[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 159 (2013), Part 2]
[Senate]
[Pages 2182-2186]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. NELSON (for himself and Mrs. McCaskill):
  S. 436. A bill to require that the salaries of Members of Congress be 
sequestered during any sequester under the Balanced Budget and 
Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985; to the Committee on the Budget.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I, like many of my colleagues, 
have just flown in our Nation's airways, going through a fairly crowded 
airport in Florida, coming into a crowded airport here in Washington, 
and in 30 days those TSA lines are going to get longer.
  For the international flights, I and others have worked very hard to 
get additional customs agents to cut the time it takes to process our 
international visitors. In airports such as Miami and Orlando where 
there is quite a bit of international traffic, getting those additional 
customs folks has meant a great deal because we even had some airlines 
that would come in, for example, to Orlando, and they would have to 
keep the international passengers on the airplane for upwards of an 
hour before they could get off the airplane so that there was room, 
with the personnel available.
  Well, you see where I am going, because all of that is going to 
change unless--as the Good Book says, come, let us reason together. 
Unless our sharply divided politics--be it partisan, be it 
ideological--unless we can come together and reach consensus to stop 
this ridiculous thing that went into effect last Friday called the 
sequester, which was never intended to go into effect, but because of 
the inability of the parties to come together, in fact, it is in 
effect, and it is cutting, in an indiscriminate way, like a meat 
cleaver across the board.
  In certain agencies, such as the Department of Transportation, it 
even gets exacerbated because the cuts can only occur in certain 
accounts. Thus, civilian employees are going to be furloughed.
  It is also happening in the Department of Defense. In my State of 
Florida alone, there are going to be 31,000 defense civilian employees 
who are going to be furloughed. What does a furlough mean? It means 
that after the 30-day notice, so about 30 days from now, that number of 
employees--in this example, in the Defense Department--is going to be 
laid off 1 day a week, under the law, for up to a maximum of 22 weeks. 
Is that in the interest of national security? Of course not.
  Why is it exacerbated in the Department of Defense? Because the 
existing appropriations law--remember, we are not operating on a 
current law; we are operating on last year's appropriations law. That 
has so constrained the managers--in other words, the Secretary, the 
Deputy Secretary--that they can't move the money around, and what they 
are having to do is to take the sequester cuts out of operations and 
maintenance instead of out of acquisitions of systems or programs. That 
is the worst possible place--out of operations and maintenance.
  Now, I am an optimist. I couldn't be in this business if I were not 
an optimist. I have ultimate faith in the American people. And I know 
every one of these Senators here, from the extreme left to the extreme 
right, are all good people, and there can be consensus found if 
everybody would get out of their little silos and realize the greater 
good.
  Senator Claire McCaskill and I want to help them, so we are filing a 
bill today. Since this was never intended and all these civilian 
Federal employees are going to be furloughed, our bill will say that 
Members of Congress will get docked the same percentage of their pay 
that the furloughed workers are docked in the percentage of their pay.
  Now, the question is, Will this pass? I hope it doesn't pass because 
I hope it is not necessary to pass. We have 30 days of notice before 
the furloughs take place. I am certainly hopeful that happens by the 
end of this month, clearly by the time of March 27 when the existing 
appropriations bill--which is last year's appropriation--ceases to 
exist and the government can come to a screeching halt unless we 
continue the appropriations for the remainder of the fiscal year.
  I am hopeful our legislation will not pass, but somebody needs to 
understand how ridiculous this whole thing is. Conservatives want to 
cut spending. You can do it in a more intelligent and rational way. If 
we are going to get serious about $4 trillion of deficit reduction over 
the decade--and we have already enacted policies that will take us down 
about 2.5 trillion of deficit reduction--we have about $1.5 trillion to 
go in enacting policies over that decade and we ought to be able to do 
that in a nanosecond.
  Senator McCaskill and I want to try to help nudge the process along. 
