[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 159 (2013), Part 3]
[Senate]
[Pages 3333-3354]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AND VETERANS AFFAIRS, AND 
   FULL-YEAR CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2013--MOTION TO PROCEED--
                               Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, as we begin our work this afternoon, I 
wished to come to the floor to make a few comments about the Homeland 
Security appropriations bill which is now going to be included in the 
amendment offered by Senator Mikulski and Senator Shelby as part of an 
appropriations bill coming over from the House. This is such an 
important step forward, not just for the government but for the private 
sector jobs which depend on reliable, transparent, and appropriate 
government spending, for the whole

[[Page 3334]]

country. We have been in gridlock and stopped on our funding bills for 
months now. We have not been talking about what makes Americans happy 
and prosperous--smart investments in their future and their interests.
  We have been fighting about appropriations bills. That fight, 
hopefully, is coming to an end because of the extraordinary leadership 
of the Senator from Maryland, Senator Mikulski, the senior Senator from 
Maryland, and the newly minted--not new to the committee, a true 
veteran of the Appropriations Committee--chairwoman of our committee. 
She is in an able partnership with Senator Shelby of Alabama, a 
longstanding appropriator who understands practical politics and 
compromise is necessary to move anything of importance through this 
body. I can't thank them and their staffs enough for salvaging several 
of these important bills.
  They weren't able to come to an agreement on everything. I and others 
are still troubled we will not see much progress in the areas of 
education and health, as much as we would like, but that is for another 
day. We are going to move forward on the sections we may move forward 
together. One of those areas is funding for homeland security, which is 
a pretty big bill by Federal Government standards. It is not the 
largest, it is not the smallest, it is $42 billion. That is not chump 
change. It is a significant amount of money the taxpayers provide to us 
to make decisions about their security. It funds everything from Border 
Patrol and protection to Customs and Immigration.
  It funds the Coast Guard, which is a very important part of our 
operations. We feel that directly as a coastal State in Louisiana and 
are very familiar with the needs of coastal communities. The Coast 
Guard is always there.
  It funds a number of other entities. I do not want to fail to mention 
cyber security, which is one of the newest, most frightening threats to 
our country. This threat didn't even exist 20 years ago. You may see 
the ever-evolving capacity of people who would do us harm: not just 
governments that don't like the United States, not just groups that 
don't like the United States, but individuals who have some bone, some 
beef, some anger, and may actually act out in unbelievable ways through 
the Internet by attacking sensitive material and data.
  This is not just an attack to the government functions of our 
country, but we have seen any number of attacks on our private 
infrastructure. This is so critical to our existence, whether it is our 
water systems, our financial systems, our utility systems, our 
electricity systems. I could go on and on.
  This is a very important responsibility for the Federal Government to 
step up and figure out, working with the Department of Defense, 
Department of Commerce, and the Department of Homeland Security, which 
I chair. This is no insignificant matter.
  On the contrary, it is not only important for us to have the right 
money but invest it in the right places. We are trying very hard to do 
that. This is why it would have been very dangerous, in my view, to 
have this bill stuck. We would be funding last year's priorities, not 
being able to account for all the new intelligence which has come in 
over the last 12 months. This is an evolving, ever-growing, ever-
changing threat. We would have been spending taxpayer money funding 
last year's threats, not tomorrow's threats.
  This is why Barbara Mikulski, the chair of our committee, fought so 
hard to say we must move some of these appropriations bills forward to 
ensure appropriate funding and not wasting the taxpayer money. She was 
right. She was able to negotiate with Senator Shelby a yes--not a no, 
not a maybe but a yes--for the homeland security bill, and I could not 
be a happier chairman.
  I also want to thank Senator Coats, who is my able ranking member 
from Indiana. He worked hand-in-glove with me to put this bill 
together. Our staffs worked very closely together. We had a few minor 
disagreements and views. We were able to work them out and work through 
it, obviously. This bill is here with his signature and mine on it. We 
were able to negotiate in very good faith with our House counterparts, 
and I want to thank them.
  Chairman Mikulski says the four corners have signed off on our 
appropriations bill, both in the House and the Senate, the Republicans 
and the Democrats. It took some give and take, but that is what we need 
to do.
  I want to highlight a few areas in the bill people have been very 
interested in. First, the bill includes total discretionary spending of 
$39.6 billion. As I said, $42 billion was what it was a few years ago. 
Like every committee, we have taken a cut, we have taken a reduction. 
Contrary to what you might hear, we are tightening our belts and we are 
cutting into some muscle. We are cutting into some bone. It is not 
easy, but it is necessary.
  However, there is a point where you can't keep cutting or you won't 
be able to provide the security in the phrase homeland security. It 
will just be homeland. There won't be a big security piece around us 
because we have chopped it up. When people who want to harm this 
country discover this, they will find the weakness.
  I am not trying to scare up additional funding, but I am speaking the 
truth. Do you want to secure a border? You may talk about it or you may 
actually build one. If you want a strong Customs agency, which moves 
people through quickly but ensures no bad things come into our country, 
you need to fund it. This does not happen on a wish and a prayer.
  We have a flat budget. We have reorganized to accommodate what 
Senator Coats and I believe are the priorities for the Members here 
representing the people. The Coast Guard, cyber security, border 
security, travel facilitation I will return to in a moment.
  For the Coast Guard, the bill includes $9 billion in discretionary 
spending, which is $400 million above the President's request. We have 
cut out some other things, but those of us on the committee believe the 
Coast Guard is important. The Coast Guard is on the front line for drug 
interdiction, which I don't have to explain to people. It is not 
classified information that now we have drug kingpins owning submarines 
which bring drugs into the United States. People read about this. It is 
true. It is not science fiction. We need to make certain the Coast 
Guard has access to stop drugs from coming into our country in smart, 
aggressive ways, working in partnership with other governments.
  I don't have to remind everyone about the oilspill, the terrible 
accident. That trial is still going on in New Orleans as I speak, with 
hundreds of lawyers still debating the worst oilspill in the history of 
the country. Who showed up? The Coast Guard. They have to have all 
sorts of equipment to be able to respond for drug interdiction, which 
is different than an oilspill cleanup; and, of course, people are 
rescued literally every day by the brave men and women of the Coast 
Guard who risk their lives to keep our commerce and our recreational 
boating moving throughout this Nation.
  We have $557 million for production of the sixth national security 
cutter. Let me say something about this that people don't understand. I 
see my good friend Dick Shelby, and he most certainly understands this 
as a Senator from Alabama, but I want people who are not on our 
Appropriations Committee to understand something. When most people in 
America buy a big item, such as a house or even when they send their 
kids to college, they finance that. They take that big hit, such as a 
$40,000 loan to send their child to college for 1 year or $120,000 or 
$160,000 for 4 years, if they are going to a very fancy, expensive 
school. Happily, for some of us, at LSU we get a great bargain and a 
great education for $10,000. But for some families even $10,000 for 4 
years is a lot of money. They do not pay cash for that. They finance 
that. The Senator from Alabama knows this.
  Under the rules in Washington, we cannot finance most things. People 
don't understand this. We have to pay cash. So because we need that 
national security cutter, I had to find $557 million in our budget to 
pay for it this year, even though it takes a long time to build it.

[[Page 3335]]

  I think this should be changed. Senator Snowe, who was the chair of 
this Committee on Defense, Navy, for many years, thought it needed to 
be changed, but it has not changed as yet. I want people to know the 
pressures we are under in this bill, because sometimes when we have to 
fund these big items in one year, basically, we have to pay cash.
  Now, yes, ultimately this money is being borrowed through the general 
fund--and I don't want to get into a technical argument--but as far as 
we are concerned, we are paying cash for it in our budget--$557 million 
this year for the national security cutter.
  We are also funding $77 million for long lead time, $335 million for 
six new fast response cutters, $90 million for a new C-130 J aircraft, 
and I have invested, at my priority, $10 million for military housing 
for the Coast Guard.
  The Army, the Navy, the Air Force have been upgrading their housing. 
The poor Coast Guard, because they are smaller and they are more 
isolated, is not in areas where we can take advantage of that public-
private partnership that is working so well. I think our Coast Guard 
families need some support, and I was able to find some funding there 
for them.
  I don't need to take much more time. I don't know if the Senator from 
Alabama is here to speak, but I will take 5 more minutes, and if he 
needs me to cease, I will.
  But I want to also point out that we put some investments in the bill 
to address the cyber threat, which the President has described, and I 
agree with him, as one of the most serious economic and national 
security challenges we face as a nation. This bill includes $757 
million, which is $313 million above last year, and I was happy to do 
that. I think this is a priority. We have moved other items around in 
the budget because this is a real threat, it is evolving every day, and 
we have to have the research and technology to address it and work with 
the private sector to see what we can do to keep their network safe and 
our government strong.
  The bill includes $7 billion for the Disaster Relief Fund. This was 
also a battle we fought. The money is in there for Sandy, for Isaac, 
for Irene, for Ike, for Gustav, for Rita and Katrina and there are a 
few other storms that are, even after 6 or 7 years, still open. So this 
is money there for them to finish their recovery.
  In science and technology, the bill includes $835 million, a 25-
percent increase. I want to say one other thing, and I think Senator 
Shelby will agree with me, that people don't understand how important 
it is that the Federal Government invests in research and development. 
Yes, private companies do invest in research and development, but some 
of the investment we do is truly so farfetched that no one in their 
right mind would invest in it because there is no immediate return. Yet 
we have seen, time and time again, when the Federal Government steps up 
and makes those long-term investments in research, what happens--
something is discovered. The Internet was a good example of research 
through the Department of Defense, and I could give other examples. But 
soon enough, the private sector realizes, oh my gosh, this research is 
breakthrough--such as that which came from our research in health on 
our DNA and all the new and exciting technologies in health.
  I can tell you our State is benefiting a great deal from the research 
done 20 years ago on fracking. That wasn't done by Exxon or Mobil, it 
was done by the Federal labs out West because of research money in one 
of our bills. I am not sure which bill it was, but potentially in 
energy, and that is what is leading to the revolution in natural gas. 
As to this baloney that the Federal Government doesn't have to invest 
in research and technology, we do it in partnership with the private 
sector, and it is the best system in the world. We would be 
shortchanging ourselves and our future economic growth if we didn't 
continue it.
  Finally, just one more word about another priority. I have put some 
additional funding by moving some things around for Customs and 
Immigration and for TSA. I am not the only Senator who represents a 
State that depends, in large part, on the hospitality tourism and 
trade. I could list many States in our country that do as well, but let 
me tell you about Louisiana. We believe in hospitality. We believe it 
is a good business. We enjoy having people come to our State. They 
come, and we all have a great deal of fun and excitement with our 
festivals and our fairs. But at the end of the day, we make money and 
we create jobs and it is an important industry. I am alarmed at the 
fallout of international travel to the United States since 9/11. It has 
only increased by about 1 percent.
  To put that into perspective--and I believe this number is correct, 
but I will check it for the record--as the Senator from Alabama knows, 
international travel in the world has increased by something like 400 
percent. So people are going to China, they are going to Korea. There 
is a growing middle class, and what middle-class people do, besides buy 
homes and send their kids to school, is travel. It is a middle-class 
thing. We now have more middle-class people in the world than ever, but 
they are not coming to the United States because we are not investing 
in the kinds of infrastructure in our airports and ports that provide a 
safe but pleasant environment. So I am working very closely with the 
International Travel Association--and I want to thank them publicly for 
the work they are doing--because I am one Senator who believes in this. 
I think the President has also said that international travel means 
jobs for Americans right here at home. It is something they cannot 
transport.
  For border security, the bill maintains the legislatively mandated 
staffing floor of 21,370 border patrol agents and provides $76 million 
above the request for Border Patrol staffing within customs and border 
protection.
  Similarly, the bill provides $240 million above the request for 
maintaining current staffing levels of frontline CBP officers at our 
land, air, and sea ports of entry. The fiscal year 2013 budget request 
for CBP submitted to Congress over 1 year ago resulted in an overall 
funding shortfall of more than $320 million. This bill fills the vast 
majority of that shortfall through internal savings and reductions in 
other, lower priority areas. CBP will continue to face challenges in 
meeting its staffing requirements and I am committed to helping this 
important agency fulfill its critical missions.
  The bill includes $1.46 billion for first responders grants, an 
increase of $200 million above fiscal year 2012. These grants ensure 
our frontline responders are trained and equipped for catastrophic 
disasters. Recent examples of grant investments that supported disaster 
response are: communications assets, search and rescue units, 
generators, and medical equipment used during the 2011 tornadoes in 
Arkansas, Alabama, and Missouri; joint operations centers, rescue 
boats, and hazardous materials equipment used during Hurricane Sandy in 
New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut; and cutting-edge mobile vehicle 
radios and an upgraded 911 call center used during Hurricane Sandy in 
Maryland.
  While the response to more frequent severe disasters has improved, 
the funding in this bill will help address remaining gaps in 
preparedness. For instance, the recent National Preparedness Report 
found that State and local governments are less than halfway to 
achieving needed recovery capabilities and defending against the 
growing cybersecurity threat.
  Finally, in an effort to maximize resources for frontline missions, 
the bill approves the request to eliminate $800 million in 
administrative costs and rescinds $307 million in unobligated balances 
associated with low-priority programs. The bill also requires 30 
expenditure plans to ensure oversight of taxpayer dollars.
  I would like to conclude by emphasizing my concern with the impact 
sequester will have on the Department of Homeland Security. Despite the 
smart investments that are made in this bill, the problem of sequester 
remains.
  The Secretary of Homeland Security has testified before the 
Appropriations

[[Page 3336]]

