[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 11]
[Senate]
[Pages 15953-15964]
[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

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, we have a consent request we are working on. 
We hope to have people sign off on that. If they do not, one or many 
are going to have to object to it. We have spent enough time on this 
that we need to move forward.
  We know we have a number of votes already scheduled. Senator 
McConnell has something pending. I do too. We know we are going to have 
to vote on that, but that is the least of our worries. We have to work 
through this appropriations stuff. So people who have concerns, bring 
them to David Schiappa or Gary Myrick because otherwise I might come 
here and offer a consent request. Either we are going to move this bill 
forward or move off this bill.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, for my colleagues who are here, I wish to 
explain the reason for an amendment which I have filed, No. 912, along 
with the cosponsors, my colleagues Senator McCain and Senator Cornyn 
from Texas, an amendment which seeks to add some money for the U.S. 
Marshals Service. I wish to explain why we think this is a good idea, 
but first to say that in speaking with Leader Reid, we are trying with 
our staff and the majority staff to see if we can work out the 
appropriate pay-fors for this in an appropriate amount of money that 
would assist the U.S. Marshals Service. Hopefully we can work something 
out. I am just trying to explain the basis for this at this time.
  As you know, we have done a lot of work on the borders to try to 
secure them, and that has required us to add money for the U.S. Border 
Patrol and several other accounts in the Department of Homeland 
Security. We have added money for the Department of Justice. We need 
new judges, courtrooms, prosecutors, defenders. It has taken a lot of 
money to secure the border with all of the different aspects that are 
involved.
  The one area we have not kept up with is the U.S. Marshals Service. 
All of us know the U.S. Marshals Service. It is a great organization. 
These people do tremendous work. But sometimes we forget them. And what 
we have learned here is that while we have an increased ability to 
apprehend illegal immigrants and to try them in court, and even jail 
space to hold them, the group that does the holding and the 
transporting and the keeping of the judges and the courtrooms safe 
during the process, the U.S. Marshals Service, has not had funding to 
keep up with this. As a result, they are way low in terms of both 
personnel and also some facilities that need to be upgraded to accept 
the much larger numbers of illegal immigrants and other prisoners who 
are in their custody.
  To give you one illustration, when prisoners are brought to a 
courthouse, obviously there are huge security measures that have to be 
followed to ensure that jurors, judges, the public at large, witnesses, 
and so on, are not in jeopardy because of the existence of the 
prisoners. So they are generally brought in vehicles, appropriately 
accompanied, to secure facilities in the court building and then at the 
appropriate time brought to the courtroom, and all in the custody of 
the marshals, and with appropriate security for all.
  However, because of these increased numbers, what we found is, by way 
of example, they bring the prisoners from the holding facility, the 
prison, the jail, wherever it might be. They literally have to 
disembark in a public parking lot where jurors are parking to come up 
to be involved in cases, where the public at large, where witnesses, 
where victims and families, judges and lawyers are coming to park to go 
to the courthouse, and go up the elevators and so on right with these 
same people. That is not a secure situation.
  In most situations the marshals have the ability to take their 
prisoners directly to a secure port, a place in the courthouse where 
they can immediately put them into custody in a secure locked-down 
facility. Construction of some court buildings need to keep up with 
this demand, and it requires some money, in this case, about $16 
million. I know this is a small matter in the overall budget that we 
are talking about. But for the Marshals Service to do its job, this is 
important for them.
  They need additional personnel. The cost of that far exceeds $10 
million. But that is what we thought we would try to ask for in this 
amendment to at least bring the Marshals Service up to a level where 
they can accommodate the new numbers of prisoners.
  In our amendment, $20 million is provided for additional deputy 
marshals and security-related support staff to assist in overall 
Southwest border enforcement. We have narrowed this down to the five 
judicial districts on the border that have--well, in fact, these 
districts have about half--49.7 percent, to be exact, of all the 
prisoners nationwide brought into the custody of the Marshals Service 
are brought in by way of those five Southwest border judicial 
districts. And about half of those in the Marshals' custody along the 
Southwest border are or were held for immigration-related offenses.
  So this is the need that we are trying to satisfy with this 
amendment. The Marshals Service employs only about 80 percent of what 
they need in terms of Marshals and support staff in these court 
facilities. A recent Department of Justice hiring freeze has prevented 
the Marshals Service from reaching even 90 percent of its personnel 
needs along the Southwest borders. To reach 100 percent of staffing 
would require $43 million, to hire an additional 162 deputy marshals 
and 71 support staff.
  We all know the constraints we are all operating under here, so we 
cut that back to simply try to reach 90 percent of their requirement 
for hiring needs. And that, as I said, would require just about $20 
million for these hiring purposes.
  On the construction side of it, the amendment provides for $16.5 
million for these detention upgrades at the Federal courthouses located 
in this border region. Of the $16.5 million, $1.5

[[Page 15954]]

million would specifically be allocated for courthouse security 
equipment. I have told you a little bit about the problem with the 
security at the courthouses. Some of this would obviously be used for 
construction of a port that would allow these vehicles to unload 
detainees and prisoners right next to cellblock doors and so on. I 
described that.
  But this is the least we can do, both to protect the public and to 
assist the Marshals Service. There has been some dichotomy of views, 
shall I say, expressed by the Department of Justice and Department of 
Homeland Security about whether they have what they need to secure the 
border. We have heard the Secretary of Homeland Security say, we have 
all we need. But we also know that the Secretary has said, we have to 
prioritize our detention policy, for example, because we do not have 
the facilities and the money we need to detain and deport all of the 
people who are deportable, so we have to focus on the most serious 
crimes, the felons primarily, who are now the top target for 
deportation.
  Obviously if you have to prioritize, we would agree with that 
prioritization. But what that means is that they do not have enough 
money to do all that they are trying to do. So on the one hand, it is 
kind of distressing that the Department says we have all we need and, 
on the other hand, we do not have enough, so we have to prioritize what 
we do.
  What we are trying to do in this appropriations bill is to attack the 
one part of the problem that we can in this bill, and that is to help 
the U.S. Marshals. As I said, I do not think there is one of us here 
that would not be supportive of that. I want to avoid the situation 
where, God forbid, someone is at a courthouse or entering the 
courthouse or whatever and innocent people are harmed because we did 
not have the appropriate security. That is what we are trying to 
provide in this amendment.
  As I said, this is cosponsored by my colleagues Senator McCain and 
Senator Cornyn. Obviously the three of us are very aware of the problem 
that we have in our judicial districts on the border. So I reiterate, I 
appreciate the offer of the majority leader to make majority staff 
available to see if there is some way that with my staff we can work 
out some appropriate amount of money, with the appropriate pay-fors. I 
hope I will be able to announce that a little bit later on. I will not 
take any more of my colleagues' time right now.
  But if anyone has questions about this and wishes to talk to us about 
it, since I am hoping that we will have something to support a little 
bit later on this evening, I would appreciate them either contacting me 
or Senator Cornyn or Senator McCain.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Montana is 
recognized.
  Mr. TESTER. Parliamentary inquiry: Has Pastore time expired?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Pastore time has expired.
  Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the priorities 
facing Montana and this Nation, creating jobs, responsibly cutting our 
spending, cutting the deficit, rebuilding our economy. I appreciate the 
proposal that will be put forth I think later this evening to attempt 
to create jobs. When that proposal gets to the floor, I will vote to 
have the debate on S. 1723, because only then will I be able to offer 
my amendments to that bill, because as it is written, I cannot support 
that bill.
  Having debate will allow us an opportunity to amend it so that it 
will guarantee jobs in Montana and across America. The perspective I 
bring to the table is a little different than most. I am someone who 
lives in, works in, represents a rural State. My responsibility is to 
make sure every decision I make works for not only Montana but the 
entire country.
  I expect full accountability for every penny of taxpayer dollars we 
spend. I expect that when you invest in something, you get what you pay 
for. A lot of folks know I am a farmer, but many do not know I am also 
a former schoolteacher. I used to teach elementary music at Big Sandy 
Elementary, in Big Sandy, MT. I fully understand the importance of 
making sure all of our Nation's teachers have the resources they need 
to do their job, to lead our most important resource, our children.
  As a teacher, I also know that when rural schools are asked to 
compete with urban schools for Federal funding, rural schools often get 
left behind. The same goes for emergency responders. Their service 
sometimes is--even as volunteers, it is very important to rural States 
such as Montana, whether it is firefighters, police officers, EMTs, 
they are on the clock whenever they are needed.
  In Montana, as everywhere else, firefighters are respected for their 
courage and their hard work for doing whatever is expected of them to 
save property and save lives. But when Montana's rural fire departments 
and rural police departments have to compete for Federal funding, guess 
who often gets the short end of the stick. That is right, it is the 
emergency responders in rural States such as Montana, the folks who 
often do not have the professional grant writers to help them secure 
the basic equipment that they need to do their jobs safely.
  That brings me to my proposal. I want to state again, as 1723 is 
written, I cannot support it. I am not convinced it will create the 
jobs it must create. And $30 billion in this bill is meant to go to 
States to boost education, to hire teachers. Yes, investing in 
education is a powerful short-term and long-term way to create jobs. 
But as written, this bill fails to give taxpayers any guarantee that 
their money would actually be used to hire teachers and invest in our 
schools.
  The fact is, this money could be used to supplant funds instead of 
supplement funds. A State would get loads of money with little guidance 
that they spend the money on teachers. But we all know what happens. A 
lot of smart folks who work in State budget offices can find their way 
around guidance, because money is pretty darn easy to move from one 
budget account to another. In other words, there is no guarantee that 
this bill will create the jobs.
  Montana is one of two States that has a budget surplus right now. We 
have been living within our means. There are other States such as 
Kansas that are considering broad-based tax cuts. That is fine. Kansas 
can do that if it wants. But I am not convinced that we should be 
writing checks to States so they can cut taxes. Montanans should not be 
paying for tax cuts for people in our States, nor should we be giving 
precious taxpayer money for States to build up their rainy day fund.
  I am all for individual States making smart choices with their own 
money. But giving them Federal money and hoping they will use it for 
education and teachers, well, that is not good enough. With that kind 
of money, we need a guarantee. If the motion to proceed is adopted, I 
plan to offer two amendments to address my concerns. One will address 
the $5 billion in this bill meant to provide aid to the Nation's first 
responders. My amendment is a simple one. It requires that 20 percent 
of the competitive grant funding goes specifically for rural 
communities. That is only fair because rural communities make up 20 
percent of our Nation.
  The other amendment puts sideboards on the remainder of the money in 
this bill, to guarantee that it will be used in a way that it is 
supposed to be used, to create jobs in education, to invest in our 
kids. My amendment will prohibit States from pulling their own State 
money out of education programs when they take this Federal money. How? 
By putting the money into Part B of the Individual with Disabilities 
Education Act, IDEA, otherwise known locally as special education.
  When I traveled around Montana after the passage of the Recovery Act 
in 2009, school administrators told me the money that made it to the 
ground was very much appreciated, but that special education was their 
top priority. IDEA funding is still one of the biggest unfunded 
mandates the Federal Government has on local school districts.