What is good for the goose is good for the gander. You are going to 
dock all of these civilian employees who have lives, who have families, 
who have children, who have expenses, who need to buy milk and so forth 
and so on. You are going to dock them their pay because of the 
inability of the Members of Congress to get together to do what should 
have been done, by the way, a year and a half ago when this whole thing 
was enacted. The meat cleaver sequester was put there because it was so 
ridiculous that surely it would encourage, a year and a half ago, the 
supercommittee of six from the House, six from the Senate, half and 
half of each party--surely it was going to encourage them to come 
together in agreement. All it needed was one vote. Instead of a 6-to-6 
deadlock it would have been 7 to 5. It did not happen, and here we are 
a year and a half later.
  What is good for the goose is good for the gander. If you are going 
to dock Federal workers' pay because you are going to force them into a 
furlough which was never intended, is not rational policy, is not good 
administration, then you are going to be docked your own pay.
  This is not pontificating. Again, I say I hope this never passes 
because I hope it is moot. But it is trying to bring into focus just 
how ridiculous the goings-on here are right now. So I am very hopeful.
  I say I love the Members of the Senate, every one of these Members of 
the Senate. I have a great relationship with almost every one of these 
Senators. They are all good people. We need to come together, give a 
strong statement of consensus building, and then send it down there to 
the House and tell them they have to get off the dime.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. LEAHY (for himself, Ms. Collins, Mr. Durbin, Mrs. 
        Gillibrand, Mr. Kirk, Mr. Blumenthal, and Mr. King):
  S. 443. A bill to increase public safety by punishing and deterring 
firearms trafficking; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. LEAHY. Today I am proud to introduce modified legislation to 
combat the practice of straw purchasing and illegal trafficking in 
firearms. Since my initial introduction of the Stop Illegal Trafficking 
in Firearms Act at the very beginning of the 113th Congress on January 
22, I have had productive conversations with several Senators who share 
my goal of reducing this destructive criminal conduct. Today I am 
pleased to be joined by Senator Collins, Senator Durbin, Senator Kirk, 
Senator Gillibrand, and Senator Blumenthal. These Senators understand 
the weaknesses in our current law and the challenges faced by law 
enforcement officials. I thank them for their commitment to this 
legislation, for their support of law enforcement, and for their 
cooperation in making progress in our collective efforts to prevent and 
reduce gun violence.
  I hope that as other Senators on both sides of the aisle become more 
familiar with our bipartisan proposal, they will understand how it 
provides law enforcement with the tools they need to go after those who 
engage in the straw purchasing and illegal trafficking of firearms. The 
practice of straw purchasing is used for one thing to put firearms into 
the hands of those that are prohibited by law from having them. Many 
are then used to further violent crimes.
  I have heard again and again from Senators on both sides of the aisle 
that

[[Page 2183]]

keeping guns away from those who should not have them is a goal worth 
pursuing. This bill will further that effort and help answer the call 
from Gabrielle Giffords and so many Americans for us to take action.
  I want to commend the senior Senator from Maine, Senator Collins, for 
her leadership on this matter and for her willingness to work across 
the aisle to make real progress. She helped unite us to get this done. 
Without her, we would not have made the progress we have, or be in 
position to consider this comprehensive response to what law 
enforcement has told us they need.
  This week, the Senate Judiciary Committee will continue our 
consideration of four measures to reduce gun violence. The issue of gun 
trafficking and straw purchasing is before the Committee. I will amend 
my original trafficking bill that is pending on the Committee agenda 
with the text of this bipartisan compromise, which combines the 
proposals that I put forward with Senator Durbin at the beginning of 
this Congress as well as proposals that have been championed by Senator 
Gillibrand and Senator Kirk. Our substitute amendment will improve the 
language already pending before the Committee. As I did before 
introducing any measure related to gun violence this year, I also hope 
to continue my outreach to the Judiciary Committee's Ranking Member. I 
invite Senator Grassley and other members of the Committee from both 
sides of the aisle to join with us so that I can report this measure 
with strong bipartisan support and without delay for consideration by 
the Senate.
