[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 159 (2013), Part 3]
[Senate]
[Pages 3824-3838]
[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

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will resume consideration of H.R. 933.
  The clerk will report the bill by title.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 933) to make 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.

  Pending:

       Reid (for Mikulski-Shelby) modified amendment No. 26, in 
     the nature of a substitute.

[[Page 3825]]

       Toomey amendment No. 115 (to amendment No. 26), to increase 
     by $60 million the amount appropriated for operation and 
     maintenance for the Department of Defense for programs, 
     projects, and activities in the continental United States, 
     and to provide an offset.
       Durbin amendment No. 123 (to amendment No. 115), to change 
     the enactment date.

  Mr. REID. Madam President, I note the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BLUNT. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. BLUNT. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the 
pending amendment.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I object.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senate is in a quorum. Without 
objection, we will suspend the quorum call.
  Mr. BLUNT. I need to repeat my request, Madam President, just in 
case. I ask unanimous consent that we set aside the pending amendment 
and call up amendment No. 43.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I object.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Objection is heard.
  Mr. BLUNT. Madam President, I wish to talk about this amendment. I 
hope there is still a way I might be able to offer it. If I am not able 
to offer it as an amendment to this bill, I intend to offer it as a 
bill to become part of the ongoing laws that govern these kinds of 
activities. I would also say--and I have said to many people--I have 
great expectations for the chairman of our committee, Chairman 
Mikulski. I understand she is trying to work out how to make the work 
of the Senate happen, and I think she is going to be vigilant and 
determined in leading us back toward the normal appropriations process. 
I am proud to be a member of her committee, and I do believe she and 
Senator Shelby, the ranking Republican, are going to be insisting the 
Senate get back to the way it should do business. I look forward to 
working with her to solve the problems we are solving this week and the 
problems we need to solve before October 1, when the new fiscal year 
begins.
  Let me say a few words about this moment we find ourselves in, and 
that there is no question that government spending is out of control. 
We have increased spending 19 percent since 2008. The Federal debt has 
skyrocketed to almost $17 trillion now. In 1981, when Ronald Reagan was 
sworn in as President, as part of his inaugural address we were 
approaching the first $1 trillion in debt in the history of the 
country. The illustration he gave in that speech was: If you had a 
stack of thousand-dollar bills 4 inches high, you would be a 
millionaire, but the stack to have $1 trillion would have to be 
stacked--those dollar bills--67 miles high. Now we are 67 miles high 
with thousand-dollar bills, not of dollar bills, and if every 4 inches 
of that were $1 million, we are 67 miles high times almost 17. And that 
is unacceptable.
  The President's own budget office has made more than 200 
recommendations of ways we could find savings through making government 
more efficient. More importantly, the Government Accountability Office 
has identified 51 areas where programs are inefficient, ineffective, 
and overlapping, leading to billions of dollars in wasted taxpayer 
money. There is simply no reason the government should stop providing 
essential services--which is what I want to talk about--because we are 
cutting 2\1/2\ percent of the budget through these line-by-line cuts 
that, by the way, wouldn't happen if we would budget at or below the 
number the law now says is the maximum dollar we can spend in any 
year--this year or for the next 9 years. This doesn't have to happen at 
all. But if it does happen, there is no reason we should have to be 