[[Page 15955]]

  When it was first enacted, the Federal Government promised to pay 40 
percent of the cost of this important law. Today, we pay less than half 
of that promise. This amendment will help bridge that gap somewhat. 
Special education funding is not only a top priority for the folks in 
Montana, it also guarantees that the funding gets to the local level.
  It also guarantees that its funding gets to the local level. If the 
money in this bill is supposed to be for teachers, then let's make sure 
it ends up there. This amendment is a good way to do just that.
  I ask unanimous consent that these two amendments be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

  (Purpose: To require a portion of grants be awarded to entities in 
                              rural areas)

       At the end of section 203, add ``The Attorney General and 
     Secretary of Homeland Security shall award not less than 20 
     percent of the total amount awarded by the Attorney General 
     and the Secretary, respectively, using amounts made available 
     under this section to entities that are located in areas that 
     are not designated by the Bureau of the Census as urbanized 
     areas.''.

  (Purpose: To allot funds for special education and related services)

       Strike the title heading for title I and all that follows 
     through the section heading for section 111 and insert the 
     following:

                TITLE I--SPECIAL EDUCATION STABILIZATION

     SEC. 101. PURPOSE.

       The purpose of this title is to provide funds to States for 
     special education and related services for the 2011-2012 
     school year.

     SEC. 102. DEFINITION.

       In this title, the term ``State'' has the meaning given the 
     term in section 602 of the Individuals with Disabilities 
     Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1401).

     SEC. 103. STATE ALLOTMENT.

       (a) Allotment.--For each fiscal year, the Secretary shall 
     allot to each eligible State an amount bearing the same 
     relationship to the amount of funds appropriated under 
     section 106 for that fiscal year, as the amount that State 
     receives under part B of the Individuals with Disabilities 
     Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1411 et seq.) for that fiscal year 
     bears to the total amount all such States receive under that 
     part for that fiscal year.
       (b) Grants.--From the funds allotted under subsection (a), 
     the Secretary shall make a grant to the Governor of each 
     eligible State.
       (c) Eligible State.--To be eligible to receive an allotment 
     and grant under this section, a State shall submit and obtain 
     approval of an application under section 104.

     SEC. 104. STATE APPLICATION.

       The Governor of a State desiring to receive a grant under 
     this title shall submit an application to the Secretary 
     within 30 days after the date of enactment of this Act, in 
     such manner, and containing such information, as the 
     Secretary may reasonably require.

     SEC. 105. USE OF FUNDS.

       A State that receives a grant under this title shall use 
     the funds made available under the grant in the same manner, 
     and subject to the same requirements, as funds allotted to 
     the State under part B of the Individuals with Disabilities 
     Education Act.

     SEC. 106. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.


  Mr. TESTER. I would like to talk about one other thing that is 
missing from the bill, and that is a reauthorization of the Secure 
Rural Schools Program and the Payment-in-Lieu of Taxes Program, 
otherwise know as PILT.
  These two programs will do more to ensure that thousands of teachers 
stay on the job than anything else we can do around here. Here is the 
kicker: In the middle of this partisan debate, Secure Rural Schools and 
PILT are bipartisan programs.
  Under the leadership of Senators Bingaman, Murkowski, Baucus, Crapo, 
Wyden, and Risch, we have a bill that can pass right now--today.
  It would keep 4,000 teachers on the job at a cost of $3.5 billion 
over the next 5 years. That is small potatoes compared to the $35 
billion in the bill that is before us today.
  It is a very reasonable bill. But because it is so reasonable, nobody 
wants to see it appear in the middle of such a partisan debate. Once 
again, too many folks in Washington are looking for ways to point 
fingers.
  Quite frankly, I don't have as many fingers as most folks around 
here, so I would rather use mine to solve some problems. Only after 
this final bill is amended to guarantee job certainty will it be able 
to earn my vote.
  In order to amend it, I am going to vote for the motion to proceed. 
My vote is a vote for a debate we ought to have. It is an important 
one, so we can truly create jobs and focus on rebuilding our economy.
  I look forward to that debate.
  With that, I yield to my friend from West Virginia.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. MANCHIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Montana for 
speaking on behalf of the rural States. It is clear our Nation is 
facing two grave economic threats: a job crisis and a debt spiral. As 
much as some people may wish, we cannot ignore one threat over the 
other. For the sake of our Nation's economic future, we must work 
together, Democrats and Republicans, and try to find a commonsense 
solution that protects and creates jobs but does so without adding to 
our growing deficit and debt.
  In a more sensible legislative process, we would be able to sit down 
and work out compromises that make sense. It is what legislators 
throughout the Nation's history have done.
  Unfortunately, looking at where things stand now, it is clear the 
legislative process in Washington has gotten so dysfunctional that it 
doesn't make much sense at all.
  I came here to try to fix things, not to make excuses. I sure didn't 
come here to play the blame game. I have never fixed a thing by blaming 
someone else. As I have said many times before, it is time for all of 
us who have been given the great privilege to serve to focus on what is 
right for the next generation, not worry about the next election.
  It is why--as frustrating as this legislative process can be--I will 
not lose hope that we can make this legislation better.
  With respect to the current Teachers and First Responders Back to 
Work Act, there is no doubt about the fact that our teachers and first 
responders have a critical role in our Nation. From the classroom where 
teachers educate our children to the streets where first responders put 
their lives on the line to keep our communities and Nation safe, these 
great Americans are so important to the future of this Nation.
  They and the American people deserve better than a temporary 1-year 
legislative proposal that does nothing to fix the long-term fiscal 
problems that led so many States to lay off thousands of teachers and 
first responders in the first place.
  What will we do next year when States come back again asking for more 
Federal money? Will we give out more money and go further in debt? Will 
we borrow more money? What will we do?
  As it stands, without any changes, this bill will not solve the 
fiscal problem that will come once the aid ends. But this bill is not 
hopeless. It can be made better. I know it.
  In my State of West Virginia, we didn't have major layoffs of 
teachers or first responders during this brutal recession. As difficult 
as it was, we balanced our budget based on our values and priorities. 
We made difficult decisions, but we kept our teachers in the classroom 
and our firefighters protecting our citizens.
  Make no mistake, we cut back our spending, but we did so responsibly. 
We spent where it was needed--on our priorities.
  That is the commonsense approach that works in West Virginia because 
that is how people run their lives. It is how they operate their small 
businesses, and it is how we should run this country.
  We make budget choices based on what is important in our State, to 
our family, to our business, and to our country.
  In West Virginia, this simple, commonsense approach paid off. Every 
year I was Governor, we ended the fiscal year with a surplus. Every 
year for the past 3 years, West Virginia has seen its credit rating 
upgraded.
  But now, because of the impact of this recession and the fact that 
other

[[Page 15956]]