Committee that these automatic budget reductions will be disruptive and 
destructive to our Nation's security and economy.
  At our busiest airports, peak wait times could grow to over 4 hours 
or more during the summer travel season. Such delays would affect air 
travel significantly, potentially causing thousands of passengers to 
miss flights with economic consequences at the local, national, and 
international levels. New flights that bring in hundreds of millions of 
dollars to the U.S. economy would be delayed or potentially denied due 
to reduced staffing.
  Sequestration will also impact our Nation's land borders. For 
example, daily peak wait times at the El Paso Bridge of the Americas 
could increase from 1 hour to over 3 hours.
  The Coast Guard will have to reduce operations by up to 25 percent 
impacting drug and migrant interdiction efforts.
  The sequester will impact our ability to detect and analyze emerging 
cyber threats and protect civilian federal computer networks, and
  FEMA will delay implementing critical reforms to improve disaster 
response and recovery.
  The Border Patrol workforce could be reduced by 5,000.
  I urge Senators to work together on a bipartisan basis to repeal this 
ill-conceived sequester and approve legislation that includes balanced 
deficit reduction.
  I again want to thank the chairwoman of the Appropriations Committee, 
Senator Mikulski; the vice chair, Senator Shelby; and the ranking 
member on the Homeland Security Subcommittee, Senator Coats for their 
hard work in including the Homeland Security Appropriations Bill for 
fiscal year 2013 in this essential legislation to fund the Federal 
Government.
  I am very happy to speak about this bill, but I do see the leaders 
are on the floor--the chairman and the ranking member--and I want to 
personally thank them both for bringing our appropriations bills to the 
floor. I have spoken about homeland security, but there are other bills 
that need to be talked about this afternoon. I am happy we could work 
out this agreement with my Republican counterparts, and, again, I thank 
the chairman and the ranking member for their extraordinary leadership.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SHELBY. Madam President, I just want to follow up on some of the 
comments the Senator from Louisiana has made--very positive comments 
about research and the role of the Federal Government in all aspects of 
research. She is a very hard-working member of the Appropriations 
Committee and she has been involved in a lot of this.
  Whether it is research on health issues--the National Institutes of 
Health on cancer or you name it--information technology, energy, which 
the Senator from Louisiana referenced--there are so many good things 
that come out of this, and I believe, overall, the Senate and the 
House, on both sides of the aisle, realized this. But with all the 
breakthroughs in information technology we have had, we have only to go 
back to the research and development the Federal Government did that 
basically brought us our Internet to realize that didn't just happen. 
It was built over many years, with many ideas and research. Look at it 
today. We have all benefited from this overall.
  There are threats to this information technology, in everything we 
use today dealing with energy; for example, our power grid, because a 
lot of that, as we all know, is computer driven and operated, our 
banking system's information technology, our military, our traffic 
control systems we rely on every day, and I am sure our trains and 
other vehicles we run. There are threats to this today. A lot of us 
know it as cyber security threats, and they are real.
  So as we do research in this area, as we continue our research, we 
cannot forget that. That is a job we all have to work together on, and 
I believe, on the Appropriations Committee, this is a good start today 
for challenges in our future to the security of our information 
systems--our grid, our banking system, our Federal Reserve, and I can 
go on and on because it affects everything in our everyday life, and we 
shouldn't forget it.
  I think we are off to a good start today. Senator Mikulski, the chair 
of the committee, and I believe this is the first time in a few years 
we have come to the floor trying to work together on appropriations, 
and we are determined to make this regular order work. I believe the 
majority of the Senators on my side of the aisle--the Republicans--and 
those on the Democratic side of the aisle will, in a few days, bring 
this to a head and we will do something good for the American people 
and bring forth some certainty and some good legislation.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Donnelly). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, other Senators on the Appropriations 
Committee--and all are welcome to come and comment, but those on the 
Appropriations Committee actually assigned to do the work will be 
coming throughout the afternoon to actually describe the content of the 
bill. I would like to talk about the content.
  We on Appropriations have 12 subcommittees. Of those 12 
subcommittees, each has a chair and a ranking member from the other 
party. The reason I am telling you this is to describe what it takes to 
do a bill.
  So through all of last week, after we got the guidance of our caucus, 
the guidance of the authorizing committee, the guidance from the 
leadership, we began to put a bill together. It is not easy. My own 
staff and Senator Shelby's staff worked through that first snowstorm we 
had, took computers home and worked all day and through the evening. I 
was back and forth. We wanted to make sure there was no fog in our 
bill. And then out of that the subcommittees gave recommendations.
  The reason I say that is that took us to Thursday. We didn't 
complete, from our end, the framework and substance of the bill until 
Saturday. That means me, the Democratic majority--the majority party 
has the responsibility of putting the bill together, but this is not a 
one-woman show here. So after we did, we gave it to our counterparts, 
who have been in consultation on broad principles, negotiations between 
the subcommittees, consultation with the authorizing committees on 
policy, where we are heading.
  Then when we got it to Senator Shelby and his staff, they had to 
exercise their due diligence. We wanted them to do the due diligence. 
We wanted them to look through every aspect of that bill to make sure 
with our word of honor, which we have had together for more than 25 
years, that there were no hidden agreements, that there were no 
surprises parachuted in that if we woke up, neither would be happy 
about.
  I must compliment Senator Shelby and his staff. They worked through 
the weekend doing every line item to make sure, when they gave Senator 
McConnell and the Republican caucus their best assessment, they had a 
chance to look at every single line item, and they sure did it, and 
they worked hard.
  So there are those who would say: We would have liked to have had the 
bill sooner. We would have liked to have been able to get the bill 
sooner. But we are talking about the funding for the entire United 
States of America. That is a lot of lines and that is a lot of items 
that had to be gone through methodically, diligently, and meticulously, 
and we moved as expeditiously as we could.
  So we then had our bill, and I really wanted to share it with the 
House. I think we have been working with the House in a very 
constructive way, communicating, but it took until very late yesterday 
afternoon for us to complete our process as members of the 
Appropriations Committee.

[[Page 3337]]

  I would have really loved getting this bill to the floor and filing 
this bill sooner, but in order to do it right, and not only the right 
content but the right way, to make sure the appropriate committees were 
able to exercise their due diligence, their vigilance, their scrutiny, 
we now present a bill to the entire Senate.
  So I hope we can move forward on our legislation. We want Members to 
take a look at it. We hope we can work on amendments this afternoon. I 
hope we have permission to go to our bill. We have two great amendments 
lined up--different philosophies, but that is what it is.
  I talked to Senator Ayotte on the floor a couple of weeks ago during 
sequester. Bring up the amendments. We have an amendment by Senator 
Harkin on the Labor-HHS content, and we have an amendment to be offered 
on President Obama's health care bill. There is a Senator who would 
like to have the full Senate decide whether we should defund it. This 
is an important national debate. Let it come on out. The only way we 
can get to that is by letting us go to the bill.
  We have an arcane procedure in the Senate called a motion to proceed. 
In order to be able to vote, we have to get permission to proceed. I 
want to get to amendments. I want to have a real debate on real issues. 
Where are we on Labor-HHS? What is the Senate's full view on the 
funding of ObamaCare? Let's get out there, and instead of fussing over 
procedure, let's get to real content. Let's talk about the real issues 
around funding and what we should be doing to pass the continuing 
resolution to keep America's funding going but where the majority rules 
and we have our bill.
  So let's get to the situation where we can move through the bill, 
where we can offer amendments. Regardless of how you feel about 
amendments, we all feel Senators have the right to offer amendments. 
Let's get to it. Let's get the job done. Let's show we can function as 
the greatest parliamentary body in the world.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I am somewhat amazed and stunned. You would 
think that someone who is given an answer to the question--yes--should 
pretty much be satisfied.
  We have been trying to keep the government from shutting down. I 
appreciate the work done by the Speaker. I didn't agree with his bill, 
but I appreciate what he did, and he did it in a timely fashion.
  The chairwoman of the Appropriations Committee, Senator Mikulski, has 
been negotiating with her Republican counterpart, Richard Shelby, for 
days now. They worked all weekend, late into Sunday night, and they 
worked out a bipartisan agreement. They offered the amendment here. Now 
we hear from a couple of Senators: Let's not take up the bill. They 
need more time.
  I thought people wanted to have an open amendment process on this 
bill. Offer amendments. Now it appears that the day is gone. I guess we 
won't be able to offer amendments today. I have said all along that we 
would turn to it as soon as possible. Our Republican colleagues said 
they want to see the first amendment that was to be offered. They saw 
that. They were originally given to certain people in the leadership 
office on Saturday about noon, and there has been every effort to work 
together on this matter. They wanted to see the first amendment that 
will be offered. I have indicated that was done; they saw it. There 
were negotiations to get to where that is. But now Senators want to 
prevent us from going to the bill. Remember, if I file cloture today, 
the earliest we can have the vote is Thursday.
  We are going to finish this CR, and we are going to finish the budget 
before there will be an Easter recess. That is a fact. So everyone 
should understand that delaying on this--because they want to read the 
bill more deeply, I guess--doesn't really make a lot of sense.
  We are going to do the budget resolution. I have made that clear, and 
I emphasize that now. And the Republicans have been talking about--even 
though it is basically without foundation--that we haven't had a budget 
resolution. We haven't needed one. We had one that was not a 
resolution, it was a law that set the standards for what we would do 
with our budget. It set ceilings on how much we would spend. As a 
result of that, we were able to get the funding for our subcommittees 
and appropriations. But they want a budget resolution, which isn't as 
good as law, and we are going to do everything we can to get that done.
  So if Republicans object to allowing the Senate to be in 
consideration of a bill negotiated with Republicans, then the only 
people who will be disadvantaged are other Republicans who want to be 
able to offer amendments.
  So I regret that again we have come to this. Just when you think it 
can't get worse, it gets worse. There are things we have to do. The CR 
is one of those. If it means cutting into the April recess--we have 2 
weeks to do a lot of things people have planned for some time--then 
that is what we will need to do. But I am stunned.
  I learned about this when we had the President at our caucus. I 
really am flabbergasted that here we are on the eve of doing something 
together, regular order, but regular order around here is stopping 
every bill from going on the floor. That is what the regular order is 
here. I thought we had some kind of an agreement at the beginning of 
this Congress that this wasn't going to go on anymore. We had that 2 
years ago. We changed the rules here a little bit.
  There is going to be tremendous angst within my caucus and I think 
the country to continue trying to legislate with the burdens that we 
bear, that just one or two people do everything they can to throw a 
monkey wrench into everything we do. As a country, we are being looked 
at as being inoperable. It is too bad. It is not good for this 
institution, and it is really not good for the country.
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, if people are watching us on C-SPAN--and 
they do, in our own country and around the world--they will say: Well, 
it is Tuesday afternoon, 3:30. What is happening in the Senate? We see 
two Senators--able, seasoned, experienced. Where is the debate? Where 
are the amendments? Where is the clash of ideas in an open and public 
forum on what is best?
  We are not doing that because we have arcane rules that Senators can 
put what they call a hold on a bill so we cannot proceed. In the old 
days that was a good idea; you placed a hold. This goes back to 
stagecoach days. You are an Indiana man, you understand that, I say to 
the Chair respectfully. But it was so you could get back. You would put 
a hold on a bill if you believed I offered legislation that could hurt 
Indiana, and in your stagecoach you could dash back here.
  We don't have stagecoaches anymore. In fact, we are all right here. I 
would like to be able to move this bill. There are those Senators who 
want more time. They could actually be looking at the bill if they 
would let us go this afternoon, because we have two amendments that 
would take us to 5 or 6--well, gosh now--until this evening. But we 
would get two amendments done on two pretty big topics, one of which 
should be, are we or are we not going to fund the President's health 
care initiative?
  We need to move this bill. What is it that Senator Shelby and I are 
trying to do? We are trying to pass a continuing resolution to fully 
fund the Federal Government with the scrutiny and oversight of the 
Congress by October 1. Right now we have the CR, as it is called, the 
funding. The continued funding expires March 27. Some people might say 
that is 15 days from now.

[[Page 3338]]

Not really because we have to pass our bill, we have to go to the 
House, and then we have to have a bill signed by the President. We 
would like to do that before the Easter-Passover recess, for which we 
break next week. We would really like to do it.
  I know one of my colleagues is on the Senate floor. I recognize the 
right for Senators to review and scrutinize a bill. I have done it 
myself. I respect that.
  In the days when we were skeptical and even suspicious of one 
another, you wanted to look at it to make sure there were no cheap 
gimmicks, no little fast hand motions, no earmarks parachuted in. But I 
can say this: After the Democrats finished the bill, we gave it to 
Senator Shelby and his staff. This bill has been very much scrutinized 
so that any of those tricks of the old days are not here.
  I really need everybody's attention. There is a lot of conversation 
going on.
  What I want to say is this: If anyone spots something they think is a 
cute gimmick, I would sure like to know about it. I recognize the 
Senators' rights, but I ask them if we could at least proceed to the 
bill where, while we debate these two big amendments, we would do it.
  Would I have liked to have made it available 72 hours ago? The answer 
is, yes. But given the magnitude of what we did and the due diligence 
necessary by the Republicans, it was physically and intellectually 
impossible, not with the scrutiny and oversight not done until 
yesterday. When we get back to regular order it will be better. But I 
feel like I have multiple decks I have been dealt: a real deck, a 
pinochle deck, a poker deck, and so on.
  I am making a plea that we go to our bill, recognizing the Senators 
should scrutinize the bills and recognizing Senators' rights to offer 
amendments. That is simply my plea. Some of my colleagues are on the 
Senate floor, and I will be happy to engage in a conversation with 
them, two of whom I have enormous respect for.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, first, I want to tell the chairwoman of 
the Appropriations Committee that I actually very much appreciate her 
work. I actually trust her to do the right thing. But we got this bill 
last night at 9 o'clock. It is a 500-page bill. It has multiple levels 
of authorizations in it that we found so far--authorization on an 
appropriations bill. It has what I would consider--and we haven't been 
completely through it--some things that are totally counterintuitive to 
where we find ourselves today in terms of spending money.
  Before I could grant a unanimous consent--and I will; as soon as we 
get through with the bill I plan on granting unanimous consent. But I 
want to know, we just heard the majority leader say he can't understand 
why somebody wants to read this bill. We are talking about in excess of 
$1 trillion. That is one of the problems, one of the reasons we are $17 
trillion in debt. It is because people don't read the bills.
  I also want to say to my friend from Alabama, I have the greatest 
praise for him. He knows some of the heartburn we have on this, but we 
knew that was coming from the House. But to not allow us the time to 
assess what you have produced by being able to read and study the bill 
is going against the best traditions of the Senate. It is also going 
against common sense.
  How do we know whether we want to offer amendments unless we have 
been able to read the bill? Are we just to blindly say: Whatever you 
want to do we are going to approve it because we have a deadline at the 
end of this month?
  I am willing to do whatever is necessary to make sure we get a 
continuing resolution, but I am not willing to do that blindly. I am 
going to study this bill. We have three Members' staff working on this 
full time. They have been working since last night. They are 
investigating and looking at this bill. I will not go into the details 
of the things we have seen so far, but we ought to at least have the 
opportunity before we rush into granting unanimous consent to go 
forward.
  I plan to allow unanimous consent, but I will not do so until I know 
what the agreement is going to be in terms of amendments. Even if we 
read the bill and have some good ideas, we don't know whether we are 
going to be able to offer any. This is an appropriations bill. We ought 
to be able to offer amendments with our ideas on ways to save this 
country money, increase its efficiency, increase its effectiveness, and 
still meet the deadline that the chairwoman outlined.
  I hope the Senator understands why we are not in a mood to grant it 
until we actually know what we are talking about. To ask anything less 
of us would be asking us to deny the very oath we took when we came 
here.
  With that, I yield the floor and thank my colleague John McCain for 
being here.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, along with the Senator from Oklahoma, I 
intend to object. I think the Senator made the case. I will remind my 
colleagues that 1 week ago Senator Coburn and I sent a letter to 
Senator Reid and Senator McConnell with copies to Senator Mikulski and 
Senator Shelby.
  We stated in one sentence:

       We write to inform you of our intention to object to 
     entering into a time agreement before consideration of a 
     continuing resolution until we have had at least 72 hours to 
     review its contents.

  That is what we wrote. That is what we asked for.
  I will remind my colleagues again, it is a 587-page bill of over $1 
trillion that we got at 9 p.m. last night. Is there anyone who has had 
time to read this entire bill that is 587 pages long? We are talking 
about $1 trillion, and we are holding up the Senate? We have had since 
9 p.m. last night until 3:30 p.m. this afternoon to examine a 587-page 
bill of over $1 trillion.
  What we have already found--and we have not finished, but we hope to 
be finished with examining this legislation within a few hours--is the 
most egregious pork-barrel spending during a time of sequestration. I 
find it mind-boggling. We spent 3 weeks in December on the floor of 
this Senate doing the fiscal year 2013 Defense authorization bill. 
There are provisions in this CR that were directly prohibited in the 
Defense authorization bill.
  I respect the knowledge of the Senator from Alabama and the Senator 
from Maryland on defense issues, but we spent 3 weeks and hundreds of 
hours in hearings including amendments and markup. For example, we said 
there would be no money for Guam until we have a coherent strategy laid 
out by the administration as to how we were going to implement the base 
realignment. The fiscal year 2013 National Defense Authorization Act 
prohibited expending that money.
  What have they crammed into this 587-page bill? There is $120 million 
for a public regional health laboratory and civilian wastewater 
improvements in Guam. Why? I ask my friend from Alabama: Why does this 
directly contradict the authorization bill which was just passed that 
said no money would be given to Guam for these purposes until such time 
as we had developed the strategy for the base realignment in Guam? Is 
it because the Senator from Alabama and the Senator from Maryland know 
something more than the Defense authorization bill authorizers did? We 
had debate, discussion, and authorization of this, and we specifically 
prohibited it.
  So here we are. We have not been able to deploy an aircraft carrier 
because of sequestration. We have had to cut down on flying hours. We 
have had to reduce maintenance. We have had to make all kinds of tough 
decisions as to the men and women who are serving, not to mention the 
equipment, operations, and maintenance.
  What have we already found out in this bill? I want to assure my 
colleagues I am not making this up. There is an additional $5 million 
for the National Guard Youth Challenge program. I think the National 
Guard Youth Challenge Program is a pretty worthwhile project, but is it 
worthwhile when we are having to keep a carrier from deployment? There 
is $5 million for the National Guard

[[Page 3339]]

STARBASE Youth Program; another $154 million for the Army, Navy, and 
Air Force ``alternative energy research initiatives.'' This type of 
research has developed such shining examples as the Department of 
Navy's purchase of 450,000 gallons of alternative fuel for $12 million, 
which is over $26 per gallon.
  There is $18 million for unspecified ``industrial preparedness,'' $16 
million for Parkinson's disease research. That part is out of Defense, 
my friends. That is not out of Health and Human Services; it is out of 
Defense. There is $16 million for neurofibromatosis research, $16 
million for HIV-AIDS research, which is a worthy cause, but it is taken 
out of Defense. There is $9 million for unspecified radar research, 
$567 million for unrequested medical research, $20 million for 
university research initiatives, and $7 million for the Civil Air 
Patrol program increase.
  The list goes on and on, and we have not finished. How in the world 
do we have a provision ``for an incentive program that directs the 
Department of Defense to overpay on contracts by an additional 5 
percent if the contractor is a Native Hawaiian-owned company,'' how in 
the world is this justified during this time of sequestration?
  I note the presence of our leader on the floor, and I want to assure 
the leader, with all due respect, that this is a 587-page bill of over 
$1 trillion. We got it at 9 p.m. last night. I hope that in a few hours 
we will be able to finish examining this bill. What we have found so 
far is so egregious it is hard to imagine that anybody--in light of the 
sequestration and the damage it does to the lives of the men and women 
who are serving the military--could have added these kinds of 
provisions and, frankly, is beyond anything I think I have ever seen in 
the years I have served in the Senate.
  I yield to the distinguished majority leader, but before I do, I 
object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Object to what?
  Mr. President, through the Chair to my friend from Arizona, this is a 
587-page bill that has been available to the public because the vast 
majority of this bill is identical to what the House already passed--
identical. He, along with his staff and the Senator from Oklahoma, have 
had days and days to look this over.
  I want to make sure everyone understands I can only do so much. I try 
not to be too sensitive, but the Senator from Oklahoma seems to have a 
problem--I assume he was referring to me or perhaps he was referring to 
Senators Durbin, Schumer, and Murray. Here is what he said on one of 
the Sunday shows:

       ``The Senate's not nearly as dysfunctional as it is made 
     out to be . . . '' said Coburn. ``Our problem in the Senate 
     is the leadership in the Senate.''