curtailing essential services.
  The Budget Control Act didn't fail to adequately plan for how to 
protect these essential services. On other days, when the government is 
not functioning at a full level, there have been many ways found to see 
those employees got to work. In fact, according to several letters from 
the Office of Management and Budget, Federal agencies have actually 
been instructed not to plan for sequestration. A few days ago, I was on 
the floor with a letter from the Office of Management and Budget from 
September 28 of last year, 2 days before the new spending year starts, 
and the letter said: Spend your money as though the law will not be 
obeyed. Spend your money as though the sequestration law will never go 
into effect. Spend your money as though the Budget Control Act will be 
changed.
  Of course, now we are halfway into the fiscal year and everybody has 
been spending as though the law isn't the law and suddenly we have 
these problems that are much bigger than they would have been if we had 
dealt with them over 12 months, but now we are trying to deal with them 
over a handful of months. Furlough notices are being made in a sweeping 
fashion. They are threatening day-to-day services that protect life and 
safety.
  Every service the Federal Government provides doesn't affect life and 
safety. I am not saying every Federal job is subject to this amendment 
or every Federal job is critical for everything that happens every day. 
I recently sent the Secretary of Agriculture, Secretary Vilsack, a 
letter urging him to use his authority to minimize the impact of 
sequestration as it relates to food safety and inspection services, the 
so-called FSIS. The letter came out right after the USDA said they 
would be laying off people for as many as 15 days in the last 4 months 
or so of the spending year--the 4 months that would end at the end of 
September. It is estimated these food inspector furloughs would lead to 
the closure of nearly 6,300 facilities across America for the day the 
food inspectors don't show up.
  If you happen to work somewhere for the FDA, the Food and Drug 
Administration, supervisor, they can show up whenever they want to, and 
they do that periodically. They can do that as a surprise visit. They 
can do lots of things. But in the facilities that are supervised by the 
U.S. Department of Agriculture, that inspector has to be there every 
day and every minute of every day for those workers in Missouri or 
Wisconsin or Maryland or anywhere to work.
  I have been to a lot of these meat, poultry, and egg facilities, 
because we have 146 of them in our State. These are hard jobs. These 
people are not showing up to work every day because they like to have 
somewhere to go. The fact is hundreds of workers, in fact, thousands of 
workers, could not show up for work on a given day and because the USDA 
inspector doesn't show up, they don't get paid for that day, and their 
families will suffer needlessly because we couldn't figure out how to 
prioritize what was necessary for those people to go to work. That is 
unacceptable to me.
  As a result of these furloughs, the estimate is that nearly 500,000 
workers will lose $400 million in wages over the course of this month. 
When that inspector doesn't show up, or the two inspectors don't show 
up at that plant that day, none of the many people who work there--and 
there might be a thousand people working at that plant that day--can 
work, none of them get paid, none of them produce the food that a few 
months later or a few weeks later or a few days later won't show up on 
the grocery store shelves in the country. And that is a problem too, 
but the problem I am concerned about is the working families who are 
affected here as well as the working families who later will see their 
meat, poultry, and egg prices go up because the supply is that much 
less than it otherwise would have been.
  In his response to my letter, Secretary Vilsack claimed that ``When 
Congress drafted the Budget Control Act of 2011 directing Federal 
agencies to reduce their spending at specified levels, it included no 
exemption for essential employees such as FSIS inspectors.'' So today I 
wish to introduce the