States did not make the difficult decisions years ago, the taxpayers of 
West Virginia are being expected to foot this bill for other States.
  I believe there is a better way. I believe there is a better way 
where we can balance the fiscal constraints that States face with the 
need to protect these vital jobs.
  I believe there is a better way we can balance the need to keep 
teachers and firefighters working, while not asking West Virginia 
taxpayers--or any taxpayer in any State--to pay for more than is 
necessary.
  That is why I am offering a commonsense amendment that would 
transform this $35 billion in funding to keep teachers and first 
responders working into a loan program instead of a grant.
  The loan program would allow any State to borrow at very low--or no--
interest the money they need to keep teachers and firefighters employed 
and pay it back over time, when this recession basically ends.
  I don't know of any State that wouldn't put their teachers and 
firefighters as one of the highest priorities and budget that first.
  So this loan program would ensure that States are making the 
decisions on how much money they actually need and not the Federal 
Government's willingness to put us further into debt by giving away 
more money.
  It would also ensure that States make smarter and more responsible 
decisions about what they can and cannot afford to do.
  Such a loan program would help protect these jobs and would protect 
the fiscal future of States when they get in trouble. In short, it just 
makes common sense.
  I encourage my Republican and Democratic colleagues to embrace this 
commonsense amendment. I encourage them to help me make it even better.
  I hope they will support this cloture motion, not because they 
support the bill as it stands but because they believe in what this 
legislation could be if we all put politics aside and work to make it 
better.
  If we can get past a filibuster, I hope the amendment process will be 
a testament to the great legislative moments this body has seen in the 
past.
  As I have been assured by my leadership, this bill, if it gets to the 
floor, will have an open amendment process that will give us all an 
opportunity to make this legislation better. It is the reason why I 
will vote for this motion to move on with debate.
  To my Republican and Democratic friends who may not support this bill 
as it stands, I respectfully ask them to seize this opportunity to work 
together to make this bill better.
  Trust me, I share many of their concerns. To be clear, if we cannot 
and do not adopt this commonsense approach that stops throwing money at 
the problems we have in this country, I will join them and vote against 
it.
  This country is looking to us to do what is right. It is not about 
this vote or this bill. It is about the fact that so many Americans 
have lost confidence in this great body. They have lost confidence in 
the process that they see as broken and incapable of working. They have 
lost confidence in a legislative process that has become so political 
it doesn't matter what we do, it just seems all we care about is 
scoring political points to be used in the next election.
  It is a fact that some folks in this town are so busy trying to make 
the other side look bad that they don't realize they are making us all 
look bad.
  I don't believe for one minute that anybody in this Chamber--
Democratic or Republican--is rooting for our economy to fail or jobs to 
be lost. We just all have different ideas. While we should question 
each other's ideas and policies, we should never question each other's 
convictions.
  Shame on us if the blame game is the best thing we can do. We are 
better than that. I came here to fix things, not to play politics. It 
is time for us to stop with the bickering and remember one thing: We 
may be members of different political parties, but we are all party to 
this great Nation. We are all Americans.
  As difficult as it may seem, America and the future of the American 
people are more important than politics or an election.
  I ask again, let's work together on commonsense, bipartisan ideas to 
get this country on a responsible financial path that will strengthen 
the economy and create jobs.
  Let's work together on making America's future brighter--not just for 
us but for the next generation.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, will the Senator from West Virginia yield 
for a question?
  Mr. MANCHIN. Yes.
  Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I say to Senator Manchin that I think 
everybody in this body wants to have real job creation. They want to 
see this unemployment rate go down. I think most everybody realizes 
that if we cannot get the unemployment rate to go down, the chances of 
paying off our debt and getting the budget under control will be 
severely diminished. The Senator has offered some potential amendments 
to S. 1723, as I have--assuming we get cloture on this bill. In a 
previous life, the Senator from West Virginia was a Governor. When I 
was in the State legislature, oftentimes, money came to us from the 
Federal Government, and we very much appreciated it. But we took an 
administrative cost right off the top, as a natural procedure--anywhere 
from 3 to a much higher percentage rate than that. Is that something 
they did in West Virginia? How would the Senator's amendment impact 
things such as administrative costs and will you be able to get more of 
your money to the ground out of these dollars?
  Mr. MANCHIN. Mr. President, I say to my friend that the way the 
system is set up and the bill, we are able to use this money where 
possible. An example of where money was used prior--we had two rounds 
of stimulus funding. This is our third. It was for a very worthy cause. 
For my State and your State, which didn't have the layoff of teachers 
or have the cutbacks in education, they would short that into their 
budget proposal, so when the Governor made his proposal, that money 
would backfill. That is how it was used. We only created 33 new jobs 
that first round, but that was $217 million.
  The bottom line is--that is why I said we need a loan program. If 
spending money will fix our problems in America, we have no problems. 
We have to do it wisely. The Senator's amendments are appreciated, and 
I hope to support them.
  Mr. TESTER. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. MANCHIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of 
my amendment be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

    (Purpose: To establish a Federal loan program to carry out the 
                   activities provided under the Act)

       At the end of the bill, add the following:

                     TITLE IV--FEDERAL LOAN PROGRAM

     SEC. 401. FEDERAL LOAN PROGRAM.

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any provision of title I 
     or title II, the President, acting through the appropriate 
     Secretary, shall ensure that any funds provided under this 
     Act shall be used to award loans to States and localities to 
     carry out the activities described in the appropriate title.
       (b) Amount.--The amount of a loan authorized under 
     subsection (a) shall be based--
       (1) under title I, on the allocations determined for a 
     State under title I; and
       (2) under title II, on the grant programs cited under such 
     title.
       (c) Repayment.--A State or locality shall not be eligible 
     for further assistance under this section during any period 
     in which the State or locality is in arrears with respect to 
     a required repayment of a loan under this section.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Missouri is 
recognized.
  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. President, I wish to talk about a bill that I believe 
and hope----
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, before my colleague begins, I ask 
unanimous consent to be recognized after Senator Blunt.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. President, the bill I hope we get to tonight is part 
of the

[[Page 15957]]

President's jobs package. It would repeal an action taken by the 
Congress a few years ago that I think has proven to be a harmful 
decision on the part of the Federal Government.
  This would repeal the 3-percent withholding tax, which has a dramatic 
impact on anybody who does business with the government. That includes 
local governments and State governments and anyone who contracts with 
the government--and the government basically pays 97 percent of the 
bill.
  The President, rightly, pointed out that one of the things we can do 
to get more money in the economy--and in many cases, simply to create 
profit where profit is not there otherwise--there are government 
projects for many businesses, and the profit margin is less than 3 
percent on big projects. There is only so much work one can do to stay 
in business. If a person is not making money, they cannot stay in the 
business of doing what they are doing. So for those large projects that 
have a huge overall number, often the profit doesn't even equal the 3-
percent withholding, and businesses have determined they cannot do 
that. Obviously, it impacts the bidding process for Federal work.
  The tax revenue generated by this mandate is thought to be only 
around $200 million a year, and that $200 million left in the economy, 
left in the bidding process, left in the granting process could make a 
real difference. The only thing this job-killing tax increase does is 
delay recovery and stop us from getting on with the business of making 
American private sector job creation a reality.
  The repeal is strongly supported by dozens of groups, including the 
Farm Bureau, the National Association of Manufacturers, the U.S. 
Chamber of Commerce, the National Federation of Independent Business, 
the National League of Cities, the Corn Growers Association, the 
Associated General Contractors, the American Trucking Association, 
Associated Builders and Contractors, and the Federation of American 
Hospitals.
  Think about that group, and the fact that you have the Federation of 
American Hospitals, the National League of Cities, and the Corn Growers 
Association. This must be a government policy that has broad impact on 
lots of different segments of the economy. It is not all that unusual 
to see the National Manufacturers Association or the Chamber of 
Commerce or the National Federation of Independent Business on a list 
supporting a bill. But when they are on the list with the other people 
I mentioned, plus the truckers and the Associated Builders and 
Contractors, something must be happening.
  And why have all of these groups come together and said let's support 
this part of that package? Medicare payments to hospitals and 
individual physicians will be affected when this goes into effect in 
January of 2013. Medicare payments to individuals and hospitals will 
have 3 percent withholding. This causes a lot of cashflow problems for 
both the physician and for the hospital.
  Farm payments. Even loan deficiency payments, beginning January 1, 
2013. You get 97 percent of the partial solution to the problem you 
already have.
  Grants for for-profit companies, regardless of whether they are State 
or Federal, will have 3 percent withheld. Grants, by their definition, 
are allocated to an entity for a specific purpose, such as research. 
And if you have a research budget that is grant dependent, what happens 
if you get 97 percent of the budget? Do you get 97 percent of the 
solution or does that mean you never get to the full solution? What if 
the grant is for a facility of some kind or a delivery of a service? 
What happens when you can only deliver 97 percent of that? And again, 
back to these big construction projects, where 3 percent withholding 
may be more than the profit.
  This is one of the pieces of the President's jobs bill that I and 
others wish to see become a reality so that people could look out a 
year from now and not have to begin to plan on what happens when you 
only get 97 percent of what you expected it would cost to complete a 
job or to complete a project.
  I believe we are going to be able to vote on this later this evening. 
I think we are going to have that opportunity, and I urge my colleagues 
to vote on it. I think it is one of those things, if we actually let it 
occur in the first of January 2013, people would wonder: Why couldn't 
they figure out during the interim period of time when this was passed 
and was going to go into effect that no matter what the intention was 
this will not work? In a bipartisan way, we should step forward and 
clarify this problem before it becomes a real problem with real 
consequences and, in fact, probably already having an impact on 
bidding, on requesting grants, and on other things. People are probably 
already beginning to think about what happens if this project is agreed 
to or approved or our bid is accepted for work that would be done 
beyond 2012.
  I see my friend from Illinois is not here, and until he gets back, 
seeing no one else on the floor, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, there are two amendments that are likely 
to be called this evening, and I want to address them briefly because I 
believe both these amendments should be carefully scrutinized.
  One amendment is by Senator Ayotte of New Hampshire. What she would 
do in her amendment is restrict the authority of the President of the 
United States to refer suspected terrorists to our criminal justice 
system to be investigated, prosecuted, and tried. She would make it 
mandatory those terrorists--particularly associated with al-Qaida--
would be tried before military commissions and tribunals.
  I listened as she and Senator McConnell came to the floor to explain 
their point of view. It is an interesting point of view, that we are at 
war with al-Qaida and, therefore, any trials of suspected terrorists 
associated with them should be before a military tribunal. 
Unfortunately, the logic of their argument falls flat when you look at 
reality. Here is the reality.
  Since September 11, 10 years ago, President Bush and President Obama 
have faced time and time again allegations that individuals are 
suspected terrorists. Each President--Bush and Obama--has had to 
consult with the Secretary of Defense, the Attorney General, and other 
leaders in their administration to determine the appropriate place to 
investigate and try these cases.
  Here is the record. Since 9/11, the Department of Justice advises us 
that on as many as 300 separate occasions--300--these suspected 
terrorists have been taken to the article III criminal courts of 
America and successfully tried and prosecuted. In that same period of 
time, exactly three suspected terrorists have been sent to military 
commissions and tribunals.
  For the Senator from New Hampshire to now argue that all cases have 
to go to military commissions is to ignore the obvious. The President, 
as our Commander in Chief, with the premier responsibility to keep 
America safe, should decide the best place to try those who are 
accused. This has been a recurring theme on the Republican side--to 
take the terrorist cases out of our criminal courts. In fact, almost on 
a weekly basis Senator McConnell has come to the floor making this 
argument.
  The argument goes something like this: Do you mean to tell me we are 
going to take a suspected terrorist in and read them their Miranda 
rights; that they have the right to remain silent? You know what is 
going to happen. They will lawyer up and shut up and we won't get the 
information we need to keep America safe. That is why, he has argued 
time and time again, we shouldn't allow the FBI to be involved and we 
shouldn't refer these cases to article III criminal courts.