  I don't know if he is referring to Senator McConnell, I don't know 
whom he is referring to, but one day he should look in the mirror.
  I want to try and get along here. The vast majority of the stuff that 
is in this bill came from the House of Representatives. It has been 
available for days. I cannot remember what day we received this. I 
think it was last Wednesday or thereabouts, so it has been many days.
  I know Senator McCain very well. He and I came to the House and the 
Senate together. I understand how he feels about these issues. I don't 
blame him for being upset about some of the things in this bill, but it 
is not our fault. We are trying to get a bill to fund the government, 
and what we need to do is get on the bill.
  I am criticized for not allowing amendments to be offered. We cannot 
have amendments offered until we get on the bill. I think it would be 
much better if we could get on the bill. If people want to offer 
amendments, it is kind of jump ball here. We have 100 Senators, and a 
few of them want to offer amendments. We cannot dictate what amendments 
will be offered before we even get on the bill.
  I hope my friend from Arizona will take some time with the staff and 
look the bill over--it has been around since last Wednesday or 
thereabouts--so we can get on the bill. The time is being wasted. We 
have to finish this and the budget before we leave for Easter vacation.
  We can do the bill this week, next week or the week after that. We 
have to get this done. I am not trying to fight with anybody, but as I 
said, I do have some sensitivities about my friend from Oklahoma 
continually berating the leadership in the Senate. I have come to the 
rationalization that maybe he is talking about his own leadership. I 
don't know.
  Mr. McCAIN. I ask through the Chair if my friend would yield for a 
question.
  Mr. REID. Of course.
  Mr. McCAIN. First of all, I appreciate very much the majority 
leader's responsibility to make sure we take up and pass legislation. 
There are many times when I have to say that the majority leader has 
been frustrated by some events and individuals which arouses my 
sympathy for the responsibility he has and his inability to carry out 
his duties.
  I point out to my friend from Nevada that we just got this bill last 
night, so to rely on the fact that a House bill should be our guide 
when we know there were many provisions added--at least some provisions 
that were added that we already found in the Senate version of the 
bill--I would hope he would understand we need a little more time to 
try to get through the entire bill, which I hope will be sooner rather 
than later. Once that is done, then we can--as the majority leader 
said--be open for amendments.
  I hope the majority leader understands our point of view, that this 
is bill over $1 trillion with 587 pages. For us to take sort of an act 
of faith that this is the bill that came from the House is obviously 
not the case.
  Mr. REID. If my friend would yield----
  Mr. McCAIN. I appreciate the majority leader's responsibilities, and 
I appreciate his frustration. I hope he will understand ours and we 
will try to move this as quickly as possible.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. For many years and decades Senator McCain has been a 
watchdog of what goes on with spending in this country. I expect that 
from him, so I don't say that in a negative fashion. I don't have a 
problem with Senator McCain looking over this legislation so he feels 
comfortable with moving on to it, and then if he has amendments to 
offer, we can move on amendments. I have no complaint about John 
McCain.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, let me thank the Senators from Maryland 
and Alabama for their leadership on this bill. I might say to my 
friend, the Senator from Arizona, that I have a new assignment in the 
Appropriations Committee following the departure and passing of our 
great friend Senator Danny Inouye. I am trying my best to make sure we 
are doing our best on national defense, which I know is near and dear 
to the Senator from Arizona.
  There was an extraordinary effort made in the House to accommodate 
the Department of Defense in the continuing resolution as well as 
accommodating military construction and veterans. I think it is a good 
bill. It comes over to us with provisions that will be helpful with 
some of the problems and challenges they will face.
  What these Senators have tried to do is to add several other areas of 
agreement in the appropriations process. If I am not mistaken, most 
everything they have added has been subject to debate within the 
subcommittee and full committee. So there is no attempt here to conceal 
anything, and we knew full well that the watchful eye of the Senator 
from Arizona and his friends would be applied to this bill.
  I think what we were trying to achieve today is to start the 
amendment process--not to close it down but start the amendment 
process. That would give Members who want to come forward with an 
amendment the time to offer those amendments and others the time to 
review this legislation closely. I think that was our goal, only to 
have this shut down now, where no amendments can be taken up or 
considered. Without foreclosing the Senator

[[Page 3340]]

from Arizona or the Senator from Oklahoma, wouldn't it be a healthier 
situation for us to be actively considering amendments of Members who 
know what they wish to offer at this point?
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to engage in a 
colloquy with the Senator from Illinois.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Schatz). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. McCAIN. The point of the Senator from Illinois is very well made, 
but unless we know the entirety of the bill, we don't know what our 
priorities are as far as amendments are concerned. I am sure the 
Senator knows that even though amendments are going to be allowed, 
there is going to be a limited number of amendments. We know how things 
work around this place come Thursday afternoon.
  All we are asking is to give us a little more time. It was 9 o'clock 
last night when we received the final version of the bill.
  I would say to my friend from Illinois, unless we know what is in the 
bill in its entirety, it is hard for us to know what the priority 
amendments we intend on proposing are. I think we are nearly through 
the examination of the bill. I do not wish to impede the progress of 
the Senate on this legislation. I know how important it is.
  I also hope my friend will understand that we asked a week ago to 
have 72 hours, which is the normal Senate procedure, to examine the 
bill before we consider it. I understand the exigencies of the moment--
all the back and forth between both sides of the Capitol--but I don't 
believe, for a $1 trillion bill, 587 pages, it is too much to ask for 
about 12 hours, or 14 hours, 15 hours--we have our staff working full 
time, and I wish to assure the Senator we will have it done soon.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, if I might engage further in this 
dialogue, I see the Chair is seeking recognition. But there are 
Senators on both sides who have amendments ready to go. They have ideas 
they wish to present to the Senate for consideration. Without 
foreclosing the Senator from Arizona and his colleagues of the 
possibilities to offer amendments tomorrow or whenever they are 
prepared to, I don't know why we want to shut down this deliberation 
today. We can consider some of these amendments and still not in any 
way prejudice the rights of Senators to review the bill and offer 
amendments of their choice.
  Mr. McCAIN. Look, my dear friend, every Senator has their 
responsibilities in this body. I have a responsibility particularly 
where defense is concerned. We spent 3 weeks on this legislation, 
including hundreds of amendments, hours and hours of debate, markup in 
the committee of hours and hours, hundreds of hours of hearings by the 
leaders of our military and the administration. I haven't finished 
examining the defense part of this bill.
  Now, why am I so worried about the provisions of this bill? Because 
there are provisions in this bill that directly contradict the Defense 
authorization we spent weeks on. We prohibited money for Guam, OK? We 
prohibited it. Now there is $120 million in the bill for it. So that 
makes me curious as to what else is in this bill.
  So I think for me to go back and tell my constituents in Arizona, who 
are heavily dependent on our national defense and our bases, to say, 
Yes, I went ahead without even reading the whole bill, without even my 
staff going through the entire bill; we were in such a hurry with our 
over $1 trillion legislation that they didn't want me to hold up the 
Senate so people could propose amendments--that is not my duty to the 
citizens of Arizona.
  So I say with respect to my friend, I respect the rights of all other 
Senators. I hope the rights of the Senator from Oklahoma and my rights 
would be respected and that includes reading a piece of legislation 
that is 587 pages long.
  Mr. DURBIN. If I might respond to the Senator, the Department of 
Defense Appropriations Act for 2013 provides $604.9 billion, including 
$87.2 billion for overseas contingency operations. That is a reduction 
from the 2012 level of $633.2 billion.
  There are no changes in the defense section of this bill. There are 
no changes in the bill that was passed by the House of Representatives 
last week. The bill fully complies with the spending caps in the Budget 
Control Act. It contains no Member-requested earmarks, in compliance 
with the earmark moratorium. There are cuts in the defense budget to 
define programs with excess funding, scheduled delays, and the like.
  The bill includes 671 cuts as it came out of the House to programs in 
the budget request of funds that are not needed for the remaining 6\1/
2\ months of the year.
  I might say to my friend from Arizona, this is what the House passed. 
We have not added anything to it that I think would be of Senate 
authorship that changes it in substance.
  So I understand. It is the Senator's right. I respect his right and I 
will fight for his right as a Senator. But I would hope that at least 
for those Senators prepared to offer amendments, without in any way 
prejudicing the right of the Senator from Arizona to do so, we could 
proceed with the amendment process.
  Mr. McCAIN. Well, again, I thank my friend from Illinois and I thank 
him for his point of view. I understand it. I understand the 
frustration of our two leaders on the Appropriations Committee and 
their desire to get this done. I understand the time clock is running 
out. We are talking about a very short period of time. But I have to 
repeat to the Senator from Illinois one more time: I am not going to go 
back to my State and say, By the way, I started the amendment process 
and debating on a bill that I hadn't read. I don't do that, and I hope 
the Senator from Illinois respects it. I hope in a very short period of 
time we can agree to proceed and have vigorous debate and amendments.
  I also have to say this is remarkable. Here we are, I say to my 
friend from Illinois, in a period of sequestration, and there is a 
provision in here for $15 million for an incentive program that directs 
the Department of Defense to overpay contracts by an additional 5 
percent if the contractor is a Native Hawaiian-owned company. That 
boggles the mind. It is unbelievable. While we are keeping ships tied 
up at the pier because we can't deploy them, we are now going to tell 
Native Hawaiian companies they are going to be overpaid by an 
additional 5 percent if they are based in Hawaii. What is that all 
about? That is why the Senator from Oklahoma and I have to read the 
bill. I thank my colleagues.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Would the Senator from Arizona yield for a question?
  Mr. McCAIN. Yes, ma'am.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. We acknowledge the validity of the concerns of the 
Senator from Arizona. We also acknowledge that we would have liked very 
much for people to have seen this 72 hours in advance. There was no 
intent to stiff-arm. Please understand that. We weren't trying to be 
cute and come in late and all that. It was just the sheer physicality 
of moving the bill, not getting it from the House until Thursday. So 
there was no intent to not honor the request of the Senator from 
Arizona, in which he was very plain, and he has been consistent in 
every bill. The Senator's request was not unusual and it was no 
surprise. So that is essentially where we are.
  Mr. McCAIN. I would say to the Senator, the distinguished 
chairperson, I respect that and I would never impugn her motives. I 
said I thought I understood the time constraints the Senator from 
Maryland is under, given the House and the Senate and all that. I 
certainly did not intend to believe that there was anything----
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I just wanted to assure the Senator from Arizona of 
that and I have respect for the Senator and his regard for the purse.
  Does the Senator from Arizona have a sense of when he will be 
finished reviewing the bill?
  Mr. McCAIN. I think in a very short time. I have to coordinate with 
the Senator from Oklahoma, but I think within a couple of hours.

[[Page 3341]]


  Ms. MIKULSKI. We would appreciate it in any way the Senator feels he 
can exercise his traditional due diligence. We are not going to engage 
in arguments, but we would like to go ahead if we could get something 
going even later on this evening.
  Mr. McCAIN. Could I say to the distinguished chairwoman, I will go 
back to my office right now, get together with Senator Coburn, and see 
if we can't come up with a definite time, and I assure the Senator from 
Maryland it will be a short period of time.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. And if perhaps there are amendments the Senator from 
Arizona could share with Senator Shelby. I expect there to be 
amendments from Senators McCain and Coburn. It wouldn't have been a 
real bill if they did not offer amendments. It somehow or another 
wouldn't have counted in the process. So we look forward to it. If we 
can move it in an expeditious way, and courteously understanding the 
Senator's right to offer amendments, I think we can get going.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I will try to carry out my mission as 
assigned by the distinguished chairperson. I thank her for her 
leadership and her excellent work. I thank both leaders.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I will not engage the Senator from Arizona 
with questions. I don't want to delay his reading time.
  I appreciate the work the distinguished chair of the Appropriations 
Committee has done, and the distinguished ranking member, the senior 
Senator from Alabama. I worked with both of them for decades on the 
Appropriations Committee. I know they are diligent. They are hard 
working. In fact, I recall a discussion with the distinguished senior 
Senator from Maryland when she agreed to take this assignment. I told 
her I couldn't think of anybody better on our side of the aisle to be 
the chair of this committee because I know how hard she works and how 
well she works with the ranking member.
  I spoke also with the distinguished Senator from Alabama at the 
time--again, somebody who knows how to get things done on 
appropriations. He and I have negotiated things over the years. We have 
always kept our word to each other, just as the Senator from Maryland 
has. Now it is time to debate the bill on the floor and it pains me 
that having got this far, two senators are preventing anyone else from 
offering amendments.
  It is unfortunate we are discussing a continuing resolution because 
if left to the three Senators who are currently on the floor--the 
Senator from Alabama, the Senator from Maryland, and myself--we know we 
would be fully capable of completing action on individual 
appropriations bills. In fact, they were painstakingly negotiated by 
the Senate and the House as part of an omnibus legislative package last 
December. But then, for reasons we don't have to go into here, a year's 
work of seven appropriations subcommittees was dumped in the 
wastebasket, not because of the two leaders but because of others.
  Unfortunately, that means we have been funding the government on 
autopilot. None of us who have spent time on the Appropriations 
Committee wants this because we know it wastes money and sequestration 
will make a bad situation even worse.
  Having said that, I think what Chairwoman Mikulski and Ranking Member 
Shelby have done in negotiating this continuing resolution is far 
better than putting the government on autopilot as we did last 
December.
  I wish to talk about title 7 of this resolution, which concerns the 
Department of State and Foreign Operations. The House continuing 
resolution included several changes in the fiscal year 2012 
appropriations act. The Senate incorporated those changes with minor 
modifications. Senator Lindsey Graham and I included other changes we 
believe are critical to our national security. Top officials at the 
State Department and the Pentagon agree with us.
  We did our best to avoid spending money on things that may have made 
sense in fiscal year 2012 but are a waste today. I will give an 
example. The House continuing resolution includes another $250 million 
for the Iraq police training program, the same amount as in fiscal year 
2012. Yet the State Department plans to spend zero in fiscal year 2013. 
That is just an example of why we should go, if we could, by the 
regular order, because nobody wants this money.
  There have been a lot of changes in the world since December 2011 
when the 2012 bill was signed by the President. There is the 
catastrophe in Syria, with millions of people fleeing their homes, 
which threatens to engulf the entire region. Benghazi and Mali are 
other examples. Conditions are changing in Egypt, Afghanistan, and in 
our own hemisphere. We face growing challenges in East Asia and the 
Pacific.
  Now, we should not say, as these challenges come up--sometimes 
overnight--that well, two or three years ago we passed a bill, so there 
is no need to do one this year. The world does not stand still.
  I think the chairwoman is doing a superb job, and Ranking Member 
Shelby is showing, as usual, his many years of experience and hard 
work. I thank Senator Lindsey Graham and his staff, who have provided 
very constructive input.
  In the past, appropriations bills were always a bipartisan effort. We 
worked together. I think of Senator Byrd and Senator Stevens on this 
floor working things out; my predecessor as President pro tempore, 
Senator Inouye, and Senator Cochran working things out.
  Title VII of this resolution is a grand total of 11\1/2\ pages. Out 
of over 500 pages, it is 11\1/2\ pages. It should not take long to 
read. We do not expect amendments, but if we get them, I hope we can 
act on them quickly.
  Mr. President, if nobody is seeking the floor, I ask unanimous 
consent that I be allowed to continue for 5 minutes as though in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. King). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