[[Page 3826]]

amendment the chairman has objected to--and I will introduce in the 
next few days a piece of legislation exactly like the amendment--and 
will continue to look for ways to add this amendment to this 
legislation.
  What this amendment would do is give the administration the 
flexibility it claims it doesn't have. In doing so, this amendment will 
ensure essential Federal employees continue to provide vital services, 
such as meat inspectors, control tower operators, and border security 
guards. And here is how we would do it. In April of 2011, the Office of 
Personnel Management sent a detailed memo--this is President Obama's 
Office of Personnel Management--to each Federal agency outlining which 
Federal employees would be exempted from furlough during a potential 
government shutdown. It is my belief that the administration may still 
have this ability. But if they do not have it, I want to give it to 
them and I want to give it to them exactly as they themselves said it 
should be applied in April of 2011: Those employees are considered 
essential ``to ensure the safety of life and protection of property,'' 
based on language contained in this act.
  My amendment would apply identical language used during government 
shutdown scenarios to the sequester. It defines an essential employee 
as an employee that performs work involving the safety of human life 
and the protection of property as determined by the head of the agency. 
This is the same language not only used in April of 2011 but used in 
guidance from the Clinton administration in preparation for the 1995 
government shutdown, the last time when the government really did shut 
down.
  These people showed up. These people were told to report to work. And 
if it was good enough for President Clinton to tell them to report to 
work, if it was good enough for President Obama in April of 2011 to 
tell them to report to work, it should be good enough now for the 
Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of Transportation and the 
Secretary of Homeland Security, and anyone else where these people are 
being furloughed to do so.
  This provision provides agencies with funding flexibility so that 
essential services are maintained, while nonessential employees are 
furloughed. I think we could do this--and with the chairman's help, we 
will do this--in the committee, I would hope, without having furloughs 
necessary in the future. But this amendment would solve the problem of 
essential employees that both President Clinton and President Obama 
thought was important to deal with the last two times a similar topic 
came up.
  I would also like to mention the second amendment, which I am not 
offering, so it doesn't need to be objected to. Senator Pryor and I 
have an amendment that may approach this in a different way--at least 
from the Agriculture, Rural Development, and Food and Drug 
Administration Subcommittee. He is the chairman and I am the ranking 
member of that appropriations subcommittee, and I hope we can find a 
solution here.
  Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDING pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to address the 
Senate on the continuing resolution.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I come to the floor to discuss the 
continuing resolution we will vote on perhaps today or tomorrow.
  This bill is much more than a continuing resolution and includes five 
separate appropriations bills. Our country now faces a $16.6 trillion 
debt, which is more than $52,000 for every man, woman, and child in 
America. It is time for Congress to go back to the business of voting 
on and passing annual budget resolutions, authorization bills, and 
appropriations bills, instead of a huge Omnibus appropriations bill 
such as the one before us today.
  This continuing resolution includes numerous examples of egregious 
pork barrel projects as well as billions in spending that was never 
authorized by the appropriate committee and not requested by the 
administration. The American taxpayer expects more and deserves more 
than what we are giving them in this bill.
  One unfortunate example of Congress overstepping in this CR is the 
ongoing inclusion of an appropriations rider that prohibits the Postal 
Service from moving to 5-day mail delivery. This congressional mandate 
was put in place in 1984, and it is a roadblock, keeping the Postal 
Service from transforming the way it delivers mail while still being 
able to provide universal service. The Postal Service lost $1.3 billion 
in the first quarter of this year and recorded a loss of $15.9 billion 
in fiscal year 2012. So what are we telling them to do? Business as 
usual.
  With the reality that the Postal Service will continue with 
devastating and unsustainable losses, the Postmaster General announced 
last month that the Postal Service would move to 5-day mail delivery 
later this year, which he estimates will save $2 billion annually. 
However, some in Congress who have decided they know better than the 
leadership of the Postal Service are moving to prohibit the Postal 
Service from modernizing and transforming the way it does business.
  Congress must accept the fact that the Postal Service's current way 
of doing business is no longer viable. We now correspond by e-mail. We 
now correspond by different methods. It was terrible when the bridle-
and-saddle business went out on the advent of the automobile. Things 
and times have changed. A huge percentage of the mail delivered today 
is what we call junk mail advertising. It is no longer the primary way 
Americans--and people in the world, for that matter--communicate. The 
American public conducts business in a different way than even 5 years 
ago. We have to allow the Postal Service to adapt to changing times in 
order to have a Postal Service in the future, and this includes 5-day 
mail delivery.
  The Postal Service loses $1.3 billion in the first quarter, $15.9 
billion last year, and do we come up with a fix for it? Do we address 
the issue? Of course not. There is nothing in this bill that would 
change that debt. There is nothing in this legislation that fixes the 
broken Postal Service. But there is a prohibition from them going to 5-
day mail delivery which would save $2 billion. Now, you still have 
about $13.9 billion left over, if it is like last year.
  So here we are telling the Postal Service they can't go to 5-day 
delivery, but we have no fix for this problem. And who picks up the 
tab? Obviously, eventually it is the American taxpayer. No wonder they 
view us with certain disdain.
  In addition to this rider, the bill includes pork barrel spending for 
things such as--and I am not making them up. Here we are with this debt 
of $16.6 trillion, and we are going to spend $65 million for the 
Pacific Coast salmon restoration for States, including the State of 
Nevada. I am not making that up, $65 million for the Pacific Coast 
salmon restoration, including in Nevada--a program that even President 
Obama mocked in his 2011 State of the Union Address; $14.7 million for 
the U.S. Department of Agriculture Watershed Rehabilitation Program, 
which the administration has suggested eliminating for years--$993,000 
in grants to dig private wells for private property owners; $10 billion 
for the U.S. Department of Agriculture's high energy cost grants 
programs that go to subsidize electricity bills in two States: Alaska 
and Hawaii; $5.9 million for the USDA's economic impact initiative 
grants.
  The economic impact initiative grants have become slush funds for 
local governments to do such things as rehab an exercise room, renovate 
a museum on the Pacific Island of Palau, and buy kitchen equipment for 
city government offices.