[[Page 15958]]

And that is why Senator Ayotte is offering her amendment this evening.
  The fact is that argument isn't borne out by the facts. Look what 
happened 2 weeks ago. Remember the underwear bomber--the somewhat 
crazed individual--maybe crazed--who got on an airplane and was 
apprehended over Detroit with the argument that his clothing was on 
fire, and when they apprehended him and took him in, the FBI asked him 
questions? He answered questions for some period of time and at that 
point stopped talking.
  The scenario at that point would have ended, according to Senator 
McConnell. He lawyered up and shut up. But it didn't end.
  The FBI continued the investigation. They went overseas and brought 
this man's mother and father to the United States and they sat down and 
talked to him. After they talked to him, he said he would cooperate 
fully with the FBI. He talked for day after day after day, telling them 
all the information about al-Qaida. Then his case was referred to a 
criminal court in Detroit, and 2 weeks ago he pled guilty.
  If you follow the logic that has been given to us by Senator Ayotte 
and Senator McConnell, this never would have happened. The fact is, it 
did. The FBI did its job, the Department of Justice did its job. The 
man was prosecuted in our criminal courts; he pled guilty; he is likely 
to be sentenced in January to life in prison. It is because the 
President had the authority, as Commander in Chief, to pick the forum 
to try the individual. He picked the most effective forum, and when he 
did, we ended up in a situation where this man pled guilty and is going 
to be sentenced. It isn't an isolated case. In fact, it is the 
overwhelming likelihood that when a person is suspected of terrorism, 
they are more likely to be successfully prosecuted in one of our 
article III courts.
  I note today that the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, 
Senator Levin of Michigan, pointed out on the Senate floor that when 
Senator Ayotte raised this issue in the Armed Services Committee markup 
on the Defense authorization bill, her amendment was defeated on a 
bipartisan rollcall. Six Republicans voted against her, including 
Senator McCain, the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee, and 
Senator Graham, the only military lawyer serving in the Senate. But the 
amendment will still come to the floor.
  I urge my colleagues, whatever they think of President Obama--and I 
respect him very much. Whatever they think of him, do not tie the hands 
of any President when it comes to picking the proper forum to try a 
terrorist. If the proper forum is a military commission and tribunal, I 
will back the President. If the proper forum is an article III criminal 
court, let's proceed that way as well.
  The evidence overwhelmingly tells us that going through our criminal 
court system, terrorists pay a price--a heavy price--with up to 300 
convictions since 9/11 and more than 100 convicted since President 
Obama took office. Let's respect the President's authority. Let's do 
the best thing to secure our Nation. Let's not let the Senate presume 
to know exactly where every suspected terrorist defendant is to be 
tried.
  Mr. President, there is also another amendment that is likely to be 
considered this evening, and that I wish to speak to. Senator Stabenow 
of Michigan, as chairman of the Senate Agricultural Committee, has a 
special responsibility when it comes to nutrition programs and 
especially the program known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance 
Program, the SNAP program, which is known to most Americans as the Food 
Stamp Program.
  Senator Sessions has introduced an amendment that would eliminate the 
use of what is known as categorical eligibility for people to qualify 
for the SNAP program. Forty States use it. What they basically say is 
if you are eligible for some other programs, then we believe, in 
establishing that eligibility, you are also eligible for the SNAP 
program. It turns out that only 1 percent of SNAP households have net 
incomes over 100 percent of the Federal poverty level. The Federal 
poverty level, incidentally, is $22,350 per family of four. So when 
these people are judged to be part of a program, such as Temporary 
Assistance for Needy Families, TANF, LIHEAP, Low Income Heating and 
Energy Assistance Program, and the Social Security disability benefit 
program, they are eligible then for the SNAP program, the Food Stamp 
Program.
  The Senator from Alabama, Senator Sessions, would change that. What 
he would add to it is a new redtape requirement that these people, who 
are by and large some of the poorest people in America, will now have 
to go through another bureaucratic process and fill out another 
application. I don't think that is necessary, and I am urging my 
colleagues not to support Senator Sessions' amendment.
  He recently said on the floor something I want to point out. He said: 
No program in our government has surged out of control more 
dramatically than food stamps. Then he went on to say: We need people 
working with jobs, not receiving food stamps.
  I will readily concede to the Senator from Alabama that the number of 
hungry Americans has increased. It is not only evident in the Food 
Stamp Program; it is evident at the food pantries, at the breakfast and 
lunch and dinner feeding programs that are available across Illinois 
and across America. I have been there and I have watched who comes 
through the door, and I want to tell you it is a heartbreak for them 
and for me to watch. Many of these people have never in their lives 
asked for anything, and now they have no choice. And many, to the 
surprise, I think, of many Senators, are actually working. But they 
make so little money that they have to go in and ask for help.
  I agree, we need to put Americans back to work in good-paying jobs. 
The Senator from Alabama and others will have the chance to vote for 
part of President Obama's jobs program this evening. The fact is, 14 
million Americans are currently unemployed, another 10 million 
underemployed, and these feeding programs are essential for them to 
keep their families together.
  The Senator from Alabama points out one example to give a reason why 
we need to change the law across America. He talks about a case where 
someone actually won the lottery and then went on to get food stamps. 
That case got a lot of media attention, but the fact is it was highly 
unusual. If the Senator from Alabama wants to ensure that people who 
win the lottery and a windfall of income are not eligible for SNAP, I 
will be glad to work with him. Let's get that job done. But this 
amendment is not that legislation. That single, highly unusual 
situation doesn't merit kicking people who are out of work or in a low-
income job out of a program that feeds their families. To impose that 
new obligation, new paperwork, new redtape obligation on families who 
are struggling because one person abused the system I think goes too 
far.
  SNAP, in fact, has one of the lowest error rates of all Federal 
programs. The U.S. Department of Agriculture data shows us that over 98 
percent of those receiving SNAP benefits are eligible, and over 95 
percent of payments are accurate. The system has good quality controls, 
and I will work with the Senator from Alabama and any other Senator to 
make them even better.
  The problem isn't food stamps in America. The problem is hunger in 
America. Let's address the hunger problem and put people back to work. 
We will have less demand for food stamps and food pantries.
  I think what we face in this country is serious. I know it is in my 
State. In Senator Sessions' home State of Alabama, 17.3 percent of 
residents live in poverty and the same percent live in households that 
have food insecurity. Sadly, children are disproportionately impacted 
with hunger. In Senator Sessions' home State, it is over one out of 
four kids who is in a situation with food deficiencies. And 873,174 
people in Alabama rely on food stamps, the SNAP program. Are we going 
to make their life more difficult because one person who won the 
lottery abused the system? I think that goes too far.