             Arrest and Prosecution of Sulaiman Abu Ghaith

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, last week the Obama administration 
announced that Osama bin Laden's son-in-law, Sulaiman Abu Ghaith, had 
been brought to the United States to be prosecuted. Several of us who 
have oversight in particular committees were notified a week before 
this became public. We were briefed on what was happening as he was 
being flown here to this country to be prosecuted.
  I commend the work of our Nation's dedicated law enforcement and 
intelligence officials who are helping bring him to justice. I was 
briefed on exactly what they did and how they did it, and there was a 
superb combination of work by the Justice Department and intelligence 
communities, at the CIA, FBI, and other agencies. And I applaud the 
Obama administration for their unanimous decision within the National 
Security Council to prosecute him in a Federal court.
  We have reason to be proud of our courts. Our Federal courts are an 
example of impartiality, competence, and integrity seen the world over. 
We, as Americans, are not afraid to take somebody who has acted against 
us and prosecute them in our courts. We should not act as though we are 
afraid and simply say that we can't have them in our Federal court, and 
that we should just lock them up in Guantanamo.
  As a practical matter, our Federal prosecutors have established a 
tremendous record of convictions of terrorism defendants. They have 
convicted over 450 terrorism-related defendants since September 11, 
2001.
  The military commissions at Guantanamo Bay--where some said they 
wanted to send Abu Ghaith--are largely untested. There have only been 8 
convictions there--not the 450 we have seen in Federal courts but 8--
and on average the sentences handed down in military commissions are 
shorter than those given in the Federal court. In fact, two of these 
military commission convictions were overturned just last year. Indeed, 
based on the recent decisions of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. 
Circuit, it is unclear whether a conspiracy case against this defendant

[[Page 3342]]

could even be legally sustained in a military commission at Guantanamo 
Bay.
  Why do we act as though we are afraid to bring this terrorist before 
our Federal courts where we bring mass murderers and everybody else, 
and instead argue that we should send him off somewhere where he may 
never be convicted? In fact, regardless of the outcome of a military 
commission proceeding against Abu Ghaith, it is possible that he could 
have been stuck there without the possibility of a Federal prosecution, 
given the shortsighted limitations on detainee transfers imposed by 
Congress. When you look at how well the Federal courts have done, I am 
surprised to hear people criticize the decision to bring him before an 
Article III Federal court.
  I would say that using our justice system is not mutually exclusive 
from gathering intelligence. In fact, from public accounts--and I refer 
to what has been in the press--it appears the FBI gathered information 
and intelligence from him for about a week before he was formally even 
arraigned in court last week. In fact, according to one of the 
prosecutors, law enforcement officials were able to obtain detailed, 
extensive audio recordings and roughly 22 pages of post-arrest 
statements from Abu Ghaith. And the fact is, also, as we have seen in 
some of these other cases, once you present the defendant in court, 
oftentimes they continue to cooperate and talk.
  It is clear to me that President Obama's national security team did 
the right thing. But we also show the rest of the world that we are not 
afraid, that as Americans we are not cowering and afraid to use our 
courts, and that we are not afraid to use the law and procedures that 
have made us free and strong.
  We have had several hearings in the Judiciary Committee on how best 
to handle terrorism suspects. I am convinced that the Attorney General 
and the administration must have all options available. For example, 
the case of the Fort Hood shooter went to a military trial, as it 
should have. That case involved a military officer committing a crime 
on a military base against other military personnel, even though 
influenced by somebody from al-Qaida overseas. But in the Abu Ghaith 
case we have somebody that we can and should prosecute on conspiracy 
charges in Federal court. As a former prosecutor, I have looked at 
that, and I have absolute faith in the abilities of our Federal courts 
and our prosecutors and law enforcement officials to bring terrorists 
to justice. They have a tremendous record.
  Let's not be afraid of these people. Let's not say: Oh, we have to 
hide them down there in Cuba at Guantanamo Bay. No, we are Americans. 
We are America. We are not afraid of terrorists. Bring them before our 
courts, and let them face American justice. Let them face our 
prosecutors and our courts. Let's do it in a way that we can show the 
rest of the world how justice truly works. When we tell them, why 
aren't you running your courts in an open way, or when we criticize 
other countries, as we often do, let us not give them an opportunity to 
come back and say, well, you don't do it that way yourselves. No--we 
can and must say that we do. We have captured the son-in-law of Osama 
bin Laden, who conspired with him to commit a horrible crime against 
our Nation. It took us years to find him, but we got him. We brought 
him back here. And now we are taking him to court, and we are going to 
let a jury decide his guilt or innocence. That is the way it should be 
done. That is the American way. And that shows that we do not have to 
hide. We Americans are willing to stand up and face those who would 
attack us.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, before the distinguished Senator from 
Vermont leaves the floor, I really wish to compliment him not only in 
the way he has moved legislation but really the values, the American 
values, behind it. I think he has worked steadfastly on a bipartisan 
basis with Senator Lindsey Graham on our foreign operations. This is 
what has been called soft power, but there is nothing soft about it. It 
is part of our smart power strategy.
  And what has it meant? It has meant healing the sick, feeding the 
hungry, making sure children whose legs have been blown off with land 
mines have an opportunity for rehabilitation or for the children of 
Haiti who lost their limbs because of the horrific nature of the 
earthquake--taking lessons learned from other places in the world, that 
they have a chance to do it.
  Baltimore is the home of the Catholic relief organization. These are 
people who serve the world without religious creed. They serve whomever 
is in need. The way they extol the virtues of what they have been able 
to do has been amazing. What they say to me is that because of the work 
Senator Leahy has done, they are able to leverage philanthropic 
dollars. Rather than being in lieu of government, they can leverage it 
because we are coming in to help the children, to help the children 
learn to walk, and they then come in with community development so that 
they learn a trade, so that we are literally rebuilding the lives of 
children in Haiti but also giving them a future where they are going to 
earn a livelihood. It is pretty terrific.
  We have President Clinton, who does his global initiative like in 
Haiti, but we all have to be in it together, whether it is Bill Gates--
the women of the Senate on a bipartisan basis last week met with 
Melinda Gates in terms of the great Gates Foundation, and they talked 
about their health care initiatives.
  We said: Well, what does all this mean in terms of us?
  They said: If you do the job only government can do, we can then do 
what we need to do.
  This is unique. I do not know of other countries in the world that 
quite work with this synergy, letting our private philanthropic 
community do splendid, inspirational work. But they need a government.
  The other thing we are able to do in this bill is provide something 
very near and dear, which is embassy security. We know we wanted to do 
more. We know that over the last couple of years the House has denied 
$400 million in embassy security. So we are heartsick at the way our 
Ambassador died. And while there is all that back-and-forth over 
talking points, which we are not getting into, the fact is that we need 
to protect our American men and women working in embassies because they 
are at a duty station, and now that duty station has become a battle 
station. We need to make sure we provide embassy security in the best 
way possible. We can debate policy, management, and so on, but at the 
end of the day we need to put money in the Federal checkbook to do 
that.
  We lost an Ambassador in Benghazi. I lost an Ambassador, and America 
lost many others a few years ago at Khobar Towers. One was our Consul 
General. His name was Bartley. He was the highest ranking African 
American in the Foreign Service. His son was interning with him. They 
blew up the Embassy. He and his son died. We need to look out for these 
people. There was also a young lady who was there from the community, 
from CDC, working to make sure we were doing the right health 
initiatives, teaching, educating the leadership there. She died. Again, 
they were at their duty station, which has now become a battle station.
  So I compliment the Senator for the children, his work on land mines, 
and his work on feeding the hungry. And do you know what. We make wise 
use because of the strong oversight. I know the Senator from Vermont 
listens to the inspector general, scrutinizes those GAO reports. We get 
a dollar's worth of assistance, and at the end of the day America is 
stronger because of what we do in this bill.
  I wish to salute the Senator for his sense of bipartisanship, his 
leadership and stewardship not only in this bill but over the years. 
The Senator should be saluted, and I want to make sure this bill moves 
forward so we can get on to next year and even do a better, smarter 
job.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I thank the senior Senator from Maryland 
for

[[Page 3343]]

her kind comments. We do a lot. It is interesting. In the foreign aid 
part, it is less than 1 percent of our budget. But what we do is show 
the face of America--the best of the face of America throughout the 
world. The distinguished Senator has been, throughout her career, both 
in the other body and here, a strong supporter of those programs and 
made life better for an awful lot of people who never know who Senator 
Mikulski is or Senator Leahy or anybody else. All they know is that 
life is better because of the things we have done.
  I was in Haiti just a couple of weeks ago. I have been there several 
times since the earthquake. I have seen how our programs have helped, 
including the Leahy War Victims Fund, which helps land mine victims 
around the world. The Senator from Alabama knows, as he was there with 
me a year ago.
  I saw youngsters with prosthetics learning to walk again. I saw 
people from other parts of the world who were inspired by what the 
United States was doing.
  I remember a physician from Brussels who had gone to Haiti. When I 
asked him why he spent so much time volunteering there, We were 
speaking French with each other, but I remember the emotion in his 
voice as he grabbed my arm and said, ``pour les enfants,'' for the 
children. Those children are not rich. They are not powerful. They will 
never vote for us. But we are human beings, and we have a 
responsibility.
  The Senator from Maryland has spoken about security at our embassies. 
We tell people to go to some of the most dangerous parts of the world 
and show the best face of America. We have a responsibility to protect 
them. We have tried to get that money passed only to have had it held 
up in the other body. Let's continue our work.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.
  Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. Mr. President, the bill Chairwoman 
Mikulski and Senator Shelby have compiled is an excellent example of 
how hard work, cooperation, and good-faith negotiating can produce 
results in a body which is too often paralyzed by gridlock. The 
combined omnibus and CR, while not all I would wish for, is a balanced 
approach to keeping the government functioning through the remainder of 
the fiscal year while avoiding the specter of a government shutdown.
  The Military Construction and Veterans Affairs appropriations bill is 
one of five bills in this package, and it reflects the agreement 
reached between the Senate and the House last fall. The Senate bill is 
identical to the House-passed MILCON-VA bill, and it sends a strong 
message of support to our Nation's vets and military families, 
including previously appropriated advances for vets' medical care. The 
fiscal year 2013 bill provides a total of $144.8 billion for military 
construction, family housing, the VA, and four related agencies, 
including Arlington National Cemetery. Of that amount, $71.9 billion is 
discretionary funding. This includes $10.6 billion for military 
construction, $61 billion for the VA, and $347 million for related 
agencies.
  This bill deserves the full support of the Senate. The alternative is 
a continuing resolution which is out of step with current requirements 
or a crippling government shutdown. A CR would be disastrous for 
military construction. The CR prohibits new starts, which would block 
execution of 97 percent of the fiscal year 2013 military construction 
program. As a result, more than 250 MILCON projects in 42 States, the 
District of Columbia, and overseas which are funded in the bill before 
us would be put on indefinite hold in the CR.
  For the VA, a CR would not provide advance funding for fiscal year 
2014 for vets' health care. Advance funding is an important tool to 
protect funding for vets' health care from the very predicament we find 
ourselves in today.
  Another small but important program in this bill which would be 
scuttled by a CR is funding for needed cemetery expansion at Arlington 
National Cemetery. All of these problems are solved in this omnibus 
package.
  Our Nation's vets, our military troops and their families, have made 
and are continuing to make great sacrifices in defense of this Nation. 
The bill before us recognizes and honors that commitment by funding a 
wide array of programs essential to the health and well-being of both 
vets and military families.
  I urge the Senate to support this bill.
  I yield the floor, and I note the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I would like to compliment the Senator from South 
Dakota, who does an excellent job as assistant chairman on the 
Subcommittee on Military Construction, VA. He has worked steadfastly to 
bring up this bill. We are in agreement with the House. I wish to share 
a sense of urgency why this needs to happen.
  In this bill, thanks to the leadership provided here, it increases 
funding to improve and accelerate claims processing to increase staff, 
business processes, and infotech enhancements. This kind of sounds 
bloodless and technocratic, but I stand before you today to tell you we 
have a claims processing crisis for our veterans, particularly in the 
area of applying for disability benefits.
  I hate to tell you, Baltimore has one of the worst records. There are 
many reasons for this situation. It wasn't my fault. We let the 
infrastructure deteriorate, there are staffing issues, and there are an 
incredible number of our men and women coming back from the longest war 
we have fought with incredible injuries, with some bearing the 
permanent impact of the war, and they are eligible. Many have multiple 
problems. This is not your World War II benefit claim.
  So we have a backlog. We need to deal with that backlog; otherwise, 
shame on us. Those men and women fought hard. They gave it everything 
they had. Thanks to the skill and dedication of military medicine, we 
saved more lives in combat than in any other war.
  I don't want to sound like an epidemiologist; I am a Senator. The 
fact is we have reduced what doctors call morbidity and mortality. That 
is the good news back to the hospital from the battlefields, from 
training medics, all the way to Germany, all the way now to Walter Reed 
National Military Medical Center in Bethesda.
  What is the issue when they come back home? Because we have saved 
their lives, they have injuries. It means they have some level of 
disability. They may not be totally disabled, but they are eligible. If 
they have a permanent injury, they should have a permanent benefit from 
their government. While they were on the frontline, they should not 
need to stand in line to have their claims processed.
  We have some claims which take as many as 3 or 4 years to complete. 
We need to pick it up. We need to up our game.
  These are improvements. We have spoken to General Shinseki. I know 
the gentleman. The chairman of the committee has talked to him and was 
quite vigorous and insistent in his advocacy. I had General Shinseki 
come to Baltimore. I was ballistic about the claims situation in 
Baltimore. What did we need? We needed increased staff.
  Did you know we do most of our disability claims by paper? We might 
as well be doing it by papyrus.
  When you look at it--I am rarely brief, but I am short--the average 
disability claim, which I know you have gone to look at, sir, is 
sometimes 6, 8, and 12 inches tall. That is just the VA. In order to be 
certified you need to have the military give you information, you need 
to have Social Security give you information, and you need to have 
doctor information. In the meantime, somebody who lost a leg, somebody 
who has lost an arm, somebody who has lost so much time fighting a war, 
we ask too much from too few for