[[Page 3827]]


  Now I would like to talk a bit about defense spending. This is 
probably the most painful part of my comments, and I will explain why 
later on.
  Defense spending includes over $6 billion in unrequested or 
unauthorized funding for programs for the Department of Defense. At a 
time when the Department of Defense is facing the impact of 
sequestration, on top of the $487 billion in cuts directed by the 
President, we can't afford to spend a single taxpayer dollar on 
programs that are not a priority for the Defense Department and our 
national security.
  The following things are beginning to happen now that the Department 
of Defense is under sequestration: The Navy was unable to deploy the 
USS Truman, an aircraft carrier, to the Middle East at a time when the 
centrifuges in Tehran are spinning; 80 percent of the Army's 
nondeploying brigades have reduced readiness; Army base operations have 
been reduced 30 percent; the Navy is reducing flying hours on deployed 
carriers in the Middle East by 55 percent and shut down all flying for 
four of the nine carrier air wings. If funding is restored, returning 
to normal readiness will take 9 to 12 months and cost two to three 
times as much.
  The Air Force is delaying planned acquisition of satellites and 
aircraft, including JSF and the AC-130J, which will increase the future 
cost of these systems. And the Commandant of the U.S. Marine Corps has 
said:

       By the end of this year, more than 50 percent of my 
     tactical units will be below minimal acceptable levels of 
     readiness for deployment to combat.

  My friends, here we are spending money on this kind of junk, on this 
kind of pork, while the Commandant of the Marine Corps says by the end 
of this year more than 50 percent of his combat units will be below 
minimal acceptable levels of readiness for deployment to combat? In 
what kind of parallel universe are we residing?
  Instead of trying to remedy these drastic reductions to our military 
strength, the appropriators are willing to overstep the authorizers and 
defense leadership and provide increased funding for nonessential 
programs that are clearly not a national security priority. The Armed 
Services Committee went to great lengths last year to authorize defense 
spending for the most critical national security requirements as 
proposed by the President and defense leadership.
  Last week I offered an amendment, which was approved by a very narrow 
margin, that removed funding in the bill for civilian infrastructure--
not military infrastructure, mind you, civilian infrastructure--for 
Guam. This earmark for Guam directly contravened the explicit direction 
provided by the Armed Services Committee of the Senate and the House of 
Representatives in the conference report on the fiscal year 2013 
National Defense Authorization Act and, in my opinion, is a clear 
example of abuse of the appropriations process. I say to my colleagues, 
we are not going to stand for it. I say to my friends on the 
Appropriations Committee, we will not stand for this.
  Funding for the STARBASE Program. This ``nice to have but not 
necessary to have'' program will receive $5 million. According to its 
Web site, STARBASE focuses on elementary students, primarily fifth 
graders. The program's goal is to motivate these students to explore 
science, technology, engineering, and math as they continue their 
education. Military volunteers apply abstract principles to real-world 
situations by leading tours and giving lectures on the use of STEM in 
different settings and careers.
  I am sure that is a nice thing to happen. I am sure STARBASE is nice 
so that fifth graders are able to hear from members in the military. 
Meanwhile, we can't deploy an aircraft carrier. With a war going on, a 
budget crisis at our doorstep, this is how we elect to spend our 
taxpayers' defense money.
  Another example is $11.3 million in increase for the Civil Air 
Program or CAP. CAP is a volunteer organization that provides aerospace 
education to young people, runs a junior cadet program, and assists, 