  Law enforcement officials have complained for years that they lack 
the legal tools necessary effectively to combat illegal straw 
purchasing and firearms trafficking. Congressional inquiry during the 
last Congress put a spotlight on the very difficult legal environment 
within which law enforcement officials currently operate. In fact, one 
of the whistleblowers who testified about the misguided tactics used by 
Federal law enforcement in firearms trafficking investigations in 
Arizona described the current laws as ``toothless.'' If we are to 
address gun violence, we should respond to this clear vulnerability 
that is being exploited by criminals.
  The Stop Illegal Trafficking in Firearms Act will make important 
changes to Federal firearms statutes that will better equip law 
enforcement officials to investigate and prosecute the all-too-common 
practices of straw purchasing and illegal trafficking of firearms. 
Straw purchases typically involve a person, who is not prohibited by 
Federal law, purchasing a firearm on behalf of a prohibited person, or 
at the direction of a drug trafficking or other criminal organization. 
These practices result in the support of larger criminal organizations, 
and the illegally obtained guns are often sold and re-sold across state 
lines. This trafficking in firearms results in the proliferation of 
illegal firearms and gun violence in our communities. Straw purchasers 
circumvent the purposes of the background check system, and they put 
law enforcement officials and law-abiding firearms dealers in difficult 
positions. Gun trafficking and straw purchasing make our communities 
less safe.
  Under current law, there is no specific statute that makes it illegal 
to act as a straw purchaser of firearms. Nor is there a law directly on 
point to address the illegal trafficking of firearms. As a result, 
prosecutors must cobble together charges against a straw purchaser 
using so-called ``paperwork'' violations such as misrepresentations on 
a Federal form. These laws are imperfect, and do not give prosecutors 
the leverage needed to encourage straw buyers, often the lowest rungs 
on a ladder in a criminal enterprise, to provide the information needed 
for investigators and prosecutors to go after those directing and 
profiting from such activity.
  The bipartisan bill we introduce today will add two new provisions to 
our Federal criminal code to specifically prohibit serving as a straw 
purchaser of firearms and trafficking in firearms. The bill establishes 
tough penalties for these offenses in an effort to punish and 
importantly, deter this conduct. We need a meaningful solution to this 
serious problem. Talk about prosecuting mere paperwork offenses is no 
answer.
  Under current law, it is a crime to transfer a firearm to another 
with the knowledge that the firearm will be used in criminal activity. 
This bill would strengthen this existing law by prohibiting such a 
transfer where the transferor has ``reasonable cause to believe'' that 
the firearm will be used in criminal activity. We listened to concerns 
about family members who give firearms as gifts and other transfers 
that are not designed to get around the existing background check 
system. As a result, the bill contains important exemptions for the 
innocent transfer of a firearm as a gift, or in relation to a 
legitimate raffle, auction or contest.
  Another key provision of our bipartisan bill is that it complements 
existing law that makes it a crime to smuggle firearms into the United 
States by specifically prohibiting the smuggling of firearms out of the 
United States. In light of what we know is occurring, particularly on 
our Southwest border, this is an important improvement to current law 
and another tool that was needed but missing over the last few years.
  The provisions laid out in our legislation are focused, commonsense 
remedies to the very real problems of firearms trafficking and straw 
purchasing. Our bill does not affect lawful purchases from Federal 
firearms licensees, and in no way alters their rights and 
responsibilities as sellers of a lawful commodity. I hope Federal 
firearms licensees welcome a stronger deterrent to keep criminal straw 
purchasers out of their business.
  The problems of gun trafficking and straw purchasers, particularly 
along the Southwest border, are matters we have been talking about for 
years. Senator Durbin chaired a hearing on border violence back in 
early 2009. Law enforcement officials have called for a firearms 
trafficking statute that can be effective to go after straw purchasers. 