[[Page 3344]]

so long who are there waiting for their benefit.
  We need to go digital. If we are going to run government like a 
business, let's give them the standard business tools. That means more 
technology.
  I really want to thank the Senator from South Dakota and his 
Republican vice chair for much of what they have done in this bill. 
What is nearest and dearest for me are two things: increased funding to 
deal with the claims process to receive what they deserve and also 
advance funding for VA medical to enable the veterans to receive the 
health care they were promised, they need, and they deserve. If you 
ever want to talk about an earned benefit, it is the men and women who 
need VA medical care and the men and women who need their claims 
processed to receive what they deserve and what they are entitled to.
  This in and of itself is a reason to ensure we don't have a 
government shutdown and blow this program out of the window. I want to 
thank the Senator for his advocacy and also for taking good intentions 
and putting them in the Federal checkbook.
  Mr. President, I note the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. RUBIO. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Warren). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. RUBIO. Madam President, I rise today to speak about an amendment 
to the pending matter, an amendment I intend to file when it becomes 
procedurally appropriate to do so.
  The amendment I intend to file is about foreign aid to the nation of 
Egypt. But let me start by talking about foreign aid in general because 
there is a lot of debate about that and a lot of concern around the 
country about foreign aid. In fact, a lot of places I go people ask me: 
With things so tough here in the United States, why do we give money to 
other countries? Why are we giving money to other countries?
  That is a very good question to ask. First, I would say, and I would 
caution people, that foreign aid is not 20 percent of our budget. It is 
not 30 percent of our budget. It is actually, on some days, less than 1 
to 3 percent of our total budget.
  Secondly, I would say that foreign aid has a very useful role. Just 
to set the table, I think people need to understand that our foreign 
aid has accomplished a tremendous amount of good around the world. For 
example, the USAID programs to fight HIV/AIDS in Africa has helped save 
millions of people. Millions of people are alive today because of the 
generosity of the American taxpayer.
  It has helped to alleviate poverty. I think you should look at some 
of the great examples of foreign aid like the Marshall Plan or the work 
we undertook to rebuild Japan and the alliances we have today as a 
result.
  One of the great stories of foreign aid is South Korea, a nation that 
was long a beneficiary of foreign aid--and not just from the United 
States but from the world--and today it is a donor in many of these 
forums.
  So that is the good news about foreign aid--and foreign aid is 
important because it increases our influence. It is part of how we can 
influence what is increasingly a global economy. I think it is 
important to understand when people talk about the American economy, we 
don't just live in a national economy anymore. We live in a world 
where, increasingly, things that happen to you on a daily basis--the 
price of things that you are buying--some of these things are set 
halfway around the world not just halfway down the street or halfway 
across the city. So foreign aid is important because it deals with 
America's influence around the world and, in particular, our ability to 
influence things toward our national interests.
  Foreign aid is not charity. Although it may be charitable, and 
although it may be motivated by us and our efforts to advance our 
principles and the things we think are right, foreign aid is not 
charity. Foreign aid is designed to further our national interests. 
That means every single dime we give in foreign aid should be 
conditioned toward our national interests, should be about furthering 
our national interests. And I think that is true all over the world, 
everywhere we give it, whether it is military aid or economic aid.
  I think today we have one example of a place where we should start to 
examine how we give our foreign aid and examine it in a way that allows 
us to maximize our national interests. That country I want to talk 
about today is Egypt, and there is a lot of concerning things happening 
in Egypt.
  We have all been witness to the amazing Arab spring and all the 
changes that it brought about to the region, potentially democracy, et 
cetera. And Egypt, obviously, has been a prime example of that, a 
country where all this has been occurring. It has brought to power a 
government that largely is governed today by the Muslim Brotherhood.
  Here is the good news. The good news is these changes have occurred, 
and, theoretically, there is a more open society. The bad news is some 
of the people who have been brought to power bring with them an 
ideology that at times is troubling and, in fact, in practice has been 
deeply troubling.
  For example, we have seen efforts in Egypt to undermine democratic 
institutions. We have seen efforts in Egypt to undermine the judiciary. 
We have seen open examples in Egypt of the freedom of religion being 
undermined. We have seen women and women's rights regress. We have seen 
irresponsible economic behavior in Egypt. And we can talk about the 
causes of all this, but this is the reality of what is going on in 
Egypt.
  In addition to that, we should be deeply concerned about Egypt's 
ability or willingness to live up to their security arrangements with 
their neighbors, particularly our strong allies in Israel. They have a 
commitment they made years ago to securing the Sinai, to preventing 
weapons and terrorists and others from crossing through the Sinai and 
into the Gaza Strip and into Israel. This is a commitment and an 
obligation they have, and we should be concerned about their 
unwillingness or inability, or both, to live up to these commitments.
  So what I am asking for in this amendment is for us to reexamine the 
way we give foreign aid to Egypt, not to get rid of it because there is 
a real danger that we can start to lose some of these foreign aid 
programs. The American people are fed up with story after story of 
countries that are benefiting from our generosity, and then they open 
the newspaper and they read inflammatory comments that are made about 
us. They open the newspaper or turn on cable television, and they see 
reports from these countries where democracy is being undermined, where 
the rights of women are being trampled, where religious minorities are 
being persecuted, and they have a right to ask: Why are we giving so 
much money to these countries?
  We actually have a record in Egypt of working very closely with their 
military organizations, and we hope that can continue. But we also want 
to ensure that Egypt continues to move toward a direction of true 
democracy.
  Democracy is not just having elections. Having elections is one part 
of democracy. You have to govern like a democrat. You have to govern in 
an open process where you allow people to speak out, opposition parties 
to organize, have a court system that doesn't skew things in your favor 
and against the opposition. You don't just have to have elections to 
have a democracy; you need a lot more than that.
  We saw last week where former Senator Kerry, now Secretary of State, 
awarded a sum--by the way, we have given over $70 billion of aid to 
Egypt since the 1940s. That is not an insignificant sum. But we look 
now at the $250 million in aid they received last week, and I believe 
that was unfortunate.
  We have significant interests in ensuring that Egypt remains at peace 
with Israel, that the Morsi government does not undermine the 
democratic process, and that human and political

[[Page 3345]]

rights of all Egyptians--including that of religious minorities and 
women--are respected, and our foreign aid should reflect that.
  So what this amendment which I intend to propose does is a few 
things. Let me begin by saying this is not about canceling foreign aid 
to Egypt per se. This is about restructuring it in a way that lines up 
with the national interests of the taxpayers of the United States of 
America. I will have more to say about this amendment when the 
appropriate time to file it comes up, but let me just briefly describe 
it, and I hope to gain support from my colleagues and the public at 
large.
  First, it would block the disbursement of additional economic support 
funds and new--not the existing but new--foreign military financing 
contracts until Egypt begins to enact economic reforms and the 
administration certifies that Egypt has done a few of the following:
  It has adopted and implemented legal reforms which protect the 
political, the economic, and religious freedoms; it is not acting to 
restrict the political, economic, and religious freedoms and human 
rights of the citizens and residents of Egypt; it is continuing to 
demonstrate a commitment to free and fair elections and is not taking 
any steps to interfere with or undermine the credibility of such 
elections.
  Another condition is that it has lifted restrictions in law and 
practice on the work and the funding of Egyptian and international 
NGOs--nongovernmental organizations--comprising those in human rights 
and democracy fields. Those include the International Republican 
Institute, the National Democratic Institute, and Freedom House; that 
it is fully implementing the Egypt-Israel Peace Treaty; that it is 
taking all the necessary actions to eliminate smuggling networks and to 
detect and destroy tunnels between Egypt and the Gaza Strip--tunnels 
that are used to smuggle weapons and terrorists into the Gaza Strip--
and is taking all other necessary actions to combat terrorism in an 
increasingly ungovernable space of the Sinai.
  The second thing it does is it begins to recalibrate the U.S.-
Egyptian security relationship toward Egypt's actual security needs.
  Now, let me say this: It does not appear--and I don't know of anyone 
who would disagree with this--that Egypt has any imminent threat of 
being invaded by any one of their neighbors. It is not going to happen. 
Egypt's real security needs are its ability, No. 1, to live up to its 
obligations to stamp out terrorism within its borders and, in 
particular, to secure the Sinai, to close those tunnels that lead to 
Gaza. But the second security need it has is internal--in particular, 
street crime.
  One of the ways Egypt is going to be able to rebuild its economy is 
through tourism, and I am not a tourism expert, but I think muggings, 
murder, and kidnappings are not good for tourism. People don't usually 
visit countries where these things are happening. This is the actual 
aid that Egypt needs in terms of its security.
  It doesn't need tanks, it doesn't need jet fighters. It is not going 
to be invaded by a foreign country. That is not its real threat. I 
understand their desire to have those things--and, by the way, there 
are existing contracts to give them those things. But their real 
security needs are largely internal, and we want to recalibrate our 
military aid in the future to Egypt to meet their actual needs.
  To that end, the amendment would require an analysis of Egypt's 
security requirements, produced by the Department of Defense in 
consultation with the Egyptian Government, and to be shared with the 
relevant congressional committees both in the House and the Senate. We 
also want the administration to certify that the Department of Defense 
has allocated a portion of Egypt's foreign military financing--no less 
than $100 million--toward counterterrorism tools, including the 
equipment and training related to border security, and to address the 
instability in the Sinai.
  We also want a report on all FMF contracts the Department of Defense 
has carried out over the last 10 years, as well as the Department's 
plans for contracting over the next decade. I think it is wise to look 
at what we have done in the past, to fully understand the contributions 
the American taxpayer has made to Egypt's security in the past. But we 
also need to see the contracts that are pending move forward. All of 
these need to be aligned so we can ensure the aid we are giving them 
isn't just what they want, but it, in fact, is what they need, within 
the confines of what is in our national security and in our national 
interests because, once again, this is our money.
  We should begin to shift U.S. assistance away from military programs 
and increasingly toward civilian assistance. So what this amendment 
would do is require the administration to begin a dialogue with the 
Egyptian Government and with the Egyptian civil society about the need 
to rebalance our system away from its current, almost obsessive focus 
on military aid by reallocating economic funds not provided to Egypt 
during periods when certification is not in effect toward democracy and 
governance programs, including direct support for secular, democratic, 
nongovernmental organizations, as well as programming and support for 
rule of law and human rights, good governance, political competition, 
consensus building, and civil society.
  We should look at transferring the interest earned in Egypt's 
account. They have an account where this money sits when we give them 
this aid. Those accounts have a lot of money and generate a lot of 
interest. We should be able to take that interest that is generated 
from these funds and make it available and allocate these funds for 
democracy and for governance efforts.
  Last but not least, we should require the President to submit a 
report to the Congress describing the specific results of an Egyptian 
policy review that includes a dialogue with the Government of Egypt and 
also civil society on how to rebalance the U.S. military and economic 
assistance.
  Now, as most of these bills will have in them, this is going to have 
a national security waiver. In essence, if the Secretary of State comes 
to us and says: It is in our national security not to implement or 
fully implement this amendment at this time, as they do with almost all 
aid programs, they would have the right to do that. But they are going 
to have to do it every 180 days, at least twice a year, so we can be 
sure we are keeping up with the transition that is going on in Egypt.
  Let me briefly address a few of the arguments that are going to come 
against this potentially. One is that we have this incredibly strong 
relationship with the Egyptian military, and we don't want to undermine 
that. This is not intended to do that. We value that relationship. We 
hope it will continue to grow stronger. But the reality of it is, No. 
1, these are hard-earned taxpayer dollars. At a time when the United 
States of America really doesn't have a lot of money to throw away--in 
fact, it has no money to throw away--we have to ensure the aid we give 
is aid that is effective, that is actually doing what it needs to be 
doing, not simply going to a wish list of some general or military 
official somewhere. This is not about cutting off the Egyptian 
military; this is about recalibrating our relationship with them to 
ensure that what we are making available to them is not just what they 
want, but it is what they need. That is the first thing I would say in 
that argument.
  The second argument I would have--and we hope this day will never 
come--but as Egypt continues to transition, we don't know what the 
Egyptian military is going to look like 2 years from now, 5 years from 
now, 10 years from now. In fact, many of the top people we have been 
dealing with in the past aren't in those positions anymore. They have 
been replaced by the new government. And I would tell you, history is a 
lesson.
  If the Morsi government and the Muslim Brotherhood take Egypt in a 
direction that is not in our national interests, that is not in the 
best interests of the region or our allies in the world, they are not 
going to be able to do that

[[Page 3346]]

unless they replace the military leadership with people who agree with 
them on these things. So while we hope that never happens, we hope to 
do everything we can to prevent that from happening, we hope the 
Egyptian military will continue to be governed and run by professional 
men and women. But we can't guaranteed that, and we don't know what the 
Egyptian military will look like 5 years from now or 3 years from now.
  That is why it is so important this waiver provision require the 
Secretary of State to do so twice a year, so we can keep up on the 
recent events. Who would have predicted 3 years ago that the events 
that happened in Egypt would have happened in our time? Yet they did. 
So we can't predict what Egypt is going to look like 3 years from now. 
We hope it will be better, but we don't know.
  The other argument I have heard is, well, this is going to offend 
their sovereignty. They don't like us to tell them what to do with the 
aid we give them. The Egyptians are not going to take kindly to the 
idea of the United States dictating to them.
  I, quite frankly, don't understand that argument because this is our 
money. They don't have to take our foreign aid. They don't have to 
accept it. But our foreign aid has never been--or should never have 
been--a blank check. This idea that somehow the money we are going to 
make available to people should be unconditional, quite frankly, 
doesn't make sense to me. This is our money. If they don't want the 
aid, they don't have to take it. But if they are going to accept our 
aid, we should have some say in it.
  If it is the U.S. dollars of the U.S. taxpayer that are going toward 
this program, shouldn't the American people, through their elected 
representatives and their government, have some say--if not a 
predominant amount of say--over how these dollars are spent and on what 
these dollars are spent? And shouldn't we ensure those countries are 
headed in a positive direction, not in a direction that acts against 
our national interests?
  I believe in foreign aid. I think foreign aid is important for the 
United States. But it needs to be done the right way. I think it needs 
to be done the right way across the board, in all of our aid programs. 
But this is one that is pressing, that is right in front of us.
  I recently took a trip to the Middle East. I went to Jordan. I went 
to Israel. In many places where I went, I heard over and over again a 
lot of concern about the direction Egypt is headed. They are going 
through a balancing act right now, is what it appears. On the one hand, 
you have a deeply seated ideology that I think many people would find 
offensive. We have heard some of the past comments of the President of 
Egypt. We have heard some of the past comments of some of the 
leadership in the Muslim Brotherhood. It is downright offensive, and 
that is their ideology. We have seen some of that seep through in their 
public policymaking.
  We also understand there is a pragmatic argument going on. They know 
they cannot survive in government and in power if they don't have an 
economy. They know--at least, I hope they know--they have to take steps 
to reform their economy. They have to take steps to increase their 
security so tourism will return. They know they need to do these 
things, and right now they are calibrating those two things: the 
pragmatism of needing to secure their country and needing to provide 
for economic growth versus their ideology.
  In the ideological base of the Muslim Brotherhood that is calling for 
a rapid expansion of Islamist-type rule, you can see those pressures 
building within Egyptian society in and of itself. I think U.S. aid has 
an opportunity to tilt that conversation toward pragmatism. If we are 
smart about how we use our foreign aid, we can actually help tilt that 
conversation away from the ideology and toward pragmatism, toward 
security that is not designed to crack down on internal dissent, that 
is not designed to one day wage war against their neighbors in Israel 
or anywhere else, but in fact is designed to provide security against 
common street crimes, security against terrorism, to seal those tunnels 
in Gaza, to live up to their international obligations.
  I think if we condition this the right way, we can help encourage 
them to take on the kind of economic reforms that Egypt needs to have 
the kind of economy they need. After all, that was the heart of the 
Arab spring, the heart of the Arab spring where hundreds of thousands 
of unemployed people--starting in Egypt particularly--were desperate 
for a better future and didn't think they could find it. Then they 
looked at a government that they saw as repressive and corrupt, and 
they wanted to replace it. But not with this.
  The reason I feel so strongly about this is that as the Egyptian 
leaders are undertaking this cost-benefit analysis--should they lean 
more toward ideology or should they lean more toward pragmatism--
through our foreign aid we actually have an opportunity to push them, 
to nudge them, to encourage them toward pragmatism.
  I hope I can achieve bipartisan support for this amendment. I hope 
people will find it to be thoughtful and insightful. In the days to 
come, I look forward to addressing more questions that my colleagues 
may have on it. We are going to put some releases out about this, and I 
hope my colleagues will become interested in helping us achieve its 
passage.
  Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, you have heard me speak to the 
Democratic caucus and to the press that moving the continuing 
resolution, or I should call it the continued funding resolution--
remember, continuing the funding for fiscal year 2013 to our fiscal New 
Year's Eve, October 1, is our goal. We don't want a government 
shutdown, we don't want a government slam-down, lockdown. So we have 
been working very diligently on a bipartisan basis to fashion the bill 
that would get 60 votes so we would be filibuster-proof.
  In the old days, majority ruled. Now it is supermajority. That is not 
a fight I am going to do here on this bill. My job is to keep the 
government funded, to work in an open, transparent, bipartisan and 
hopefully bicameral way.
  I said this was like the last helicopter leaving a disaster area. I 
was trying to get the cargo on it to make sure we protected national 
security. We honored compelling human need, particularly for women and 
children in the area of education and health care, and we also looked 
at how we could generate jobs--not in government but government-
generated jobs in the private sector, such as transportation, and make 
important investments in science and technology that come up with the 
new ideas for the new products that will create jobs in our country and 
hopefully even for export around the world. That is what I have been 
trying to do.
  I also had to give up a lot. I had to give up the funding for 
ObamaCare. This was not my choice. I know there will be an amendment 
offered to even defund it further. I happen to believe in what we did 
with President Obama's health care framework. I liked ending 
discrimination against women. I liked ending the discrimination against 
people who have children with preexisting conditions. I liked funding 
the amendment that provided access for women for mammograms, and for 
children for early detection and screening. But we could not do it.
  One of the other things we could not do was we could not add a very 
modest pay raise for Federal employees. This bill will continue the 
existing pay rates. It is necessary to avoid a government shutdown for 
the entire government. Shutting down the government would make a tough 
situation worse for Federal employees. It would jeopardize our economic 
recovery. Shutting down the government would threaten the viability of 
small and medium-size businesses. It would even threaten the