when possible, by providing emergency services. Its members are hard 
working. We are grateful for their volunteerism.
  This year, as in the past, the Senate Armed Services Committee 
authorized the President's request for CAP funding. However, CAP is an 
auxiliary and should not operate to the detriment of the U.S. Air 
Force. To succeed at their missions, the Air Force must be able to fly 
and train at locations such as Luke Air Force Base, which is threatened 
with reduced flight hours and the closure of two local control towers 
that could impact air safety around the base. By diverting additional 
funds--not the primary funding but additional funds--to the Civil Air 
Patrol from Air Force operations and maintenance accounts which pay for 
the training and flight operations that keep the Air Force in the sky, 
we are imposing greater risk on our men and women in uniform.
  The bill includes $154 million for Army, Navy, and Air Force 
``alternative energy research'' initiatives. This type of research has 
yielded such shining examples as the Department of the Navy's purchase 
of 450,000 gallons of alternative fuels for $12 million, which is over 
$26 per gallon. Alternative energy research might be necessary, but 
shouldn't the Department of Energy do it? Why should the Department of 
Defense do it, when we cannot fly our airplanes?
  Section 1822 prohibits the retirement of the C-23 Sherpa aircraft. 
The Army is currently retiring or divesting the remainder of its fleet 
of old, limited-duty C-23s, all of which are flown by the Army National 
Guard. The Army neither wants nor needs these aircraft. The Air Force 
neither wants nor needs these aircraft. Last year the Congress granted 
the Army authority to give these planes to any State Governor who 
wanted them. Guess what. No takers. Now we prevent the Army from 
retiring these limited-utility aircraft.
  Another provision provides $15 million 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. If there were ever an example of the special interest pork 
barrel spending that goes on in this body and infuriates the American 
people, it is this--$15 million of Americans' tax dollars is going to 
any Native Hawaiian-owned company to give them an additional 5 percent 
if they are a contractor. Here we are, spending all our time trying to 
eliminate the waste and inefficiency in defense contracting, and we are 
now spending $15 million to overpay them if--if they are a Native 
Hawaiian-owned company.
  It will make it easier for the Department of Defense to enter into 
no-bid contracts for studies, analysis, and unsolicited proposals. The 
language in the bill makes it ripe for wasteful spending and earmarks 
for pet projects. For example, the Department of Defense may eliminate 
competition and use a no-bid contract for a ``product of original 
thinking and was submitted in confidence by one source.'' If there were 
ever an example of how pork barrel and earmark spending begins--``for a 
product of original thinking and was submitted in confidence by one 
source.''
  Another section requires the Secretary of the Air Force to continue 
procuring C-27J Spartan aircraft despite the Air Force's intent to end 
production and divest these aircraft, and $24 million to continue 
development on ACS, which was a canceled Army reconnaissance aircraft 
program.
  Another goody for defense contractors: There is a recurring provision 
in the bill that allows Alaska Native corporations to circumvent the 
rules of the Office of Management and Budget that would otherwise 
require them to follow an open and fair competition process in order to 
obtain Department of Defense contracts.
  The Department of Defense has a history of awarding billions of 
dollars in large, sole-source, no-bid contracts to Alaska Native 
corporations abusively. This matter has been well documented by the 
Senate subcommittee on contracting, the inspectors general of the 
Department of Defense and the Small Business Administration. The 
Washington Post ran a series on the Alaska