That is something agents did not have when they initiated Operation 
Wide Receiver during the Bush administration and later the disastrous 
Fast and Furious effort. Their frustration with the limits of the 
current law contributed to their looking for another way to make a 
difference in their fight against gun trafficking. Their initiative was 
a failure. What we need to do now is to create better law enforcement 
tools. I hope that those who have been concerned about Fast and 
Furious, whose investigation established that it was the local ATF 
agents in Arizona who initiated and so poorly implemented that effort, 
will join with us to close the loophole in the law that Mexican drug 
cartels are continuing to exploit.
  Our bill was drafted at the request of law enforcement. It will 
provide needed tools to fight against the drug cartels and other 
criminals who threaten our communities. It will not undermine the 
Second Amendment rights of lawful gun owners. It has the support of 
many law enforcement organizations--both leadership and rank and file. 
Indeed, the original bill I introduced with Senator Durbin has been 
supported by the National Fraternal Order of Police, the National Law 
Enforcement Partnership to Prevent Gun Violence, the Federal Law 
Enforcement Officers Association, the International Association of 
Chiefs of Police, the Major Cities Chiefs Association, the National 
District Attorneys Association, and the Police Executive Research 
Forum. I urge everyone who cares about keeping firearms out of the 
hands of criminals to join in this effort.
  We have an obligation to find solutions to reduce gun violence and I 
thank these Senators for their strong leadership. We can do this in a 
way consistent with the rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment. I 
believe our bipartisan legislation meets those goals. As Chairman of 
the Judiciary Committee, a Senator, a Vermonter, an American, a father 
and a grandfather, I look forward to continuing our progress on this 
important legislation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.

[[Page 2184]]


  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, let me begin my remarks by thanking the 
distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee for his very gracious 
comments and for his extraordinary leadership on a bill that I believe 
can bring all of us together.
  I also want to thank our other cosponsors of the bill, particularly 
Senator Gillibrand, who has had a great interest in cracking down on 
the practice of straw purchasing.
  The practice of straw purchasing is intended to achieve one result--
to put a gun in the hands of a criminal. These individuals are easily 
exploiting currently weak Federal laws to obtain guns.
  Peter Forcelli, ATF Supervisory Special Agent and Fast and Furious 
whistleblower, told the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee 
in June of 2011 that: ``Some people view [the current penalties for 
straw purchasing] as no more consequential than doing 65 in a 55 
zone.''
  These guns are frequently sold, resold, and trafficked across State 
lines, resulting in the proliferation of illegal firearms in our 
communities. This has also fueled the violence across our southern 
border associated with Mexican drug cartels as well as gang violence in 
our cities.
  Straw purchasing and gun trafficking put guns in the hands of 
criminals. According to the ATF, of the nearly 94,000 firearms that 
have been recovered in Mexico in the last 5 years, more than 64,000 
were sourced to the United States. Similarly, a large percentage of the 
guns used in crimes in our largest cities were trafficked across State 
lines.
  The congressional inquiry into the ATF's Wide Receiver and Fast and 
Furious investigations revealed how difficult it is for law enforcement 
officials to deter and punish these crimes effectively.
  Current loopholes in Federal law make preventing and prosecuting 
these offenses very difficult for law enforcement officials. Right now, 
a straw purchaser can only be prosecuted for lying on a Federal form, 
which is treated as a paperwork violation.
  Because straw purchasers by definition are nonprohibited persons and 
can lawfully purchase a firearm, prosecuting these individuals is 
difficult and any potential punishment is likely to be minimal.
  Because of these weak laws, prosecutors have minimal leverage over 
straw purchasers who, in turn, have little incentive to cooperate and 
assist law enforcement in investigating trafficking crimes and crimes 
involving gun violence. For years, law enforcement has been asking 
Congress for better tools to crack down on this type of criminal 
conduct.
  It is time to give law enforcement the tools it needs to combat this 
activity effectively.
  Our bill reflects a combination of advice from law enforcement 
officials and leadership by many Senators. It gives law enforcement 
officials the comprehensive framework they have been seeking from 
Congress.