[[Page 3347]]

safety of our families, our economy, maybe even our country.
  This is not a happy day for me and it is not a happy day for the 
millions of people who work diligently for the Federal Government. I 
have the great honor to represent 130,000 Federal employees--I wish you 
could tour Maryland with me, the way I have been up to your home 
State--each one doing important work for the Nation. And who are they, 
these employees? They are people who work at the National Institutes of 
Health, finding cures or ways to contain diseases--the next vaccine to 
help the flu endemic or protect us against a pandemic.
  They are the civilian employees at the National Security Agency. We 
employ the largest number of mathematicians in the world. What do they 
do? They invent the kind of technology that breaks the codes and 
protects us--now in this whole new cyber domain. They are the people 
who run the weather satellites. The European model might have done a 
better job last week than they did, but do you know why? Because we 
have not had the resources to fund them the way the Europeans have.
  I have employees at FDA right this very minute at their jobs, looking 
at medical devices to see if they are safe. Right at this very minute 
they are working with the private sector, which is bringing them new 
pharmaceuticals, new biotech and biologics that they could look at to 
see if they are safe and effective so they could go into clinical 
practice to help save lives here and be certified by the FDA, which 
would give us the ability to sell them around the world. We say to 
them: We know what you are doing, but tough luck; we can't give you a 
pay raise because we say we have out-of-control spending. I don't think 
we have out-of-control spending. Do we have to be more frugal? Do we 
have to be smarter? Do we have to get more value for the dollar? 
Absolutely. We are onto that. But don't attack Federal employees for 
the mismanagement of the Federal Government. That is right here. That 
is what we do. Don't blame them and don't make them pay the price. It 
is like making the middle class pay the price for more domestic cuts 
while we protect subsidies to corporate jets.
  These 130,000 Federal employees help run the Hubbell Space Telescope, 
more discoveries--the most important telescope since Galileo invented 
the first one. I can't tell you how bad I feel that we are not at least 
giving them a .05-percent pay raise. And they are facing sequester, 
which could mean for many of them a 20-percent pay cut, if they are 
furloughed.
  I visited NIH to see what was the impact of sequester. There was 
Carol Greider from Hopkins. She won the Nobel Prize 2 years ago. We are 
proud of her. NIH, within a week of my arrival there to meet with them, 
as I have done so often--they cut cancer rates 15 percent. Instead of 
pinning medals on them, we say: You don't get a pay raise. We have more 
important things to do with the money. You are the problem.
  I don't think they are a problem at all. I think they are part of the 
solution--coming up with ways to help compelling human needs and 
creating jobs in our country in life sciences and giving us something 
to sell overseas. I think it is wrong to keep asking them for more when 
oil and gas companies make record profits and we don't ask them to give 
up tax breaks. It is wrong when we can't close one tax loophole that 
sends jobs overseas. When Senator Murray brings up her bill, I will 
talk more about these lavish tax earmarks. This is not the time and 
place. But it is time to say we have to protect our civil service.
  Senator Rubio just spoke about Egypt and he said they have to be able 
to govern. It is not enough to just bring down a dictator. That is an 
excellent point. We have to govern, too. And the hallmark of a 
democracy is a civil service that has integrity, that is promoted on 
the basis of meritocracy, that is independent of politics, doing 
missions that serve the Nation in research, technology, administering 
programs that help get transportation funding to Governors to build 
roads, bridges, and fund our pent-up demand for physical 
infrastructure, and then in human infrastructure--education, health 
care. That is what a democracy does and you need a civil service that 
is independent, has integrity and is promoted and hired and so on on 
the basis of meritocracy. What is the hallmark of a despotic, 
autocratic government, be they Communist or just plain despots? They 
are corrupt. You get ahead by taking a bribe, by doing a party favor, 
by looking the other way, on so many other things where you cannot even 
open a business or get a permit or so on unless there is a series of 
tipping fees. You can't get through an airport unless you bribe your 
way through it. That is what a corrupt, despotic, autocratic government 
does.
  But when you visit democracies, the first thing you see is they have 
a civil service. What is the civil service? Integrity, competency, 
incorruptible. But we say: Yeah, yeah, you know, we know you have a 
Ph.D, or we know you are the blue-collar worker who manages the 
facilities at NIH to keep the lights on so the researchers can do their 
work. It is those people who help us have a great country, and a 
country we can be proud of.
  I hope we resolve this sequester thing, with layoffs and furloughs 
and potential cuts of 20 percent. I wish we could have at least said 
one thing to the Federal employees, that we are at least going to give 
you a .05--a half of 1 percent--pay raise. I didn't like it because I 
thought it was so skimpy and spartan.
  But I will say this. The helicopter could not take off if it was on 
it. I think this is a terrible mistake. I hope in next year's regular 
order we can make this up. But I want to say to my Federal employees 
this was a draconian choice. Do we try to give you a pay raise that 
would be important to you? Every penny and every dollar counts.
  You led the Consumer Protection Agency. You certainly have the 
reputation, Madam President, of being a real fighter for the consumer, 
and you were the first in America to do a study that showed people were 
going bankrupt not because they bought too many Volvos, ate out too 
much, or lived a life of brie and wine and so on. It was because of 
medical catastrophes that faced them. You were the first to tell us 
about that, so you know about family incomes and what makes them and 
what breaks them. But I say this to you: Thank you for your work.
  And I want to say to the Federal employees, thank you for your work. 
I wanted to do it with a modest pay raise, but right now my duty in the 
situation I find myself in reluctantly is that the way I serve you is 
to make sure there is no government shutdown. Because you know what. In 
my heart and in my mind--and as I see how different places function--
there is no such thing as a nonessential Federal employee. Everybody at 
the workplace and who serves the Nation is doing their job with 
honesty, integrity, meritocracy, and is incorruptible. Let's make sure 
we honor them. We have to get this bill done. Let's get on the Murray 
budget and right our economy. Whatever problems we have, don't blame 
the Federal employees for the decisions made by the Congress to get us 
in the deficit and debt we are in. They didn't do it, we did it. We 
should take the pay cut, not them.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SHELBY. Madam President, I have been listening to the remarks of 
my colleague from Maryland, and as we say down South, she is spot on. 
Before she became chairperson of the Appropriations Committee, she was 
a member of that committee for many years. We worked together when I 
was chairman of the subcommittee and she was the ranking member and 
when she was the chairperson and I was the ranking member. We both came 
from the House. We were on the same committee in the House. We worked 
together. We struggled with each other from time to time, but in the 
end, we knew we had to come up with a product, and that is what we are 
trying to do here today.
  I was hoping we could bring this bill to the floor. As the Senator 
from Maryland has been saying, there are a lot of

[[Page 3348]]

Members who want to offer amendments. We could offer some amendments 
and debate them tonight and perhaps even vote on them tonight. We know 
we have this deadline. At the end of March the CR expires, along with 
the funding of the Government of the United States. I don't think any 
party--Democrat or Republican--is interested in any way of going to the 
brink again. It serves no purpose. It creates uncertainty in the 
marketplace; it creates uncertainty with the role we play in the Senate 
and the House.
  As the Senator from Maryland has said, we have worked together. We 
have a continuing resolution which came from the House, with the 
Department of Defense and the MILCON-VA--military construction and VA--
in it to fund until September 30, which is the fiscal year. It is about 
6 months from now. We have added to the legislation which we hope to 
bring before the Senate the Commerce, Justice, Science Subcommittee, of 
which she is the subcommittee chair and I am the ranking member. We 
have worked together on that. Agriculture, which affects everybody in 
this country one way or the other, and homeland security, which is the 
essence of the security of this country at home, have been added by the 
Senate.
  We scrubbed these bills all weekend. Both sides scrubbed them. I have 
given up things I would personally like, and she has given up things, 
probably including some things from the Democratic leadership. We have 
done the same over here. We are doing this to show the American people 
that America comes first. We need to show we can work together. We need 
to pass these bills. The sooner they get up here, the sooner amendments 
can be offered by Republicans and Democrats, the sooner we get the 
process working and we get into the debates. That is what this 
legislative body is all about.
  The CR we are bringing up--or the hybrid CR--is funded at the fiscal 
year 2012 levels, and it is consistent with the Budget Control Act. It 
would leave the sequester in effect. It gives some leeway--some but not 
unbridled--to enable the situation with sequester to maybe work a 
little better. I think it is good policy and bad procedure.
  We are going to have to cut because we cannot sustain deficits of $1 
trillion. We cannot continue to go down the road we are on. We have to 
change the trajectory of this country. We cannot sustain ourselves if 
we have a $20 trillion or $25 trillion debt. Whether you are a 
Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, or whatever you are, 
you should want a strong monetary policy and a strong economic policy.
  We have a few more years left, and this is a good start here in the 
Senate. If we can get this bill up and pass it, then the House will do 
something. We will fund the government until September 30, which is 
what we are supposed to do. If we do that, then we can start on the 
2014 budget. From there we can perhaps go to regular order. That is 
what we wish to do in the appropriations process so we are not going 
from crisis to crisis.
  What we have done in the House and the Senate--and the White House is 
involved in this too--in recent years is we have been lurching from 
crisis to crisis, and then we come up to the deadline and people say: 
Oh, we have to have certainty. So we kick the can down the road a few 
more yards. That is not the way to do business. This country is too 
important. The business community needs certainty, people in government 
need certainty, and I think this is a good first start. I hope we can 
get this process moving.
  I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, as I rise to talk about the budget 
that was released in the House of Representatives, I want to first 
commend our chair Senator Mikulski and ranking member Senator Shelby 
for working together. I could not agree more with what Senator Shelby 
said about getting back to regular order and getting back together. 
This is an example of what we need to do. I want to commend both 
Senators.
  We obviously have very different points of view. People can come 
together and listen to each other and be willing to compromise, which 
is not a bad thing. I don't know any part of life where we don't 
compromise. I have been trying to figure that one out. When you have 
children, wouldn't it be nice not to have to compromise? Somehow we 
always have to. I want to commend both of our leaders on the 
Appropriations Committee.
  I am very hopeful we can return to regular order and hash out our 
very different perspectives and very different views of the country. I 
think we have seen that today with Chairman Ryan with the Republican 
budget. We will see a different view tomorrow with Chairman Murray 
coming through with a budget as we work through the budget in committee 
this week and then on the floor. This way reasonable people can sit 
down and listen to each other and find a path forward.
  Most importantly, I think if we listen to the American people we 
represent--their values and their priorities--we can move forward. I do 
feel strongly that what has been released today in the House is the 
wrong set of values; it is the wrong approach. Actually, I am surprised 
we are seeing the same kind of budget we have seen for the last couple 
of years come out of the House--particularly one where the public spoke 
so strongly against the foundations of what is in that budget. It has 
been called a balanced budget. It is anything but balanced.
  Overall, it is my understanding that there is an identification of 
some $5 trillion that will be cut in spending, but nobody says where. 
Then they say: Oh, the budget is balanced. Well, as our leaders on 
appropriations know, we actually have to get in and say where it is 
going to be cut so we can balance the budget, which this does not do. 
It does not balance the budget, and it is certainly unbalanced when it 
comes to the values represented in the budget.
  I have to start with the one issue that is so concerning to me, and 
that is the whole question of Medicare. Once again we are seeing in the 
Republican budget of the House the effort to eliminate Medicare. It 
basically eliminates Medicare as an insurance plan. It basically says: 
You go out and find private insurance. They changed the names to 
different things. They tried to make it sound better, but it all comes 
down to the fact that people will be given a voucher. Good luck trying 
to find private insurance.
  It was the private insurance sector and the lack of affordable 
insurance for seniors which created Medicare in 1965. As we get older, 
we lose more health care because we are more expensive to cover. Before 
Medicare, it was very difficult to find affordable insurance. In fact, 
it was impossible for many people. As Americans we came together and 
said: If you are 65 or older or if you are disabled in this country, 
you have the right to have insurance and health care available and 
affordable to you. We created a health insurance system called 
Medicare. By the way, Medicare costs dramatically less to administer 
than any private sector plan. We are talking 3 percent or 4 percent to 
administer Medicare as opposed to 15 percent, 20 percent, 25 percent 
going to administrative costs and profits and so on. So it is very 
efficient.
  There are issues we need to address, and we have been doing that. In 
fact, we have put in place cost savings over the next 10 years by 
eliminating overpayment to insurance companies that do what is called 
Medicare Advantage. It is interesting that while Chairman Ryan and the 
House Republicans say they are going to do away with Medicare, they put 
the $700 billion we saved by stopping overpayments to insurance 
companies--as well as doing other things for prevention and cost 
savings--in their budget. After criticizing it, they want the savings, 
but they turn around and want to eliminate Medicare. It is a very 
interesting combination of things here that is a hocus-pocus kind of 
approach with smoke-and-mirrors as far as how they are coming up with 
their budget.
  The bottom line is very clear: It guts Medicare. It guts Medicare, 
but not in order to fund or strengthen Medicare

[[Page 3349]]

services or health care services in some way. The astounding thing is 
they continue to put forward a budget that guts Medicare in order to 
continue tax giveaways for the very wealthy and well-connected people 
in this country. It makes no sense. It makes no sense, and our budget 
will be very different than this one.
  Medicare has been a great American success story. Medicare and Social 
Security have lifted a generation of Americans out of poverty. It has 
given them the ability to live longer and healthier lives. It has 
allowed my mom, who is on her way to 87, to play with her now great-
grandchildren. By the way, my three grandchildren are the most 
beautiful children in the world. My mom is able to play with them and 
be healthy and active because of something called Medicare which was 
put in place to give her the opportunity to pay into a system so she 
could have health care and be able to live a longer life. That is a 
great American success story.
  We know we are living longer. The greatness of Medicare is that 
people are healthier and living longer, and so we know we have to do 
some refiguring here and have some savings. We are already doing that. 
Over the next 10 years we are putting in place $700 billion in savings 
by focusing more on prevention. We are focused more on wellness visits 
and helping people on the front end before they get very sick, as well 
as cutting overpayments.
  We are now hearing that Medicare is going to have a $500 billion 
savings as well, and that insurance rates and growth have actually 
slowed. We are seeing the actuaries reconfigure the savings. CBO, the 
budget office, reconfigured the cost of Medicare and Medicaid to create 
more savings because of things we have begun to do. Thanks to health 
care reform we are able to focus more on prevention and people being 
able to see a doctor. We are able to do all those things that save 
money without cutting health care for people.
  We are very committed to making sure we have savings in Medicare and 
that we strengthen Medicare for the future. Whatever decisions we need 
to make, we need to do that for Social Security and other areas as 
well. The difference we have is, we think it should exist. We think it 
should exist as a health insurance plan. I cannot imagine any way in 
which our Senate majority would ever vote for what is in the budget 
that was released by the Republican caucus today. So we are looking at 
very different priorities.
  In the area of Medicaid, we are also looking at very different 
priorities. The majority of Medicaid, in terms of the number of people, 
are children; the majority of money under Medicaid is actually spent on 
seniors--on nursing homes, people who are in extended care facilities, 
and so on. Again, when we think about the budget being released in the 
House of Representatives by Chairman Ryan and the Republicans, they go 
right to Medicare, eliminate Medicare as an insurance plan, and then 
they block grant and cut Medicaid, which goes to the poorest seniors in 
nursing homes, so they get a double whammy in the budget that has been 
released by Chairman Ryan and the House of Representatives.
  We also know they are slashing investments for middle-class families 
as well as the vulnerable, as well as public safety, police, and fire. 
I just left my mayors from Michigan coming in and talking about what 
has happened to them on the frontlines. We have trickle-down cuts, and 
they end up with it all in their laps, having to figure out how to 
provide local services. When we talk about the fact that there would be 
dramatic disinvestments or cuts in public safety, police, fire, and so 
on, they are appalled and desperately worried about how they are going 
to make sure they can respond to the people who live in their 
communities.
  In education, cuts, of course, to Head Start, financial help for 
people to be able to go to college, all of which are good things.
  Roads and bridges.
  Another piece that is very concerning to me is our nutrition programs 
which have been put in place for families who have challenges. People 
have lost their jobs and they need some help with putting food on the 
table for their families. We are seeing that program, the SNAP 
program--Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program--gutted with $160 
billion--$160 billion in cuts that would leave millions of children, 
millions of families without help. Interestingly, the spending on the 
nutrition programs, on SNAP, is actually going down. Why? Because it is 
there when people need it, when they have a crisis, and then the 
spending is not used when families go back to work. So we are seeing 
over $11 billion in decreases in spending because the economy is 
improving and people are going back to work. That is the way we want to 
bring spending down.
  Interestingly, within my purview as chair of the Agriculture 
Committee, I am also deeply concerned about the cuts in the Republican 
budget in the House to crop insurance. Within our farm bill, we have 
two disaster assistance programs. One is for families, which is 
nutrition assistance. It goes up and down with the economy. The other 
is crop insurance for farmers and ranchers, which goes up and down with 
the economy.
  We have had huge droughts and late freezes on our orchards and others 
where folks have been decimated, but because of crop insurance this 
year, rather than doing ad hoc disaster assistance all over the 
country, we have crop insurance. People buy crop insurance are covered 
if they need it, and we have been able to see farmers sustain 
themselves because crop insurance has worked. So crop insurance costs 
again go up and down based on whether there are disasters. Supplemental 
nutrition goes up or down whether or not there is a family disaster. 
Both of those are hit in this budget and make absolutely no sense.
  I can assure my colleagues that in the farm bill we will present 
again to colleagues as we did last year--and we are so grateful for the 
bipartisan support we had--we will strongly support efforts around crop 
insurance as well as nutrition.
  Finally, let me just say that very different values are presented in 
the budget presented by Chairman Ryan and the Republicans in the House 
by going after the middle class, actually raising middle-class taxes in 
order to fund more tax breaks for the wealthy and the special interests 
in the country; gutting Medicare and using that money for additional 
tax cuts for the very wealthy; gutting our investments in science, 
innovation, and education to grow the economy in order to pay for more 
tax cuts for the wealthy.
  This story seems to go on and on and on. It always comes back to the 
same place: The wealthy, the well connected, the special interests do 
very well. Middle-class families get hit, seniors get hit, the 
vulnerable get hit, children are hit and are asked to pay the tab for 
trying to bring down a deficit that, frankly, they didn't create. So 
that is the story in the House.
  Our chairwoman of the Budget Committee, Senator Murray, will present 
a very different story tomorrow, one that is focused on growth in the 
economy, supporting the middle class, protecting Medicare and Medicaid 
and Social Security for the future, and making investments that grow 
the economy.
  One of the things I know after working on the issue of jobs for a 
long time is that we will never get out of debt with 12 million people 
out of work in this country, so we better be focused on jobs and 
supporting the private sector to create jobs--large businesses, 
manufacturers, small businesses, partnering on innovation, education, 
and so on. That has to be part of our long-term strategy to get out of 
debt as well as making smart cuts and other kinds of smart investments.
  Again, I come to the floor to commend colleagues who are on the floor 
showing the right way to do things--to work together, to listen to each 
other, to work across the aisle on a bipartisan basis to get things 
done. We have a very different picture going on in the budget 
committees. We have a long way to go when we start with eliminating 
Medicare as we know it, but the House Republicans are saying, no, we 
want to strengthen Medicare for the future and keep it intact for 
seniors. All

