 
This is an arbitrary tax that is extremely expensive to implement and 
punishes the many for the bad acts of the few. What is more, this tax 
absolutely promises to kill jobs at a time when we absolutely cannot 
afford to kill any jobs.
  The Government Withholding Relief Coalition, a coalition of more than 
100 members--I have a sheaf here of 4 pages of groups: American Bankers 
Association, Americans for Tax Reform, National Association of 
Manufacturers, wholesalers, National League of Cities, chambers of 
commerce--4 pages of groups and entities, over 100 members, a cross-
section of America. They have estimated that a combined 5-year total 
cost to the States and the Federal Government in implementing this 
legislation could be as high as $75 billion. The Department of Defense 
alone has estimated this provision could cost the DOD around $17 
billion.
  I know Chairman Levin, who spoke before me--we are wrestling with 
trying to reinstate I think $20 to $25 billion from what the 
appropriations folks cut. That is real money.
  Here is the catch: It is estimated to bring in only around $8 billion 
during that same period. I am not sure about you, Madam President, but 
you have the cost of approximately $75 billion, the cost to the States 
and the Federal Government of implementing the legislation, and then 
the DOD is $17 billion, and yet we are only going to get $8 billion in 
return? I do not know how else to say it except that only on Capitol 
Hill does something such as that make sense, where we are spending more 
than we are actually going to be getting.
  Unfortunately, there are many other reasons this provision should be 
repealed as soon as possible. At a time when the State and local 
governments are under extreme financial stress, why would we want to 
force another unfunded, costly mandate on them to recover minimal funds 
for the Federal Treasury? It makes no sense. As I said before, only in 
Washington does spending $2 in order to recoup $1 make any sense.
  I am encouraged by many of the cosponsors. As I said, it is a 
bipartisan group. At what point do you see Senator Franken and Senator 
Paul on the same bill together and everybody in between as well?
  I am concerned, as are many others, that businesses that contract 
with the government will simply pass on the costs of this provision to 
the government in the form of higher bids on projects. I am also 
concerned about the effects on small businesses as well. Senator Snowe, 
the ranking member of the Small Business Committee, on which I serve, 
and my follow cosponsor on my original bill, recognized early on with 
me that this provision has destructive consequences for small 
businesses. Everybody here knows it.
  At what point do we put politics aside and just agree to pass 
something that is so simple? This provision makes absolutely no sense. 
As you know, it will restrict cashflow and discourage small businesses 
from participating in Federal contracting.
  Members of the construction industry are equally worried. As you 
know, that is an industry which has been devastated. They are equally 
concerned that it will tax away all their anticipated profit on 
government projects, thus diminishing competition and further raising 
costs to the government.
  There is a reason it has been delayed over and over since 2005. 
Everyone knows it can never go into effect because it will place an 
extraordinary cost burden on the Federal Government and State and local 
governments as well. We cannot afford to shoulder that burden right 
now; everyone agrees.
  Once again, the 30 cosponsors of the original bill represent a 
diverse cross-section.
  The President proposed its delay in his most recent jobs package.
  I said before, why don't we work on that which we can all agree? Why 
don't we just take up the measures in a bipartisan, bicameral manner 
and get them out the door? I understand the House is working on this. 
We are doing it now. It is a small piece, a small step, but let's get 
it right out the door. There is no reason we should not be able to do 
it.
  Last week, I had an opportunity to speak before the Small Business 
Committee with Secretary Geithner, who issued the provision's latest 
delay in May, about the importance of fully repealing this provision.
  This repeal is one of those rare opportunities we have around here 
where everyone can be on the same team. It is very similar to when we 
passed the Arlington Cemetery bill, with your leadership, Madam 
President. In the midst of all the problems we had last year, the 
legislative bodies of both branches came together and passed the 
Arlington Cemetery bill. I look at this as a similar provision where we 
can actually do something in a bipartisan, bicameral manner and get it 
passed.
  I urge my colleagues to rise above partisan politics and support this 
truly bipartisan legislation. As I said before,