  First, the bill creates new, specific criminal offenses for straw 
purchasing and trafficking in firearms. Instead of a slap on the wrist, 
these crimes would be punishable by up to 25 years in prison.
  The proposal also increases the punishment for an individual who 
serves as an organizer of a straw purchasing or trafficking enterprise.
  This bipartisan bill also strengthens existing laws that make it 
unlawful to smuggle guns into the United States.
  The bill protects legitimate private sales and is drafted to avoid 
sweeping in innocent transactions and placing unnecessary burdens on 
lawful private sales.
  When buying from a private seller, the buyer is only in violation of 
the new straw purchasing prohibition if the buyer purchases a firearm 
for someone known to the buyer as a prohibited person, meaning a felon, 
drug addict, someone subject to a domestic violence order, or someone 
with serious mental illness.
  When buying from a federally licensed firearms dealer, it is 
prohibited to buy a firearm on behalf of or for another person. This is 
consistent with current law that requires a person buying from a dealer 
to certify that they are the ``actual buyer.'' It is important to note, 
however, that the bill also expressly exempts transactions like gifts 
and transfers that occur in raffles and auctions.
  The bill is supported by numerous organizations, including the 
Fraternal Order of Police, the Federal Law Enforcement Officers 
Association, the FBI Agents Association, the International Association 
of Chiefs of Police, the Major Cities Chiefs Association, the National 
Law Enforcement Partnership to Prevent Gun Violence, the National 
District Attorneys Association, and the Police Executive Research 
Forum.
  This bill helps to keep guns out of the hands of criminals without 
infringing in any way upon the second amendment right of law-abiding 
citizens.
  I urge my colleagues to support this much needed legislation.
  I am, again, very pleased to have been able to work under the 
leadership of the chairman of the Judiciary Committee. I am delighted 
he is going to proceed to mark up our bipartisan compromise this week, 
and I thank him for the opportunity to work with him.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Mr. President, I rise to talk about an issue that 
every mother in America is thinking about. Every parent in America who 
saw what happened in Connecticut bleeds for this issue. We have to do 
something in our country about senseless gun crime. We have to do 
something about making sure criminals do not have easy access to 
weapons to shoot down our children and loved ones in the areas that 
should be the safest places for them. We have seen these mass deaths, 
whether at a school, whether at a university, whether in a movie 
theater, whether in a community center; these crimes are happening over 
and over again.
  I can tell you that from when I was first appointed to the Senate in 
2009, I have realized our State of New York suffers from grave gun 
crime all across our State. We have gang violence. We have gun 
trafficking. We have straw purchasing. Networks of weapons flow into 
our State. Eighty-five percent of the weapons used in crimes in my 
State come from out of State and 90 percent of those weapons are 
illegal.
  I had to look into the eyes of parents who had just lost their 
daughter because of a stray bullet from a gang member. Nyasia's parents 
deserve an answer. The parents of the children in Connecticut deserve 
an answer.
  I have good news today because the Senate is working on a bipartisan 
bill that is introduced today by the chairman of the Judiciary 
Committee, Chairman Leahy, to begin to solve this problem. This bill 
has wide bipartisan support. It started out with Senator Mark Kirk and 
I working together. He has a real tough problem in Illinois with gang 
violence that he wanted to address and crack down on. That bipartisan 
work began to address other bipartisan work. The ranking member, 
Senator Grassley, was very interested in this bill and has been working 
with us to shape the bill, make it stronger. Susan Collins, who has 
been a leader on this issue, began to work with us to shape this bill 
and make it better. Senator Leahy and Senator Durbin have been working 
on the issue separately. We all joined forces to begin to write a bill 
that can tackle this problem, to make it a stronger solution, a better 
solution.