[[Page 3350]]

the other issues we are in a very different place. But I think it is 
very important that we make a commitment to listen to each other and do 
our best to find a path forward. We need to find a path. People are 
counting on us to get things done. They are counting on us to both grow 
the economy and create jobs and have a strong middle class and they are 
counting on us to reduce the deficit, all of which we can do if we are 
willing to work together and listen to each other and find a path 
forward.
  I thank my colleagues for giving me the time. I wish to congratulate 
them again on the work they are doing. I ask that we work together as 
we go forward in completing the task on growing the economy and 
reducing the deficit.
  Thank you very much.
  Mr. SHELBY. 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. COATS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. COATS. Madam President, when I go back to Indiana and meet with 
Hoosiers, they often ask why Washington seems to experience a crisis 
every few weeks. It is a debt limit battle. It is a threat of a 
government shutdown. It is the fiscal cliff on New Year's Eve. It is 
the sequester. And the list goes on and on, including the funding 
battle we are in now. Of course, the next round of the debt limit 
debate is scheduled for May, and on and on it goes. Hoosiers and I 
think most Americans--and I think most Members of this body--are 
getting awfully tired of this soap opera drama that occurs every few 
weeks here.
  I think we need to move to the point where we can address the major 
issues. One of the steps in doing that is to fund this government for 
the next 6 months. I do not know of anyone here who wants a government 
shutdown. We do have some urgent things we need to do. We do need to 
address our funding imbalance that is significantly creating a major 
problem for us, but in order to get there, we have to do some interim 
things here to keep the country functioning. We need to commit to go 
forward and do the big things. In the meantime a 6-month funding 
resolution has been brought forward here. There are things in this that 
none of us are going to like. Everybody is going to have problems with 
parts of this. Everybody is going to think it should have been 
fashioned just a little bit differently.
  The leaders of the Appropriations Committee have put a great effort 
into constructing a resolution that I think will adequately fund this 
government going forward, but they do so with the understanding that 
the commitment to address our spending issues and the commitment to do 
everything we can to put together a large plan in order to deal with 
outgoing issues is absolutely necessary. Hopefully, that will be 
accomplished in the next few months. To start that, you have to have a 
budget.
  I am pleased now that we are going to be taking up a budget debate in 
terms of the next fiscal year's funding, and we will be taking that up 
next week. So these two measures together, with the sequester that is 
already in place and actions that have already been taken, hopefully 
will be putting us on a path to fiscal health and solvency.
  Every family, every business, even local and state governments have 
to operate on a budget or they cannot maintain and establish the kind 
of fiscal discipline necessary to get to the point where they are not 
spending more money than they are taking in. We have seen a cataclysmic 
plunge into debt that has enormous impact on the future of this 
country, and we have to address that.
  Vice President Biden once said: Show me your budget, and I will tell 
you what you value. Well, for 4 years we have been waiting to see a 
Senate budget, so we do not know what is valued. Finally, we are 
getting to the point where we will address that.
  I think the responsibility to provide a budget on which to operate is 
not only lawful, as it is currently enshrined in our statutes, but it 
is a moral obligation we must fulfill as a body. Without casting blame 
on one side or the other, it is time that we go through the budget 
process and establish the direction in which this government will go in 
terms of spending for the next fiscal year.
  Given our soaring national debt and out-of-control spending, 
eventually we are going to have to make very tough choices that we have 
been avoiding for years. The more we prolong these challenges we face 
and the longer we wait to act, the harder it is going to be. We have 
the responsibility to wisely spend the taxpayers' dollars and not to 
ask more of them than is absolutely necessary to perform our essential 
functions.
  I am urging my colleagues to go forward in doing what is necessary to 
keep this government operating but do so with the commitment that we 
will address these tough questions, that we will address the necessary 
procedures and make the tough, necessary decisions to put our country 
on a fiscal path to health. Without that, we are jeopardizing our 
future, and we are condemning millions of Americans to unemployment or 
underemployment. We are growing at half the historic rate and have been 
for the last 4 years. If this stands the way it is, we will continue to 
see a country in decline, and, more importantly, we will continue to 
see people hurting. We will continue to see people without meaningful 
work. We will continue to see an inability to provide the kinds of 
opportunities, innovation, and creativity that have made this country 
so successful in the past.
  So with that, Madam President, there does not appear to be anyone 
ready to speak. I am happy to stop now, and I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Madam President, in the midst of this momentous 
debate, truly one which will determine the future of the country, I 
rise on a matter of equal importance, in my view.
  Today we welcomed to the Capitol 26 bicyclists, riders who left 
Saturday morning on this journey. This journey led them to travel the 
roads from Newtown, CT, to dramatize the importance of actions against 
gun violence in the United States.
  I have said about Newtown that we saw on December 14 of last year 
enormous evil and depravity in the deaths of 20 beautiful, innocent 
children and 6 dedicated, courageous educators who literally perished 
trying to save the lives of those children. We saw evil that day in 
Connecticut, but we also saw enormous goodness and heroism in the 
educators who sought to save those children and the first responders 
who charged into the school. They did so not knowing what would befall 
them, what they would see, and thereby stopped the massacre.
  The community came together in support of the families and all who 
were affected so deeply by that tragedy. This community has 
demonstrated enormous strength and courage over these months. It is an 
example of the quintessential values which make us proud to be an 
American.
  The riders who came to the Capitol, who rode from Newtown on a rough 
and difficult journey, also showed something profoundly significant and 
important about Newtown as a community, as well as about themselves. 
They included as an honorary rider a parent of one of the victims, 
Chris McDonnell, who was at the departure, and his wife, Lynn, who was 
also there at the beginning, although she didn't ride.
  They carried with them, those 26 riders, the memory of Grace 
McDonnell. As one of them said--Monte Frank, who organized and led the 
effort--Grace was on their wheels. They carried with them the memory of 
Grace,

[[Page 3351]]

but they also carried the hopes and hearts of America. Everywhere they 
went on that journey, people stopped them, thanked them and honored 
them, as I seek to do today here on the floor of the Senate.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record two letters, 
both written to the chairman of the Judiciary Committee and the ranking 
member, along with Senators Murphy and myself, letters written by Lynn 
and Chris McDonnell and a separate letter written by the families of 
some of those victims.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                   March 11, 2013.
     Hon. Patrick Leahy,
     Chairman, Senate Judiciary Committee, Russell Senate 
         Building, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Richard Blumenthal,
     Senate Judiciary Committee, Hart Senate Office Building, 
         Washington, DC.
     Hon. Chuck Grassley,
     Ranking Republican, Senate Judiciary Committee, Hart Senate 
         Office Building, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Chris Murphy,
     Senate Judiciary Committee, Dirksen Senate Office Building, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Leahy and Senators Grassley, Blumenthal, and 
     Murphy: We are 32 family members of victims who were killed 
     in the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School on December 
     14, 2012--innocent children and their educators responsibly 
     going about their day.
       No one can describe our pain and the brutal day-to-day 
     emotions we suffer. No one can bring our loved ones back and 
     no one from our community of Newtown, Connecticut will ever 
     go back to ``normal.''
       In the midst of our anguish we have learned about the 
     dangerous loopholes in our nation's gun laws and we are 
     compelled to speak out to save others from suffering what we 
     have endured. We are writing today to express our deep 
     conviction and support for the President's plan to reduce gun 
     violence in America.
       Specifically we are asking members of Congress to:
       1. Require a criminal background check for every gun sold 
     in America that includes a review of all disqualifying 
     records and meaningful record keeping for all sales--in the 
     same manner that Federally licensed dealers are currently 
     required;
       2. Ban military-style assault weapons and high-capacity 
     ammunition magazines; and
       3. Make gun trafficking a federal crime, with real 
     penalties for straw purchasers;
       The epidemic of injury and death from gun violence is a 
     plague on America, especially since the toll it takes on our 
     families is preventable. Our nation's families deserve to be 
     safe and free in their schools, movie theaters, workplaces 
     and their homes. We ask Congress, in honor and memory of our 
     loved ones, to support the measures that the President has 
     put forward to help stem the epidemic of gun violence.
       Our precious children and family members who were so 
     brutally murdered on December 14th deserve nothing less.
           Sincerely,
       Jackie Barden, Mother of Daniel Barden; Mark Barden, Father 
     of Daniel Barden; Neil Heslin, Father of Jesse Lewis; 
     Veronique Pozner, Mother of Noah Pozner; Len Pozner, Father 
     of Noah Pozner; Gilles Rousseau, Father of Lauren Rousseau; 
     Teresa Rousseau, Mother of Lauren Rousseau; Andrew Rousseau, 
     Brother of Lauren Rousseau; Matthew Rousseau, Brother of 
     Lauren Rousseau; Suzanne Connors, Sister of Mary Sherlach; 
     Jane Dougherty, Sister of Mary Sherlach; Joseph Greene, 
     Brother of Mary Sherlach; Carlos Soto, Father of Victoria 
     Soto; Donna Soto, Mother of Victoria Soto; Carlee Soto, 
     Sister of Victoria Soto; Carlos M. Soto, Brother of Victoria 
     Soto.
       Jillian Soto, Sister of Victoria Soto; Donald Fagan, 
     Grandfather of Victoria Soto; Debra Cronk, Aunt and Godmother 
     of Victoria Soto; Robert Cronk, Uncle of Victoria Soto; Dean 
     Fagan, Uncle and Godfather of Victoria Soto; Denise Fagan, 
     Aunt of Victoria Soto; Don Fagan, Uncle of Victoria Soto; 
     Linda Fagan, Aunt of Victoria Soto; Alex Fagan, cousin of 
     Victoria Soto; Brianne Cronk, cousin of Victoria Soto; 
     Christopher Fagan, cousin of Victoria Soto; Donald Fagan, 
     cousin of Victoria Soto; Douglas Fagan, cousin of Victoria 
     Soto; Heather Cronk, cousin of Victoria Soto; Wesley Cronk, 
     cousin of Victoria Soto; Zachary Fagan, cousin of Victoria 
     Soto.
                                  ____

                                                   March 11, 2013.
     Hon. Patrick Leahy,
     Chairman, Senate Judiciary Committee, Russell Senate 
         Building, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Richard Blumenthal,
     Senate Judiciary Committee, Hart Senate Office Building, 
         Washington, DC.
     Hon. Chuck Grassley,
     Ranking Republican, Senate Judiciary Committee, Hart Senate 
         Office Building, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Chris Murphy,
     Senate Judiciary Committee, Dirksen Senate Office Building, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Senators Leahy, Grassley, Blumenthal and Murphy, On 
     December 14th our family was forever torn apart by gun 
     violence. On that day we lost the love and light of our 
     family, our daughter Grace. Grace and nineteen of her 1st 
     grade classmates and six teachers were senselessly murdered 
     at the Sandy Hook Elementary School. One can not describe the 
     pain and anguish that our family has experienced, a pain that 
     goes beyond just our immediate family, but permeates our 
     entire community.
       In the wake of our darkest day, we have become acutely 
     aware that the state of our gun laws in America is at best 
     ineffective. While no one thing led to the devastation that 
     occurred in Sandy Hook on December 14th, it will be a 
     compressive approach that leads us to preventing such loss of 
     life in the future.
       We are writing today to express our conviction and support 
     for the President's plan to reduce gun violence in America. 
     Specifically we are appealing to members of Congress to:
       Require a comprehensive criminal background check for every 
     gun sold in America that includes a review of all 
     disqualifying records and meaningful record keeping for all 
     sales--in the same manner that Federally licensed gun dealers 
     are required;
       Ban all military-style assault weapons and high capacity 
     ammunition magazines;
       Establish gun trafficking as a federal crime, with 
     substantial penalties for straw purchasers.
       We hope that all of our nation's elected representatives 
     will step forward with the moral courage and commitment 
     needed to tackle the grave issue of gun violence that 
     confronts us. We ask that action is chosen over inaction when 
     it comes to protecting the most vulnerable among us, our 
     children.
       We appeal to you as parents to honor the memories of those 
     lives lost at Sandy Hook and support the measures that the 
     President has put forward to reduce the epidemic of gun 
     violence.
       That much is owed to our children.
           Sincerely,
                                           Chris & Lynn McDonnell.

  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. These letters summarize the reason for their journey 
in very specific terms, stating:

       In the midst of our anguish we have learned about the 
     dangerous loopholes in the Nation's gun laws, and we are 
     compelled to speak out to save others from suffering what we 
     have endured. We are writing today to express our deep 
     conviction and support for the President's plan to reduce gun 
     violence in America.
       Specifically, we are asking Members of Congress to:
       1. Require a criminal background check for every gun sold 
     in America that includes a review of all disqualifying 
     records and meaningful recordkeeping for all sales--in the 
     same manner that federally licensed dealers are currently 
     required;
       2. Ban military-style assault weapons and high-capacity 
     ammunition magazines; and
       3. Make gun trafficking a Federal crime, with real 
     penalties for straw purchasers.
       The epidemic of injury and death from gun violence is a 
     plague on America, especially since the toll it takes on our 
     families is preventable.