[[Page 15959]]

  I hope we can work together to make this a better program. For those 
who are angry about food stamps or angry about food pantries, direct 
your anger toward hunger, toward unemployment. That is what is driving 
up the numbers in this system. We can work together to make it a better 
system. But the approach being suggested by the Senator from Alabama 
will just add redtape, paperwork, and unnecessary hardship to a lot of 
people who are already struggling.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Alabama is 
recognized.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished assistant 
majority leader for his comments. And I will disagree, but I think we 
could agree, because my proposal is not to cut off anybody who ought to 
receive food stamps. My proposal wouldn't cut off any benefits to 
anybody who deserves food stamps. My proposal would not cut off anybody 
who qualifies for food stamps. It would say that just because you 
complied with the requirement for TANF or you complied with the 
requirement for LIHEAP or you sought assistance for some family 
planning issue, that those don't automatically qualify you. I don't 
think it is too much to ask someone who would be given thousands of 
dollars over a period of time in food stamps to fill out a form. That 
form would say what your income is and what your assets are. And if you 
have substantial assets that are higher than the food stamp law allows, 
you should not get it.
  So I don't believe this proposal does anything but help tighten up 
the act. I don't believe it is too much to ask that somebody fill out a 
form to demonstrate they are qualified before they receive free money 
from the U.S. Government for the purchase of food, and certainly I 
would emphasize that dramatically.
  I don't think the Senator disagrees that any program in the U.S. 
Government of any real size has surged faster than this program has. It 
has gone up, since 2010, $20 billion. In 2009 or so, unemployment hit 
9.8 percent. It is now 9.1. It is too high, and people need food stamps 
and they should get them. And perhaps there are more people out there 
who qualify even than in 2009, or whenever our unemployment hit almost 
10 percent. Maybe there are more people today. I don't know. But I 
don't think there are huge numbers more. You go from $59 billion to $79 
billion, that is about a 38- or 40-percent increase in 2 years in this 
program. One of the reasons is we have made people automatically 
eligible.
  So if you are eligible for any of these programs, you have received 
any assistance, you may not have even filled out a form that has 
anything like the same qualifications that the Food Stamp Act requires, 
you are automatically, categorically, qualified.
  The Congressional Budget Office says if this change in the law that 
happened recently were to be eliminated, it would save $10 billion over 
10 years. It would not reduce food stamps; it would just reduce a 
little bit the growth in food stamps. The $10 billion over 10 years 
represents $1 billion a year in the first year. It would be less than 
that, according to the score we have seen. But let's say in the first 
year that this program reduced spending by $1 billion, that is $1 
billion out of the proposed $79 billion. So we are expecting to spend 
$79 billion this year, and we would only spend $78 billion. But that 
adds up over time. And food stamps need to be looked at across the 
board much more carefully, because we don't have that many more people 
who are in poverty today than we have had. But we have many more people 
receiving food stamps.
  I would stress that this year's increase in food stamps by another 14 
percent is not an acceptable figure, because we know that there are 
problems within the program.


                           Amendment No. 753

  Mr. President, I wish to say one thing briefly about Senator Ayotte's 
proposal on terrorism prosecution. As a Federal prosecutor for almost 
15 years, I truly believe she is correct on this issue. It is something 
we have been debating in Congress for a long time. Congress has made 
clear its view about it.
  I would simply say this. The Presiding Officer is a former Attorney 
General. But if you make the presumption that an individual who is 
arrested is to be tried in article III courts, even though they are an 
enemy combatant against the United States, against the laws of war, an 
unlawful enemy combatant, those individuals should be treated as 
warriors and they should be treated as enemies of the country, and they 
should be arrested and detained, and presumptively in military custody. 
This is the tradition of the United States from its founding. This is 
worldwide accepted law. And I do believe we need to understand the 
reason this is important.
  An individual who is arrested attacking the United States and who is 
going to be tried in a Federal court must be given Miranda warnings 
before they are interrogated, must be provided a lawyer, must be 
promptly taken before a U.S. magistrate, must be provided discovery in 
the government's case, and must have a public hearing. You don't do 
that for people who are at war with you.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Would the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. SESSIONS. I would yield.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I have heard it argued on the floor here in connection 
with this issue that somehow because the Christmas Day bomber pleaded 
guilty in an article III court, that was an argument for putting him in 
the article III court. As a distinguished former prosecutor, I wonder 
if my friend from Alabama could address the issue of whether because 
somebody happened to end up in an article III court and happened to 
plead guilty, how that was an argument for his placement there in the 
first place.
  Mr. SESSIONS. That is a very important question. This individual 
perhaps looks like he just fell off a turnip truck or something. He was 
not a very solid person and he decided to plead guilty, and that was 
good.
  Many of these individuals are very tough, very clever, very devious. 
They have, we know for a fact, used the civil justice system to find 
discovery against us, how we discover their activities, what kind of 
surveillance techniques we use, and made the trials dangerous places 
and have made the trials showcases. So I think that just because one 
individual decided to plead guilty, it has no bearing on the overall 
principle that if you arrest people on the battlefield, they are not 
required to be taken immediately to a judge and given a lawyer.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Will my friend further yield for a question?
  Mr. SESSIONS. I will be pleased to.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I have heard it said on the floor that because a 
number of terrorists have been tried in article III courts in the 
past--and I have heard people add up the number of times--that is 
somehow an argument for continuing to do it.
  Is it not the case, I ask my friend from Alabama, that we just set up 
these military commissions a few years ago at the insistence of the 
Supreme Court in order to deal with this issue, and only since that 
time have we had a defined alternative for dealing with these enemy 
combatants who are also not citizens of the United States?
  Mr. SESSIONS. The Senator is so correct. We went through a number of 
actions. The Supreme Court found the law inadequate, and Congress 
responded to the Supreme Court's concerns and passed clear laws that 
are certainly adequate within the Constitution as described by the 
Supreme Court. We now have an entire system set up to meet the Supreme 
Court's concerns about the trial of these individuals. It is safe. It 
is secure. It is consistent with Supreme Court requirements and 
international law.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I ask my friend, is it not also the case that the 
amendment of Senator Ayotte has in it a national security waiver? I 
have heard it said that we have eliminated all the President's options. 
Is it not the case that even if the amendment of the Senator from New 
Hampshire were adopted and the President felt strongly, for some 
reason--it's hard for me to contemplate such a set of circumstances,

[[Page 15960]]

but it is possible--he could, in fact, issue a national security waiver 
and go ahead and do it anyway, could he not?
  Mr. SESSIONS. Absolutely correct. I think Senator Ayotte really 
reached out to Members of this Senate to make sure they knew there was 
an option to do it another way, and it does provide the President that 
option.
  With regard to the FBI and their involvement, they are a great 
investigative agency. If they participate in the arrest of one of these 
individuals and they were turned over to the military, the FBI can 
still work with the military to investigate the case. It would just be 
tried under military commissions according to the lawful system 
Congress, in a bipartisan way, passed several years ago.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I have also heard it said--I am going to pose another 
question to my friend--that it is kind of ludicrous to assume this 
ultimately leads to reading Miranda rights to a foreign terrorist on 
foreign soil. I think it strikes the Senator from Kentucky that that 
might be the logical extension of where we are going. If, in fact, we 
are saying that, routinely, foreigners, enemy combatants are going to 
be mainstreamed into article III courts, when do these protections, if 
you will, we afford to American citizens under the Constitution attach?
  Mr. SESSIONS. That is a very good question. Under the law of the 
United States, if you are to interrogate an individual who has been 
taken into custody, the police have to give them Miranda rights before 
they interrogate them. As long as that person is in custody, if you are 
going to try them in a civilian court--and Director Mueller of the FBI, 
in response to questions I asked him, acknowledged that if you are 
going to try the person in the civilian courts and you conduct 
interrogation, you must give them Miranda warnings.
  Mr. McCONNELL. So would it not be the case, then, that all of these 
issues in terms of the timing of the attachment of these rights would 
soon be before courts in the United States for interpretation--
ultimately, I guess, by the Supreme Court--as to at what point do these 
rights now afforded a foreign enemy combatant attach?
  Mr. SESSIONS. There have been suggestions that somehow the terrorist 
cases would allow the interrogation to go on a few hours, but I have 
not seen any real authority that would justify that. The clear Miranda 
standard for any police officer in America is that if you arrest 
someone, before you ask them questions, they must have been given their 
Miranda rights. That is the rule in the trial of any Federal court. I 
think it would be very dangerous to assume the court is going to give 
some extraordinary new rights that they have never indicated they 
would.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I thank the Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the Senator, the Republican leader, for his 
good questions.
  I would just say I think Senator Ayotte has worked very hard on this 
amendment. She herself is a skilled prosecutor. I believe the 
legislation would be helpful to us.
  I will just say that as a matter of policy, you can be absolutely 
sure it will be more difficult to prosecute a case, more likely to 
complicate matters significantly, if they are given Miranda warnings, 
if they are given lawyers, if they are brought publicly before a 
judge--perhaps revealing to the other coconspirators the fact that you 
have been arrested before they can be apprehended. It would cause many 
more difficulties than are necessary.
  Of all people we ought not to give extra rights to, it would be 
terrorists bent on killing and maiming innocent Americans.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coons). The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Does the minority leader wish to speak? I will yield to 
him if he does. No.
  Mr. President, I am going to respond very briefly. This argument is 
so upside-down. If during the last 10 years we had successfully 
prosecuted terrorists--300 of them--in military commissions and only 3 
in our criminal courts, then all of their arguments would make sense 
because you would have to argue that is the best place to go, that is 
where you can investigate and prosecute and successfully incarcerate 
those accused of terrorism. Exactly the opposite is true.
  President Bush and President Obama, given the authority to choose a 
forum to try a suspected terrorist, have overwhelmingly and 
successfully chosen the article III criminal courts of America. Here is 
the score. They don't like to hear me say this, but I am going to give 
them the score again. It is important to know. Since 9/11, we are told 
by the Department of Justice, as many as 300 suspected terrorists have 
been successfully prosecuted in our criminal courts and 3 before 
military commissions, 2 of whom--before the military commissions--were 
released within a year to return to their home countries of Australia 
and Yemen. When you look at where terrorists are in jail in America 
today, you will find 300 to 1 they were terrorists who were prosecuted 
in our criminal courts.
  In comes the Ayotte amendment and the arguments by Senator McConnell 
and Senator Sessions to argue that clearly this system is upside-down, 
that we should be going to the military commissions, not to the 
criminal courts. Their argument is, incidentally, Miranda warnings--
when you give an alleged defendant, a suspected criminal defendant, 
Miranda warnings, end of story, they stop cooperating. The problem they 
have is the facts, and the facts are that all 300 prosecuted terrorists 
in article III courts were given their Miranda warnings, the 
investigation continued, and the prosecution continued successfully. It 
did not end the case.
  They do not like to talk about the details about this Christmas 
bomber, the Underwear Bomber. He was read his Miranda rights, and he 
shut up. Then the FBI brought in his mother and father, who said, ``Why 
don't you cooperate?''According to the head of the FBI, the Director of 
the FBI, he talked nonstop for days about everything he knew about al-
Qaida. He did it after he was read his Miranda rights. Then he was off 
to court, where he is going to defend himself in this criminal case, 
and he pled guilty.
  I have heard the Senators on the floor dismiss this--well, he pled 
guilty, so they didn't really prosecute him. They prepared the case--a 
case he knew he couldn't win. He fully cooperated with the 
investigation, and he conceded that he was guilty. Now he faces a life 
sentence in prison.
  Is that a good outcome? It is the best outcome, and I will tell you 
why because they will not acknowledge this fact, and they should. All 
across the world, when they look at the way we prosecute terrorists in 
the United States, they have to say: You know, they are following the 
same rules and laws for alleged terrorists as they are following for 
anyone accused of crime in their country, and it is public, and he had 
an opportunity for a lawyer, and he was given the same warnings as any 
prospective criminal defendant.
  You can't argue that this was done behind closed doors or done any 
differently from any other criminal defendant. There is something to be 
said for that. It is a bragging right, or at least something we should 
be proud of, that in the United States we use that system and use it so 
successfully.
  For those who want to pass the Ayotte amendment and make it more 
difficult for any President to decide the appropriate forum to 
prosecuter terrorists, I just leave them one last reminder: The score 
is 300 to 3 since 9/11, 300 suspected terrorists successfully 
prosecuted in our criminal courts, 3 before military commissions.
  Give this President, give every President the tools and the authority 
to make the right decision to keep America safe. Defeat the Ayotte 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican leader.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I am just going to make one final point 
on this issue, and then I want to address another amendment we will be 
voting on at some point.
  One thing we have not discussed is what happens if the foreign enemy 
combatant in the article III court in