  We now have cosponsors. We have the Presiding Officer right now, 
Senator Joe Donnelly. We have both Senators from Connecticut who must 
answer the parents of their State, that they are doing something about 
these senseless deaths. Senator Blumenthal, a former attorney general, 
knows what law enforcement needs to take on these criminals. Senator 
Murphy, Senator Klobuchar--also a previous attorney general--know what 
it takes to crack down on these kinds of crime and this senseless 
death. Senator King, an Independent, also signs on to this bill because 
he knows it can do something to crack down on gun violence in this 
country.
  Of all the laws on the books in this country today, not one Federal 
law

[[Page 2185]]

says you cannot buy a truckload of guns, bring them to another State, 
and sell them to a criminal network. It is not even prohibited. You 
would not believe it. How could that be true in a country such as ours, 
where the Federal Government's No. 1 job is to protect our families? 
That is what this bill does. It makes it a Federal crime to traffic, to 
be a straw purchaser, to sell these guns to criminal networks with the 
intent of breaking the law.
  The law enforcement agencies--whether it is ATF, NYPD, FBI--will now 
have the tools they need on the Federal level to begin to tackle this 
crisis.
  I urge my colleagues on both side of the aisle, if they want to do 
something about the senseless gun deaths in this country, this is a 
bill they can support. For all the law-abiding gun owners in this 
country who support the second amendment, as I do, they can look at 
this bill and say: That is a bill we are supporting; that bill should 
pass because it goes after the criminals and the illegal weapons that 
are the scourge of this country. Thirty people get killed a day because 
of gun violence--30 deaths. One is too many. When I look at Nyasia's 
parents, one is too many.
  Enough is enough. I am certain that when this bill passes this 
Chamber and when law enforcement begins to have the tools, we will save 
lives.
  I thank my colleagues again for all the hard work they have done. I 
thank Senator Mark Kirk for his courage for being the first Republican 
to stand up to do a gun bill, the first bipartisan gun bill introduced 
in this Chamber.
 Mr. KIRK. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Stop Illegal 
Trafficking in Firearms Act of 2013, which I am proud to join in 
introducing with Senators Leahy, Gillibrand, Durbin and Collins. There 
are an estimated 33,000 gangs with 1.4 million active members who live 
in our neighborhoods, towns and cities across the United States. With 
more than 100,000 gang members, the city of Chicago has more gang 
members who terrorize its residents than any other city in the United 
States. The Chicago Crime Commission also reported the existence of an 
additional 15,000 gang members operating in our suburbs.
  Gangs such as the Vice Lords, Gangster Disciples, and the Latin Kings 
are responsible for nearly 80 percent of the city's homicides, which 
just last summer amounted to 500 deaths in Chicago. These homicides are 
most often perpetrated with illegal weapons. Law enforcement officers 
in Chicago confiscate an average of 13,000 illegal weapons each year. 
It must end.
  That is why I have joined this bipartisan group to take serious 
action to prevent weapons trafficking and straw purchasing, where a 
third party member legally purchases a firearm then sells or trades it 
to a criminal who is legally barred from purchasing such a weapon. Our 
bipartisan, consensus legislation includes the Gun Trafficking 
Prevention Act, which Senator Gillibrand and I introduced earlier this 
year, that would for the first time make it a Federal crime to traffic 
illegal guns. The Stop Illegal Trafficking in Firearms Act also 
strengthens the tools law enforcement need to crack down on straw 
purchasers, particularly those who transfer those weapons in 
furtherance of crimes of violence or drug trafficking. This legislation 
also calls upon the Sentencing Commission to substantially increase the 
penalties when these crimes are committed by individuals affiliated 
with gangs and other criminal enterprises.
  A portion of this new anti-illegal gun trafficking legislation is 
named after Hadiya Pendleton, a 15-year-old who was shot and killed by 
gang gunfire in Chicago. For Hadiya and thousands of other victims, my 
hope is we can break through the gridlock here in Washington to 
actually get something done to save lives.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. COLLINS (for herself and Mr. King):
  S. 444. A bill making appropriations for the Department of Defense 
for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2013, and for other purposes; 
to the Committee on Appropriations.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss two separate 
problems facing our Nation--the first is sequestration, which is 
underway now and indiscriminately affecting a wide range of programs. 