  The letters go on.
  As I told them when they arrived, an event which was electric, 
literally in the shadow of the Capitol, their journey sent a message. 
Very simply, all of us who believe we must stop a scourge and epidemic 
of gun violence, all of us must keep on pedaling. We must do as they 
did. Even though our road, like theirs, may be rough and uphill at 
times, we need to keep on pedaling and working. Never give up. We need 
to keep faith with those victims and their families, the 26 victims of 
that massacre at Sandy Hook. When they rode to Congress, their message 
to us is we need to keep faith with those victims and assure Newtown 
never happens again. If it happened in Newtown, it can happen anywhere 
in America. It is not just a mass shooting which is involved, it is the 
2,500 people who have been victims of gun violence since December 14, 
all around Connecticut, all around the Nation, not only in communities 
such as Newtown, the quintessential New England town, but on the 
streets of Bridgeport, New Haven, Hartford, in neighborhoods, in big 
cities, rural areas, and suburban towns.
  Team 26 is really Team Connecticut and Team America. It brings those 
values, courage, and strength Newtown had shown to Congress. Congress 
needs to heed and hear the country, just as people on their route 
honored Team 26. The American people believe we must do something about 
gun violence in America. They believe overwhelmingly, the polls show 
80, 90 percent on all of these issues. They want action from this 
Congress.

[[Page 3352]]

  As the President of the United States said to all of us in his State 
of the Union, the American people want a vote. The victims' families 
from Tucson, Virginia Tech, and Aurora deserve a vote. This is why Team 
26 made this journey, and why they embody the conscience of America. 
The letters they have written to Senators here call for action on 
measures which are common sense and common ground. We can reach a 
bipartisan compromise if we recognize the carnage, death, and 
destruction that is the result of gun violence in America.
  These measures are law enforcement tools. Background checks enable 
enforcement of existing laws, the prohibition against criminals, drug 
addicts, domestic abusers, and the seriously mentally ill from 
purchasing guns, not just from federally licensed dealers. Background 
checks are necessary to enforce that law, just as is the prohibition on 
purchase of ammunition by those same categories of people. Likewise, 
the Federal ban on illegal trafficking and straw purchases is necessary 
to enforce existing prohibition. We have work to do.
  I want to conclude by thanking those who are all family, who have 
stood strong and spoken out. Every time they do, it is with grief and 
pain. Anyone who spent time with them--and I have been privileged to 
spend hours and hours, days, over these past months with those 
families, as well as first responders, who still bear the scars, 
emotional scars, which are deeply felt.
  I have great admiration for their courage and strength. I hope this 
body will take heart from it and will take their leadership as a 
message we must act, we must vote, we must do something about gun 
violence in America.
  I am proud to welcome Team 26.
  I ask unanimous consent the full list of all riders and their support 
group be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

       Rider #1. Monte Frank, who is here today with his wife 
     Leah, and his daughters Becky and Sarah; Bill Muzzio Rider; 
     Chris Peck, Newtown, Connecticut Rider; John Funk, South 
     Kent, Connecticut Rider; Stephen Badger, Roxbury, Connecticut 
     Rider; Andrea Myers, Danbury, Connecticut Rider; Mike 
     Andrews, Danbury, Connecticut Rider; Tom Officer, Litchfield, 
     Connecticut Rider; Jeremy Brazeal, Manchester, Connecticut 
     Rider; Officer Jeff Silver, Newtown, Connecticut Rider; Matt 
     Baldwin, Redding, Connecticut Rider; Jonathan Lowenstein, 
     North Kingstown, Rhode Island Rider; Lieutenant Gary Lyke, 
     Brookfield, Connecticut Rider; Michael Magur, Newburgh, New 
     York Rider; Andy Officer, Goshen, Connecticut Rider; Fred 
     Thomas, Cape Elizabeth, Maine Rider; Carl Reglar, Mt. Vernon, 
     New York Rider; Wayne Prescott, Litchfield, Connecticut 
     Rider; Kevin Fitzmaurice, Middlebury, Connecticut Rider; 
     Megan Cea, West Harrison, New York Rider; Brian Suto, Oxford, 
     Connecticut Rider; Matt Emeott, Woodbury, Connecticut Rider; 
     John Ford, West Harrison, New York Rider; Aidan Charles, 
     Middletown, Connecticut Rider; Heather Peck, Newtown, 
     Connecticut Honorary Team; and Rider: Chris McDonnell, Sandy 
     Hook, Connecticut.
       And their Support Crew: Sean Cavanaugh, Danbury, 
     Connecticut Support Crew; Becky Frank, Sandy Hook, 
     Connecticut Support Crew; Adam Silbert, New York, NY Support 
     Crew; Peter Olson, Bethel, Connecticut Support Crew; Greg 
     Meghani, Bethlehem, Connecticut Support Crew; and Mike 
     Conlan, Ridgefield, Connecticut.

  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, I wish to comment on the remarks by 
our colleague from Connecticut, Senator Blumenthal.
  I say to the Senator, we in Maryland want to once again express our 
condolences to the people of Newtown. We have lost people in gun 
violence, nothing like you have, but we have it there. Most recently 
when a high school opened, a young man who needed mental help came in 
and one of our young men was shot. Fortunately, he survived. He is an 
intellectually challenged young man, full of spunk. He has been made an 
honorary Raven, honorary Oriole. Lady Gaga, who is his favorite, even 
sent him CDs.
  We need to deal with this issue. We need to deal with guns and--I 
agree with the NRA--we need to deal with mental health. We need to put 
mental health in the Federal checkbook to train the professionals, do 
the research and know we are doing the right thing.
  One of the fathers from the Newtown tragedy has cycled through 
Maryland to raise the issue through all of the awful rain in the only 
way he can to speak up for his daughter.
  I want to congratulate the Senator and his colleague from 
Connecticut, Senator Murphy, for continuing to be steadfast. I wish to 
say we support you not only with words but deeds. It is wonderful to 
express our condolences, to send toys to the children, to do all of 
that. We need to put money in the Federal checkbook. We must first of 
all confirm our BATF Administrator. The very person in charge of guns 
should be confirmed. We need to then look at our own legislation about 
illegal guns, all of what the Senator is talking about.
  On the mental health side, the Senator was a member of the HELP 
Committee. I know now Senator Murphy of Connecticut is on the HELP 
Committee, the Presiding Officer also. We need to look, even now as we 
look at the CR, how we may do the right research.
  I wish to close with one melancholy thing, which is a consequence of 
the sequester. Senator Harkin with the HELP Committee held a hearing on 
mental health. The Director of the Institute on Mental Health was on 
that committee, and I believe the Presiding Officer was there. I asked 
him what would be the consequences of sequester on the National 
Institute of Mental Health, since everyone wants mental health, and 
that is the research.
  This is what he replied: We are not going to fund certain research 
projects.
  Let me tell you one that holds such promise it is going to be a sad 
day for us not to do it. Here is the test--and, please, I am not a 
scientist and certainly not a neurological scientist. But there are 
certain kinds of mental health problems that come on onset, 
particularly on young males, who are postpuberty, often after high 
school or as they go into college. As in Aurora, the young man who shot 
the people was already a graduate student. These things come on.
  The Director of the NIH mental health said they wanted to do research 
for early detection, biochemical as well as environmental. This is not 
to earmark, paint them in a corner, or push them in a corner and 
stigmatize them, but they could receive that help early.
  We need to know more. Whether that study is a good idea--I am sure it 
is, it is peer reviewed--I wish to say to the Senator, the reason we 
need to get this bill done, the budget done, and go on to regular order 
is to actually put money in the Federal checkbook to do what the 
American people want. We can do great gun control legislation on the 
this floor, but I want to support that mental health component.
  I call upon the NRA and all of its members to support us to move the 
Federal budget, look at the mental health aspects. I believe we would 
have bipartisan support. I believe we would have grassroots support. At 
the end of the day not only would we prevent gun violence, but along 
the way, the President's brain initiative. We could learn a lot more 
and we could help our people. This is what I mean when I say we need to 
fund compelling human need and do the research. But I salute the 
Senator for his advocacy. And my condolences to the people of Newtown, 
but not with words, let's get to the deeds and let's get the deeds 
done.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. I wish to briefly thank my great colleague and friend 
for those remarks stated so eloquently. I could not agree more. Mental 
health has to be part of a comprehensive strategy, as does school 
safety. No single measure for gun violence control can do it alone.
  That is why I began by referring to the momentous debate we are 
having today about the future of initiatives such as mental health. And 
I join in challenging the NRA--for all its opposition, staunch and 
steadfast, against any measure trying to stem or stop gun violence in 
America--to join in seeking common ground on mental health initiatives 
and other measures that are

[[Page 3353]]

common sense. I urge gun owners--responsible people who enjoy 
recreation and hunting--as well as others who are intent on stopping 
violence in America to support these mental health services for 
diagnosis and treatment. That is why I have joined in those measures as 
well for the Judiciary Committee and the HELP Committee.
  But I really wish to thank the Senator from Maryland for her 
incomparable and invaluable leadership on this issue.
  I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SHELBY. Madam President, I think today has been an interesting 
day here in the Senate. We have been trying--the Senator from Maryland 
and I--to get the bill we have been talking about to the floor so 
people will have an opportunity to offer their amendments, to debate 
their amendments, and we in the Senate will be able to vote them up or 
down. That is what this process is about.
  Although I know it is getting late in the evening, I am hoping we can 
lock in some time agreement with the leadership. I am sure Senator Reid 
and Senator McConnell are working on that, as well as Senator McCain 
and Senator Coburn. But if we could get started on this tomorrow and 
have a healthy debate, there are some issues that ought to be brought 
up.
  I wish to take a few minutes to review a few of the outlines of what 
we hope to accomplish this week--what is in this bill and what is not.
  What this bill would do is allow agencies the additional ability to 
address priorities in light of sequester cuts. We all know they were 
Draconian--good policy, as I said, but bad process. The proposed 
legislation the Senator from Maryland and I are bringing to the floor, 
hopefully, is in full compliance with the spending caps required by the 
Budget Control Act, and it brings, with the sequester, the total to 
under $1 trillion. So we are doing some serious cutting, but we ought 
to do it wisely by what we do.
  Both sides have given in to get to where we are. There is no new 
funding for ObamaCare, no new funding for Dodd-Frank, no State-specific 
earmarks.
  The bill enables the Department of Defense--and we all care about 
security--to better implement sequester, and it increases the DOD 
transfer authority for reprogramming, thus mitigating a portion of the 
national security impact of the sequester and other across-the-board 
cuts.
  The bill also ensures that veterans programs receive adequate 
funding--$2.5 billion above the fiscal year 2012 levels--for VA 
discretionary spending. So that is a good increase.
  The bill requires greater accountability of government employees 
attending conferences, including associated expenses, so that we don't 
read these horror stories of people going to conventions and living 
high off the hog while people are struggling to make ends meet.
  The bill also prohibits the transfer of Guantanamo prisoners to the 
United States, among other things.
  The legislation would provide additional funding for worldwide 
diplomatic and facility security in the post-Benghazi environment. When 
we send somebody overseas, we want to make sure, whether it is an 
Ambassador, an employee, or somebody going temporarily, that they are 
as safe as we can keep them. We know we live in a dangerous world, and 
some parts of the world are more dangerous than others.
  This bill provides over a $3.1 billion increase over fiscal year 2012 
in assistance to Israel. Israel is the only democracy--I believe a real 
one--in that area and is a great friend of ours.
  The legislation keeps in place the pay freeze for Federal employees 
for the remainder of this year, the fiscal year ending September 2013.
  The bill prohibits distribution of any funds to ACORN, its 
subsidiaries, or successors.
  It rescinds $50 million from the EPA to restrict its ability to 
implement certain environmental regulations.
  It rescinds $10 million from the ObamaCare, as we call it, 
Independent Payment Advisory Board, which is the rationing board, some 
people call it.
  The bill continues a provision to clarify the prohibition of Federal 
funds being used to lobby State and local legislative and executive 
authorities.
  These are just some of the provisions in here, but I think tomorrow 
we will talk about more. Overall, I think we have put together a worthy 
and credible package, and I hope the Senate will soon get a chance to 
start debating it seriously.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, I would like to compliment the Senator 
from Alabama, my vice chairman. He outlined how we tried to look at 
this bill and scrub it for nonsense or no sense, OK?
  I know we are waiting for the Senator from Oklahoma, Mr. Coburn, to 
lift his hold. I know he is looking closely at the bill. A few years 
ago, when I was moving the Commerce-Justice bill, he found that one of 
the agencies was hosting a conference and they were paying $4 a 
meatball, so we called it the lavish meatball amendment. Often, the 
Senator from Oklahoma has great ideas. You know, Madam President, that 
people from Oklahoma have great ideas, and so we would like him, as 
quickly as he can, to lift the hold so we can move our bill and he can 
offer amendments. And I hope he is scrubbing it. I am sure somewhere he 
will find a rogue meatball. I don't want to minimize what he is doing. 
He really does scrub for foolishness and folly, and if he has a 
foolishness-and-folly amendment, I probably will support it. I can't 
tolerate it either. My constituents really work hard for their money, 
and they want the money they pay in taxes to work hard for them.
  So, Madam President, I see the distinguished majority leader here on 
the floor. I am hoping that we are going to have a solution to some of 
that deadlock here.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, it used to be, before the last Congress, 
the Senate had two speeds: one for deliberation and one for getting 
things done. Senators saved the deliberation speed for truly great 
issues of the day, and when we needed to get the country's business 
done, we came together to work things out. It used to be that all 
appropriations legislation was business the Senate came together to 
work on and to finish. Sometimes it was 1 day, sometimes it took 4 or 5 
days, but we got it done.
  These days--for the last 3 years--the Senate has one speed: slow--
real slow. And we haven't had appropriations bills for a number of 
years because we haven't been able to do them because of the speed--
slow. Even when we are talking about preventing a government shutdown, 
even when there is broad agreement across party lines that we want to 
prevent a government shutdown, even then we are stuck in slow.
  Madam President, when we got the bill from the House, I didn't like 
it especially, but, as I said earlier--and I still feel this way--the 
Speaker at least got it to us at a decent hour, not at the last minute. 
These two good Senators, Shelby and Mikulski, worked very hard for days 
to get this done. Now, frankly, I didn't like some of the things 
Senator Mikulski agreed to, but I was with her, and we agreed to do the 
things together because we wanted to get a bill done. We swallowed a 
lot of pride. She gave up things in her bill she has worked on for 
decades and gave in to others so that they would feel better about this 
bill.
  So then we come here today and are blindsided. This bill has been in 
the public for days. It passed the House last week, and 85 to 90 
percent of the bill that is the so-called amendment was in the House 
bill.
  We are going to finish this bill or not finish it before the recess. 
If we can't get 60 votes, then it will fail and the government will 
shut down but not for anything we have done--not for anything we have 
done. We have a few Senators who are doing everything they can--and 
have been doing it for years--

[[Page 3354]]

to throw a monkey wrench into everything we do here. We should have 
been legislating today.
  I came to the floor last week and said we are going to have a CR, we 
are going to have amendments. I said that when we opened the Senate 
yesterday. I have tried my best to move to this bill.
  The Senate cannot continue like this. I took everyone at good faith 
at the beginning of this Congress when we made a few changes. I thought 
those changes would be helpful. To this point, they have done zero 
because we have had no cooperation from the Republicans.
  The Senate has changed, Madam President. I am sorry the Presiding 
Officer, who has a wonderful background, has not seen the Senate and 
how it really should work. A small group of Senators has kept the 
Senate in slow, slow gear. They have prevented us from even starting 
debate on this important bill. We can't even start the debate on it. 
People want to offer amendments. We had Senator Harkin waiting to offer 
an amendment, and we had Senator Cruz here waiting to offer amendments. 
They can't. We are through for the night, so we have wasted basically 2 
days when we could have been considering amendments to this bill, and 
that is a shame.
  We have a limited number of Senate days. In our lives, we have a 
limited number of days. The time of the Senate is too precious to spend 
it this way, so I am filing cloture on this bill. We will have a vote 
on proceeding to it on Thursday. How about that? Isn't that great? We 
are going to vote to proceed to it. So we will be on the bill Thursday, 
and we can start offering amendments on Thursday.


                             Cloture Motion

  I have a cloture motion at the desk, Madam President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under 
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to 
     proceed to Calendar No. 21, H.R. 933, a bill making 
     appropriations for the Department of Defense, the Department 
     of Veterans Affairs, and other departments and agencies for 
     the fiscal year ending September 30, 2013, and for other 
     purposes.
         Harry Reid, Barbara A. Mikulski, Benjamin L. Cardin, 
           Sherrod Brown, Richard J. Durbin, Tom Harkin, Patrick 
           J. Leahy, Angus S. King, Jr., Tim Johnson, Elizabeth 
           Warren, Debbie Stabenow, Patty Murray, Mary L. 
           Landrieu, Jack Reed, Jeanne Shaheen, Richard Blumenthal

                          ____________________