[[Page 15961]]

the United States is actually acquitted. If he is, he, of course, has 
to be released. The deportation option is only available if some other 
country is willing to take him. There is not a whole lot of clamoring 
for these kinds of folks anywhere else in the world. We have had that 
experience. The courts then cannot keep them. They are released into 
the United States as a result of an acquittal in an article III court 
in the United States, and there is a situation where you cannot deport 
them because no one will take them.
  I think the point is that this is all totally unnecessary. These are 
foreigners; these are not citizens of the United States. They have no 
right to be in an article III court. We don't dispute that the 
President can put them in an article III court, but why would he want 
to do that? We responded to the decision of the Supreme Court to set up 
these military commissions for this precise purpose, and it is clear 
this administration does not want to use them.
  I also would like to make some brief comments about a matter we will 
be voting on later this evening. Everybody here in this body knows the 
American people want us to do something about the jobs crisis. What 
Republicans have been saying is that raising taxes on business owners 
is not the way to do it. So what we have done is we have combed through 
the President's latest stimulus bill looking for things we can actually 
support, for things that do not punish the very people we are counting 
on to create jobs. In other words, since the President never asked if 
there was anything in this legislation we could support, we have 
actually done it ourselves.
  It turns out there is a very sensible provision in the President's 
second stimulus bill that would help businesses across the country. In 
fact, it is absolutely identical to a bill Senator Scott Brown of 
Massachusetts introduced with 30 cosponsors earlier this year, many of 
them Democrats, among them Senators Franken, Begich, Klobuchar, Pryor, 
Tester, and McCaskill. They are all cosponsors of Senator Scott Brown's 
bill.
  What this bill does is it repeals an existing requirement that 
government agencies at the State, local, and Federal level withhold 3 
percent of every payment to any contractor with whom they do business. 
This is money contractors may very well end up getting back from the 
IRS at some point long after the job is done, but in the meantime the 
government gets to hold on to it instead of allowing the businesses to 
invest it in jobs and the economy. This is money these companies could 
be putting toward hiring workers and growing their businesses, but it 
is going to the IRS instead, basically as a zero-interest loan to the 
Federal Government here in Washington.
  I know Members on both sides of the aisle are hearing from 
constituents about how burdensome this regulation is. That is why 
President Obama himself already embraced delaying its implementation in 
his first stimulus bill and proposed delaying it again in his latest 
stimulus bill. That is why Senator Scott Brown got so many Democratic 
sponsors when he proposed a full repeal.
  Like the President's bill, this bill is fully offset, and the offset 
we are proposing has been supported by our friends across the aisle. In 
fact, the last time I saw a vote, I think 81 Senators actually voted 
for it. So the bill we are proposing is bipartisan. The offset we are 
proposing is bipartisan. There is no reason in the world that our 
Democratic friends, including the President, certainly, should oppose 
it. If delaying this legislation was a good idea before, repealing it 
should be an even better idea now. The bill is supported by hundreds of 
business groups representing job creators across America. We should 
come together and act right now and make it easier for them to create 
jobs for a change, and not harder.
  The President asked us to come together and pass pieces of this bill. 
Here is one that all Senators should be able to agree on. Let's vote on 
it and prove the skeptics wrong by acting in a bipartisan fashion on 
something that the job creators in this country actually want.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, the provision my friend talks about is 
placed in legislation as a result of the study made during the Bush 
administration--second Bush administration. GAO did a study. They found 
that 33,000 contractors, in effect, cheated on their taxes, and they 
owed some $3 billion. This money, they also determined, went mostly to 
giving the owners more salary and building them second and third homes.
  There is no question that a lot of people, in addition to the 33,000 
who cheated, were found to be burdened by this withholding 3 percent of 
what they had coming to them. What my friend fails to acknowledge is 
this bill that was amended that my friend has before the Senate has no 
chance of accomplishing anything. Constitutionally it will be killed in 
the House in a matter of a millisecond because constitutionally it will 
be what we call blue slipped here. It is a revenue measure. It cannot 
start in the Senate.
  It costs $11.6 billion to take this money out--I am sorry--take that 
3-percent provision out, and we need to do that. It costs $11.6 
billion. What my friend fails to alert the Senators to is that since 
this matter has come up in years past and months past, things have 
changed. We have burdened the American people--especially the American 
middle class--with all of these cuts we have made. We did them. It was 
done by Democrats and Republicans, but they have given enough.
  My friend's bill is offset by reducing discretionary spending by $30 
billion. Senator McConnell's bill does nothing to address contractors 
who cheat on their taxes and still get Federal contracts. Nothing, 
zero.
  Our alternative--and I will offer a unanimous consent request of this 
at a later time before we get to these two cloture motions we have. It 
repeals the 3-percent withholding tax, and we acknowledge it should do 
that. The Democratic alternative also addresses the problem of tax 
evaders receiving government contracts by expressly prohibiting 
contractors who are delinquent on their taxes being eligible for 
Federal contracts. That way all contractors are not punished, only 
those who are, in effect, cheating.
  The Democratic alternative offsets the costs of repealing the 
withholding requirement by closing the loophole that allows companies 
to claim excess foreign tax credits and the famous corporate jet 
preference. It has a 1-year delay in implementing worldwide interest 
allocation which allows taxpayers to claim greater tax credits for the 
foreign taxes they pay; fair, reasonable, not a burden on the middle 
class.
  A vote for Senator McConnell's amendment would do nothing to repeal 
the withholding requirement because the House, I repeat, will blue slip 
this. The House will send us a repeal bill. They told us, the 
Republican leadership, soon, and I mean soon rather within a matter of 
weeks. We will have a real opportunity to repeal the withholding 
requirement when we get the House bill. We would, of course, put our 
amendment on that.
  Let's be honest about this. This is nothing more than a misdirected 
stunt by my friend, the Republican leader. This provision will be 
repealed, but it should be done the right way. We all agree that it is 
unfortunate that the Bush administration did that. They had a good 
intent. They were trying to get rid of some people who were cheating, 
but it was too broad and overreaching and has hurt a lot of people. 
That GAO report said 33,000 people, civilian contractors, owed more 
than $3 billion. I repeat, that 2005 GAO report said $3 billion in 
taxes. I didn't make this up. The GAO report also found that these 
firms, many of them diverted these payroll taxes to increase an owner's 
salary or building him a new home or two.
  So by withholding a small amount of a contractor's payment and 
sending it to the IRS, the belief was that the contractors would have 
more motivation to comply with the law. It didn't work well. It was too 
overreaching and too broad.