[[Page 15935]]

we are Americans first. We are Americans first. To me, that means it 
should not matter whether this is a Republican bill or a Democratic 
bill. It matters that it is a bill that is going to help small 
businesses and Americans who are fighting on a daily basis just to make 
ends meet.
  We have a great opportunity today to move forward on a piece of jobs 
legislation and pass this portion of the bill that is, in fact, 
supported by the President and scheduled, as I said, to be taken up in 
the House next week.
  I offer my complete support for the bill and appreciate the leader 
for bringing it to the floor for a vote.
  I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  (The remarks of Mr. Hoeven pertaining to the introduction of S. 1751 
are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. BLUNT. Madam President, I note the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BLUNT. 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. BLUNT. Madam President, yesterday, around 5:30 or so, we had all 
kinds of Members who suddenly wanted to come over and talk about their 
amendments. Now is an opportunity to talk about these three 
appropriations bills. The floor is open. There are a number of pending 
amendments. Hopefully, Members will come over and offer amendments or 
talk about the amendments they have offered. We want to move through 
this legislation as quickly as we can but, actually, no quicker than we 
need to. There is plenty of time. If Members want to talk about this 
bill, if they want to support the bill or oppose the bill or maybe more 
likely right now come and talk about the significant number of pending 
amendments, this is a good time to do that.
  I suppose the other thing I could and should talk about that I know 
the Chair would be happy with would be the great Cardinals victory last 
night. Even the cushions in the back of the Chamber seem to be a little 
brighter red today than they normally are. So maybe the Texans need to 
come and talk about their amendments and talk about the Rangers. But I 
will say that the Cardinals team, from the last week or so of August 
until right now, has been one of the true miracles of baseball 
history--going from 10\1/2\ games to even qualifying to be the wildcard 
in the playoffs and almost every game from that moment on having the 
sense that this is the intensity of the final game of the season.
  All Cardinals fans are proud. There is quite a bit of red on today 
here on the Senate floor.
  There is another Cardinals game tonight, and I wouldn't mind watching 
some of it. My best chance of doing that is if Members will come over 
here and talk about their pending amendments now and defend those 
amendments.
  It seems to me as though this week the Senate has been working as the 
Senate should work--bringing appropriations bills to the floor, 
debating those bills, letting Members propose amendments--and hopefully 
we will continue with these bills: the Agriculture, Rural Development, 
and Food and Drug Administration bill Senator Kohl and I brought to the 
floor; the Transportation, and Housing and Urban Development bill; the 
Commerce-State-Justice bill--I think it may be Commerce-Justice now. So 
we have a lot of topics. We don't want to let this appropriations 
process go to one huge bill that nobody understands, nobody has time to 
read, and nobody has time to debate. So hopefully, with all of these 
pending amendments, we will have some discussion. We have had a number 
of votes already today, but a number of Members have things they would 
like to see discussed and voted on, and hopefully we will begin to see 
more of that happen.
  With that, it does appear we don't have a quorum yet or other Members 
to speak, 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.
  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, I wish to echo the comments of my 
colleague from Missouri. I too invite Senators to come down. We are 
showing that we can govern. We have our appropriations bills here, and 
we have already disposed of 8 amendments--actually, I think we have 
disposed of more than 8 by now--but we have 22 amendments pending. If 
Members have an amendment, come and speak to it. If a Member has 
reviewed these 22 and opposes them, have your day, have your say, 
because that is what the Senate is--due diligence, due deliberation.
  What we don't want is everybody--exactly as the Senator from Missouri 
said, who is the ranking member on Agriculture--coming at 5:30 or 6 or 
7 o'clock and wanting to speak. I know the leadership on both sides of 
the aisle would like to move expeditiously and even, if possible, 
finish this bill tonight. I think we have agreed we are willing to work 
through the evening to dispose of amendments, but Senators have to 
speak on their amendments.
  So, again, on my side of the aisle, I would really encourage Members, 
if they have an amendment, to come and speak to it. Regardless of the 
side of the aisle a Member is on, if a person opposes an amendment, 
come and speak on it as well.
  Some of these are quite controversial. Again, we invite this due 
deliberation.
  Everybody has worked hard. We have done a lot in appropriations. We 
have ended earmarks--a topic I know is of special interest to many of 
our colleagues. We have made significant cuts this year as a result of 
the continuing resolution and other agreements. But at the same time, 
the subcommittees have worked hard to follow the mission of what we are 
trying to do in this country: have a more frugal government.
  I know in my bill we have paid particular attention on how to curb 
waste, and I will be speak about that shortly. But, again, I invite my 
colleagues to come to 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.

                          ____________________