The second is the prospect of a long-term Continuing Resolution to fund 
the Federal government for the remainder of the fiscal year, also not 
the way we should be doing business. Both will result in damage to our 
military readiness.
  In order to tackle these two separate but equally devastating 
problems, I am introducing two measures today.
  The first bill, which I am pleased to join my colleague, Senator 
Udall, in sponsoring, will help mitigate the consequences of 
sequestration by providing Department and agency heads additional 
flexibility in implementing the cuts. The second bill, which I am 
introducing with my colleague from my home state of Maine, Senator 
King, will fund the Department of Defense for the remainder of the 
fiscal year at levels approved by the Senate Appropriations Committee 
in the funding bill that was reported unanimously by the Committee on 
August 2, 2012.
  As Deputy Secretary of Defense Ash Carter has repeatedly warned, 
failing to pass an annual defense appropriations bill and requiring the 
Pentagon to operate under last year's law will continue to lead to 
dangerous absurdities that have ramifications that last far beyond the 
six months left in this fiscal year.
  Military readiness will suffer. A hollow force will be created. The 
Pentagon will be unable to increase production rates for existing 
weapons, start new programs, or sign multiyear procurement contracts 
that would provide significant savings for taxpayers.
  When I questioned Deputy Secretary Carter on February 14, at a Senate 
Appropriations Committee hearing about what the continuing resolution 
means for the Navy and our domestic shipbuilding capability, he 
testified that:

       We're in the absurd position where we're five months into 
     the fiscal year and we have the authority to build the ships 
     that we built last year and no authority to build the ships 
     that we plan to build this year. That's crazy . . . and that 
     has nothing to do with sequester, by the way, that's the CR.

  I have long argued that we need to bring the annual appropriations 
bills to the floor to be considered individually on their merits. I 
believe that CRs represent an abdication of our responsibility and 
should be avoided altogether. But given where we find ourselves today, 
at the very least we should be able to come together to pass the full-
year Department of Defense funding bill and the Military Construction/
Veterans Affairs appropriations.
  With regard to sequestration, we have known this day could arrive for 
a year and a half now. Yet, instead of working together to avert 
sequestration and replace it with a more rational alternative, the time 
has been spent jockeying for partisan advantage and engaging in a blame 
game. Last week, the Senate spent time voting against proceeding to 
debate on two partisan proposals that both sides knew beforehand were 
doomed.
  The bill Senator Udall and I are introducing today is a bipartisan 
effort to mitigate the harmful effects of sequestration. As a result of 
sequestration, vital priorities such as defense, education, 
transportation, and biomedical research, all face indiscriminate, meat-
ax cuts. No distinction is made between high-performing programs and 
poorly performing ones.
  The legislation we introduce today seeks to fix that. Instead of 
mindless across-the-board budget cuts, this legislation provides the 
heads of Federal agencies and departments with the flexibility to 
implement the savings targets required by the Budget Control Act until 
such time as a bipartisan agreement is reached to replace the sequester 
cuts or until Congress passes new appropriations bills for fiscal year 
2013 that meet the sequester levels.
  The bill requires these agency and Department heads to submit their 
proposals to the Appropriations committees of both the House and the 
Senate for approval.
  This approval is an important step in the process because these 
Committees know the budget of each agency and can provide oversight of 
agency plans.

[[Page 2186]]

This provides a strong incentive for each agency to put forth serious 
plans in order to avoid the across-the-board sequestration cuts that 
would otherwise take effect.
  Let me emphasize that while our proposal is intended to mitigate the 
harmful and mindless across-the-board approach of sequestration, a 
comprehensive, bipartisan approach to put our fiscal house in order 
must remain a top priority.
  I urge my colleagues to support both bills that we are introducing 
today.

                          ____________________