[[Page 15962]]

  I would hope that we would look at the consent I will offer. 
Procedurally there is no way we can have a second-degree or side by 
side with what we are doing here. I would hope my friends, Democrats 
and Republicans, would do something that is real, not something that is 
only figurative. What we are doing is real. We agree it should be done. 
It should be done right. It should not be done by burdening the middle 
class with more domestic discretionary cuts.
  I will say this generally. Here it is 9:30 at night. The decision is 
going to have to be made very quickly as to whether we will be here 
tomorrow. The two matters that the Republican leader and I have spoken 
about, we could vote on those right now. I offered to vote on those 
earlier today, but we were unable to do that. We can come tomorrow. It 
is getting late here, and I am not sure what we are accomplishing by 
trying to work through all of this tonight. We are trying to be 
reasonable. As I indicated, my friend the Republican leader said he 
needed 10 or 12 votes. We agreed to that a long time ago. I cannot 
imagine why we cannot move forward.
  I repeat, we cannot be stalled so we come back with a very short work 
period. We have a continuing resolution and many other things to deal 
with when we come back with the short work period. I wish to do another 
appropriations bill, but we cannot do another appropriations bill while 
this one is still floundering here.
  This was an experiment that I was happy to engage myself in because I 
believe we should try to do our work here. But this CR business and 
holding us up from doing the work we have done for 10 months this year 
was not our doing. This has been as a result of my friends who are the 
majority in the House and the minority over here. So we have spent all 
of these months on two major issues, CRs and raising the debt ceiling. 
I would hope we can work something out on this appropriations bill and 
get it done tonight.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I would ask my friend, did you propound 
a consent agreement?
  Mr. REID. No. What I said I would do is when we get ready to schedule 
these votes, I will do it. I will make sure you are here.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Fair enough. I want to echo the comments of the 
majority leader. In my time in the Senate some of our best work has 
been done on Thursday night. Usually when we are passing bills around 
here, we are working on Thursdays into the evening and finishing them. 
It is my hope that we will continue on that path and finish this bill 
tonight. Frequently coming back on Friday is counterproductive, and I 
would encourage all of the Members to cooperate to the greatest extent 
possible. I think we were, the last time I checked, making progress 
toward getting a lot of amendments in the queue hopefully to be voted 
on tonight.
  Mr. REID. 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. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
Senator from Ohio.


                           Amendment No. 771

  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. I rise in support of amendment No. 771 sponsored 
by Senator Bingaman. It will strengthen our Nation's competitiveness. 
As I heard the majority leader and the Republican leader talk about job 
creation, this will matter, strengthening our Nation's competitiveness 
by ensuring we enforce trade laws better than we have.
  American workers, American farmers can compete with anyone. We can 
compete on productivity, we can compete on skills. When workers are 
forced to compete against unfair export subsidy, that is cheating, as 
we showed on the China currency bill, which passed with 63 votes--a 
good, strong bipartisan effort. We cannot compete against unfair export 
subsidies. Our workers cannot compete against that kind of cheating.
  Fortunately, we have tools to do something about that. Our trade laws 
are the last line of defense to retain and create jobs in American 
industries. Paper, steel, tires--President Obama has actually enforced 
trade laws in those three industries which directly created jobs in 
Finley, OH, in Lorain, OH, in Youngstown, OH, including the 
construction of a new steel mill.
  Our trade laws are critical if we are going to compete for advance 
manufacturing jobs. Jobs in solar, wind, and clean energy component 
manufacturing in the auto supply chain all rely--or should rely--on an 
active U.S. Trade Representative who will initiate more cases.
  I proposed an amendment to this appropriations bill, No. 865, that 
would provide the office of the U.S. Trade Representative an additional 
$5 million to initiate cases on China's subsidies to solar producers 
and China's hoarding of rare earth materials, an increasingly important 
problem that is eroding American manufacturing.
  I support Senator Bingaman's amendment, which provides funds for 
general trade enforcement. But here is why I wanted to specify solar 
and rare earths in my amendment. According to the U.S. International 
Trade Commission, our solar producers, like those in Toledo--and there 
are three of them--are facing an expected 240-percent increase in the 
import of Chinese solar panels this year. Yesterday a number of solar 
companies filed a complaint with the Commerce Department and the ITC, 
asking them to seek duties on Chinese solar panels sold below cost. 
Understand, the Chinese sell these into our market as they sold coated 
paper, as they sold tires, as they sold oil country tubular steel. They 
often undercut our prices because they are subsidizing energy and water 
and capital and land and, of course, the currency subsidy, which this 
body spoke about and voted on a couple of weeks ago.
  On rare earths, China is artificially using export restraints or 
quotas to raise the cost of rare earths internationally while keeping 
them low domestically so producers in Ohio and the Presiding Officer's 
home State of Delaware simply cannot compete because of how they are 
subsidizing their production.
  Ohio companies such as Electrodyne in Cincinnati saw their costs go 
up 59 percent in June and 68 percent in July of this year alone on 
account of these price changes. How can we possibly compete when they 
are cheating that dramatically and to that degree? These policies have 
fundamentally turned rare earths into a spot price market. I want to 
see the USTR litigate on these protectionist policies. This is not 
American protectionism. This is our serving our own interest as a 
nation against answering the protectionism they have exhibited.
  Every country in the world practices trade according to their 
national interest. Too often in the United States we practice trade 
according to a college economics textbook that is 20 years out of 
print. These two enforcement initiatives, critical to my State and many 
others of my colleagues here, will absolutely matter. This amendment 
will ensure that USTR has the resources to investigate and to act on 
blatant, unfair trade practices. Trade enforcement is critical if we 
are going to compete for advanced manufacturing jobs and so many other 
industries that are in our States.
  I urge my colleagues to support the amendment. I applaud Senator 
Bingaman for his leadership on amendment No. 771.
  I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. 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. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at a time to be 
determined by the majority leader after consultation with the 
Republican leader, the Senate proceed to a series of votes in relation 
to the following amendments and motions: Landrieu

[[Page 15963]]

No. 781, as modified with the changes that are at the desk; Kohl No. 
755; Vitter No. 917 to Menendez No. 857; Menendez No. 857; Gillibrand 
No. 869; Lautenberg No. 836; Bingaman No. 771, as modified; Sessions 
No. 810; Coburn No. 791; Coburn No. 792; Coburn No. 796; Coburn No. 
800; Paul No. 821; Portman No. 859; McCain No. 892; Cantwell No. 893, 
as modified with the changes that are at the desk; Cochran No. 805, as 
modified with the changes that are at the desk; Burr No. 890; DeMint 
No. 763; Inouye No. 918; Ayotte No. 753; Crapo No. 814; Kyl, as 
modified with the changes that are at the desk; and Lee motion to 
recommit; that there be no amendments or points of order in order 
against any of the amendments prior to the votes other than budget 
points of order; that there be 2 minutes equally divided in the usual 
form prior to each vote; that the Vitter, Menendez, Sessions, Paul, 
Ayotte, Crapo, and the Coburn amendments Nos. 792 and 796 be subject to 
a 60-affirmative vote threshold; that all after the first vote be 10-
minute votes; that upon disposition of these amendments, the remaining 
pending Coburn amendments be withdrawn with the exception of amendment 
No. 801; that no other motions or amendments be in order to the bill, 
the Senate proceed to the cloture vote on the substitute amendment No. 
738, as amended; that if cloture is invoked, the substitute amendment, 
as amended, be agreed to and be considered original text for the 
purposes of further amendment; that the majority leader then be 
recognized to raise points of order against any pending nongermane 
amendments; further, if cloture is invoked, the Senate resume 
consideration of the bill at 4 p.m., Monday, October 31, and proceed to 
votes in relation to any remaining germane pending amendments in the 
order they were offered; further, that upon disposition of any pending 
germane amendments, the bill, as amended, be read a third time and the 
Senate proceed to vote on passage of the bill with no intervening 
action or debate; that when the Senate receives a message from the 
House with respect to H.R. 2112, the Senate insist on its amendment, 
request, or agree to, a conference with the House on the disagreeing 
votes of the two Houses; and the Chair be authorized to appoint the 
following conferees: Kohl, Harkin, Feinstein, Johnson of South Dakota, 
Nelson of Nebraska, Pryor, Brown of Ohio, Inouye, Murray, Mikulski, 
Blunt, Cochran, McConnell, Collins, Moran, Hoeven, Hutchison, and 
Shelby; finally, that if cloture is not invoked on the substitute 
amendment No. 738, as amended, cloture on the underlying bill be 
vitiated and the bill be returned to the calendar in status quo. I 
failed, Mr. President, to identify the Kyl amendment. It is No. 912.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the leader's request?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, for all of these amendments that are 
pending, there is no requirement that we have to have rollcall votes. 
Everyone should understand that.
  Mr. President, tonight the Senate will vote on a bill introduced by 
my friend, the Republican leader.
  While I have great respect for my friend, the senior Senator from 
Kentucky, I believe in this case he is playing political games.
  The Republican leader has inserted a poison pill for Democrats into 
his proposal.
  To offset the $11 billion cost of his legislation, the Republican 
leader proposes we slash $30 billion in programs that help the middle 
class and get our economy back on track.
  What is more, this is a backdoor violation of the debt ceiling 
agreement we reached after months of negotiation this summer.
  This is not a serious attempt to repeal the rule requiring the 
government to withhold 3 percent from all government contractors. It is 
an attempt to circumvent the rules.
  And even if we passed the Republican leader's bill tonight, the House 
will not act on it. Revenue bills like this one must originate in the 
House, a prerogative that body guards jealously.
  So our action on this bill this evening is nothing more than a 
misdirected stunt by Republican leadership.
  But let me be clear: this provision will be repealed before it takes 
effect.
  The Senate will have a real opportunity to repeal this provision, 
when the House sends us a bill that repeals the 3-percent withholding 
the week we return from the in-State work period.
  In 2 short weeks, we will have an opportunity to work together on a 
commonsense way to both repeal the withholding requirement and address 
the underlying problem it was enacted to address.
  It is important to review the history of this proposal to understand 
why we are in this situation today, and how to move forward.
  A 2005 GAO report found that 33,000 civilian contractors owed more 
than $3 billion in taxes. The GAO report also found that some of these 
firms diverted payroll taxes to increasing the owner's salary or build 
him a new house.
  By withholding a small amount from a contractor's payment and sending 
it along to the IRS, the belief was that contractors would have more 
motivation to comply with the tax law.
  The withholding requirement was enacted with overwhelming Republican 
support. Only a couple of Democrats supported the legislation.
  But this withholding has turned out to be more trouble than it is 
worth for a number of reasons, and now many on both sides feel it 
should be repealed.
  But Democrats also believe we must address the underlying problem. 
The Republican leader's bill does nothing to prevent taxpayer dollars 
from going to contractors who fail to pay their taxes.
  Democrats have offered alternative legislation that would address the 
problem of noncompliant contractors without targeting those who pay 
their taxes.
  The Senate will take action on this worthy alternative in just a 
couple weeks, after the House sends us its bill.
  Voting on this measure today is nothing more than a diversion by my 
Republican colleagues.
  I am confident that Senate Democrats and Republicans will be able to 
work together next month to repeal this provision.
  We should be successfu1 at working together to stop an unfair tax 
increase that will hit middle-class families.
  This month, Republicans blocked our attempt to keep payroll taxes low 
for families and businesses who are still struggling as our country 
fights its way out of a serious recession.
  I hope they will be as willing to work with Democrats on finding 
solutions that work for middle-class families as they are on finding 
solutions for government contractors.


                  Unanimous Consent Request--H.R. 674

  Mr. President, I want to get the Republican leader's attention.
  I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate receives from the House 
H.R. 674, the Senate proceed to its consideration; that the Reid 
substitute amendment, the text of which is at the desk, be agreed to.
  This amendment would do the following: It repeals the 3-percent 
withholding requirement; prohibits contractors who are delinquent on 
their taxes from being eligible for Federal contracts; offsets by 
closing a loophole that allows oil and gas companies to claim excess 
foreign tax credits, eliminating a tax preference for corporate jets, 
and a 1-year delay in implementing worldwide interest allocation.
  I then ask consent that the bill be read a third time and the Senate 
proceed to a vote on passage of the bill, as amended, with all of the 
above occurring with no intervening action or debate.
  We have both given our statements in this regard, Mr. President, 
earlier today.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Republican leader.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, this 
would implement a tax increase. It also would be subject to the same 
blue-slip concern the majority leader expressed with regard to the vote 
we are going to have on the 3-percent withholding. Therefore, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.

[[Page 15964]]

  The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I would say there would be no blue-slip 
problem whatsoever because, as I indicated, this would be an amendment 
to a revenue bill we have received from the House, and I identified 
which one that would be.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the cloture vote with 
respect to the Reid motion to proceed to Calendar No. 204, S. 1723, 
occur at 9:55 tonight; further, that if cloture is not invoked on the 
Reid motion to proceed, the Senate then proceed to a vote on the motion 
to invoke cloture on the McConnell motion to proceed to Calendar No. 
205, S. 1726; finally, that if cloture is invoked on either motion to 
proceed, that notwithstanding cloture having been invoked, the Senate 
resume consideration of H.R. 2112, and upon disposition of H.R. 2112, 
the Senate resume consideration of the motion to proceed, postcloture.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I wish to express strong support 
for the Teachers and First Responders Back to Work Act, a bill that 
provides funding to hire and prevent the layoff of tens of thousands of 
teachers, police officers, and firefighters.
  Difficult economic times have devastated the ranks of these critical 
positions. Since 2008, California alone has seen more than 70,000 
educators laid off. The resources in this bill will help cities and 
towns across the country avoid more layoffs and start rebuilding their 
workforce.
  Nationwide, some 300,000 education jobs have been lost in the past 3 
years, and State and local budget cuts will endanger as many as 280,000 
teacher jobs next year.
  The difficult economy has also strained police departments across the 
country. In the past 18 months, 10,000 police officers have been laid 
off around the country, while 30,000 vacancies have gone unfilled.
  I have heard from many police departments in my home State of 
California that fear that this understaffing will jeopardize public 
safety. They are concerned that with fewer officers for patrols, 
investigations and other critical tasks, crime will increase.
  Fire departments face similar problems. Thousands of firefighters 
were laid off in 2009 and 2010, and another 7,000 face layoffs this 
year.
  This legislation will help communities address staffing shortages in 
these critical positions.
  To help our schools, the bill would provide $30 billion to States and 
school districts to protect and create up to 400,000 education jobs 
nationwide, which would prevent the layoffs of up to 280,000 teachers 
and hire tens of thousands more.
  In my home State of California, this will safeguard more than 37,000 
education jobs.
  According to the Government Accountability Office, 72 percent of 
school districts expect to have less funding in the 2011-2012 school 
year as compared to last year.
  In California, public schools are suffering from State budget cuts. I 
have heard from thousands of teachers in my State who have received 
pink slips each spring over the last several years warning that their 
jobs are in danger.
  Many teachers wait for months to find out whether they will still be 
teaching the following year. Many pink slips are rescinded, sparing 
jobs, but others are not as lucky. Our teachers should not have to deal 
with such uncertainty, and this bill helps safeguard those jobs.
  With so many teachers losing their jobs in California, classrooms are 
becoming crowded and the school year is becoming shorter. On average, 
K-3 classrooms in California are up to 25 students, up from 20 students 
2 years ago.
  Average class sizes for higher grades have risen from 28 students to 
31. The more we squeeze students into one classroom, the more difficult 
it is to provide standards-based instruction, and the harder it is for 
students to focus on their education.
  This bill invests in education to keep educators on the job, 
continuing to provide students with a supportive learning environment.
  In a country that prides itself on providing children with every 
opportunity, it does not make sense to lay off the very teachers who 
prepare our children for the future.
  Another casualty of budget cuts is the many talented individuals who 
are being driven away from the teaching profession because of the lack 
of job stability. I fear that a deteriorating education system means 
more children will slip through the cracks and be unprepared for 
college or to compete in the global economy.
  The quality of education is a direct reflection of how firmly we 
support our teachers.
  In addition to supporting thousands of teaching jobs, the Teachers 
and First Responders Back to Work Act also provides $4 billion for 
communities to hire police officers. These funds will support more than 
17,000 positions over the next 3 years, including about 2,600 in my 
home State of California.
  There is also $1 billion for firefighters, supporting about 6,300 
positions nationwide.
  These funds go to support the dedicated first responders we depend 
upon in emergencies--the firefighters who enter burning buildings to 
save lives and the police officers who risk everything to keep our 
streets and homes safe.
  In recent years, firefighters and police officers have taken on even 
more responsibilities as they prepare for--and respond to--terrorist 
attacks. We are reminded of the importance of these first responders 
when we remember the brave men and women who worked so heroically to 
save lives after the 9/11 attacks, including more than 400 
firefighters, police, and other emergency personnel who lost their 
lives that day.
  Now is the time to stand with our first responders and give them the 
support they need. We must make sure our emergency personnel are not 
risking their lives because too many of their colleagues have been laid 
off.
  While this legislation will strengthen our schools and protect our 
streets and homes, it will not add a penny to the deficit. This is 
accomplished by paying for the bill with a half-percent tax on 
Americans with an adjusted gross income over $1 million.
  I have long said that those people who have benefited from this 
economy and can help out should do so. Millionaires can afford to help 
build a smarter, safer, stronger nation.
  It is not the wealthiest Americans who have been bearing the brunt of 
this recession; it is the middle class and the poor who have suffered.
  Our Nation continues to face serious economic difficulties. The 
unemployment rate is over 9 percent, and remains stuck at 12 percent in 
California. This lack of employment is causing severe financial strain 
with too many families losing their homes and too many families 
struggling to make ends meet.
  Congress needs to help Americans get back to work and get our economy 
moving forward. And this bill will help.
  With the Teachers and First Responders Back to Work Act, we will 
strengthen our schools, help our children get the education they 
deserve and give our first responders the support they need to keep our 
communities safe.
  I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

                          ____________________