[[Page 3828]]

Native corporation contracting. Last year the Government Accountability 
Office found that the Department of Defense expeditiously awarded two 
$500 million, 10-year contracts using this same provision in a past 
appropriations bill.
  Several of us on the Armed Services Committee and the Senate Homeland 
Security and Governmental Affairs Committee have been trying to ensure 
that contracts to ANCs undergo extra scrutiny. It does not help that 
this bill is working against the American taxpayer while Congress 
should be working to make sure the Department of Defense acquires what 
it truly needs as economically as possible through competition.
  There is $48 million in funding for the Defense Department to do 
research dealing with Parkinson's disease, neurofibromatosis, and HIV/
AIDS research. This research is important. It has no place in a 
Department of Defense bill. It should be funded by the National 
Institutes of Health, not the Department of Defense.
  I ask unanimous consent to have a long list of unspecified and 
unauthorized and unnecessary and wasteful pork printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

       Additional DoD funding above the requested and authorized 
     levels include:
       $18 million for unspecified ``industrial preparedness''
       $567 million for ``unrequested'' medical research
       $9 million for unspecified radar research
       $48 million for computing research
       $20 million for university research initiatives
       $45 million for IMPACT AID to civilian elementary and 
     secondary schools
       $139 million for CH-47 helicopter procurement and 
     modifications
       $110 million to modify National Guard UH-60 helicopters
       $199 million for new National Guard UH-60 helicopters
       $300 million for new Patriot Missile systems
       $100 million for National Guard Humvees
       $66 million for laser range finders
       $605 million to procure 11 additional F-18 aircraft
       $79 million for a Navy Reserve C-40 aircraft--the military 
     version of a Boeing 737
       $130 million for two KC-130J aircraft
       $55 million for one C-130J aircraft (amount)
       $126 million for two HC-130J aircraft
       $126 million for two MC-130J aircraft
       $107 million for RQ-4 unmanned aerial vehicles
       $62 million for Air National Guard F-15 aircraft radar 
     upgrades
       $189 million for 17 additional SM-3 missiles
       $7 million for Civil Air Patrol program increase
       $27 million for Army, Navy, and Air Force nanotechnology 
     research
       $26 million for materials research
       $71 million for one additional V-22 Osprey aircraft
       $80 million for additional Marine UH-1Y and AH-1Z Cobra 
     helicopters
       $20 million for upgrades to SH-60 Sea Hawk helicopters
       $15 million for ``weapons and munitions technology''
       $20 million for ``electronics and electronic devices''
       $13 million for ordnance research
       $13 million for military clothing technology
       $39 million for Army, Navy and Air Force battery research
       $19 million for ``missile and rocket technology''
       $20 million for university research initiatives
       $9 million for unspecified radar research
       $32 million for a bone marrow registry program
       $7 million for a ``tactical athlete program''
       $10 million in small business giveaways as part of the 
     Littoral Combat Ship program
       $15 million in small business giveaways as part of the 
     Virginia class submarine program
       $15 million in small business giveaways as part of the 
     Multi-Mission Maritime Aircraft program
       $10 million in small business giveaways as part of the MK-
     48 torpedo program
       $80 million for the Space Based Infrared System satellite 
     program
       $9 million for directed energy technology
       $20 million for the Air Force's manufacturing technology 
     program
       $105 million for the Operationally Responsive Space program
       $25 million for the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle 
     Program
       $35 million for the Space Test Program
       $20 million to research ``anti-tamper technology''
       $20 million for the Air Force to research coal-to-liquid 
     fuel.
       $8 million to modify Navy Close-In Weapons Systems
       $778 million for advance procurement funding for one 
     Virginia class submarine
       $1 billion for one additional Arleigh Burke class destroyer
       $263 million for advance procurement of one Amphibious 
     Transport Dock ship
       $13 million for submarine research and technology
       $40 million for shipyard capital investments
  Mr. McCAIN. It is disgraceful. I see that my colleague from Texas is 
waiting to talk. This is absolutely unbelievable. All of this long list 
of billions of dollars of spending can only be considered as how 
obscene it is by listening to what the impacts of sequester have 
already been on the men and women in the military.
  Sequester so far canceled four brigade exercises of training of the 
Army--that has been canceled. It reduces the base operations, the 
normal day-to-day operations of the base, by 30 percent; cancels half a 
year of helicopter and ground vehicle depot maintenance; stops postwar 
repair of 1,300 vehicles and 17,000 weapons. It reduces the readiness 
of the Army's nondeploying brigades and stops tuition assistance for 
all Active-Duty and Reserve men and women in the Army.
  In the Navy, it cancels several submarine deployments; reduces flying 
hours on deployed carriers in the Middle East by 55 percent--and 
believe me, my friends, unless they are able to operate and train, they 
are not safe and they are not capable. It reduces the western Pacific 
deployed operations by 35 percent; nondeployed Pacific ships lose 40 
percent of their steaming days; reduces Middle East, Atlantic, and 
Mediterranean ballistic missile defense patrols. It shuts down all 
flying of four of our nine carrier air wings--that has been shut down 9 
to 12 months. It will take 9 to 12 months to restore normal readiness 
at two to three times the cost. It cuts all major exercises that are 
going on and defers emergent repairs; the USS Truman deployment to the 
Middle East delayed indefinitely; the Eisenhower carrier deployment 
extended indefinitely; the USS Nimitz and Bush carrier strike force 
will not be ready for scheduled 2013 deployments.
  The Air Force--likely to prevent the Air Force's ability to achieve 
the 2017 goal of being fully auditable; over 420 projects at 140 
installations across the Air Force are canceled; affects runway repairs 
and critical sustainment projects; delays planned acquisition of 
satellites and aircraft; reduces flying hours for cargo, fighter, and 
bomber aircraft.
  In the Marine Corps, the Marine Corps is unable to complete the 
rebalancing of Marine Corps forces to the Asia Pacific region. It will 
cause 55 percent of the U.S. Marine Corps aviation squad to fall below 
ready-to-deploy status. Over half of the aviation squadrons in the U.S. 
Marine Corps are not ready to deploy. The U.S. Marine Corps will not be 
able to accomplish planned reset of equipment returning from overseas. 
Depot-level maintenance will be reduced, delaying reset ability by 18 
months and reducing readiness of nondeployed forces. Facilities will be 
funded at 71 percent of the requirement.
  Most important--maybe Members of Congress do not have a lot of 
credibility. Maybe that is understandable. I will leave that up to the 
American people to judge. I do think we respect the Commandant of the 
Marine Corps and what he had to say. I repeat:

       By the end of this year, more than 50 percent of my combat 
     units will be below minimum acceptable levels of readiness 
     for deployment to combat.

  Over the weekend, there was a gathering in our Nation's Washington, 
DC, area of a group of our conservative Americans and members of the 
Republican Party, and references were made to people who were too old 
and moss-covered, that we need new and fresh individuals and ideas and 
thoughts. I agree with all of those--every bit of those recommendations 
and comments that were made.
  But there is a little bit of benefit of having been around for a 
while. My friends, I will tell you right now, I have seen this movie 
before. I saw it after the Vietnam war. When the Vietnam war was over, 
Americans were war-weary. We had been driven apart in a

[[Page 3829]]

way that was almost unprecedented in our history--certainly maybe as 
far back as our Civil War. America was torn apart.
  The first casualty of that was our military. Our military was cut and 
cut and cut, to the point where, in 1979, I believe it was, the Chief 
of Staff of the U.S. Army came before Congress and testified. It was 
kind of a seminal moment. He told the Congress and the American people 
that we had a ``hollow Army'' that would be unable to defend this 
Nation adequately.
  It also happened to coincide with when a group of brave Americans 
were being held hostage in the Embassy in Tehran, made famous by a 
fantastic movie called ``Argo.'' Along came a guy named Ronald Reagan 
who promised that we would restore our military, that we would restore 
our capability, that we would make America the leader in the world 
again, and a simple phrase called ``peace through strength.''
  I want to tell you what we are doing with this sequestration. What we 
are doing with this sequestration is an exact replay of what we did 
after the Vietnam war. I understand that the American people are war-
weary. I understand that there are savings that can be made--large 
savings made in our defense spending. But to do it like this puts the 
security of this Nation in jeopardy.
  We are blessed with the finest military ever in our history. I say 
that with great respect to my predecessors who fought in previous wars. 
Our All-Volunteer Force is the best this Nation has ever produced. It 
is the best of America. We all know that. Do you know what is happening 
to them right now? I will tell you what is happening to them right now 
because I talk to them all the time. They don't know where their next 
deployment is going to be. They don't know if they are going to be 
adequately trained to defend this Nation. They have lost confidence--
they have lost confidence in the leadership of this Nation. And the 
good ones, the really good ones, are getting out. They are not going to 
stay in a military in which they believe there is no future and they 
are unable to defend this Nation. I tell my colleagues that. Ask anyone 
in the military today--junior officer, senior officer, senior enlisted 
person--and they will tell you they are disgusted with what is going 
on.
  The least we can do is give them the ability to train and to operate 
to defend this Nation. This sequester and this legislation we are 
considering is a direct contradiction to everything we have said and 
promised them that we would do for them when they agreed as a volunteer 
to serve this Nation. It is a shameful period in the history of this 
Congress, the Presidency, and the way we have gone about this business. 
We will maybe--very likely--pay a very heavy price.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Republican whip.
  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, President Obama recently told the 
Speaker of the House of Representatives that we do not have a spending 
problem. Last week he told ABC News that we do not have an immediate 
crisis in terms of the debt. These comments indicate that the President 
just does not seem to understand the negative impact of $16.5 trillion 
in debt on our economy.
  For that matter, based on the new budget, Senate Democrats do not 
seem to get it either. Not only would the budget that was passed out of 
the Senate Budget Committee last week raise taxes by an additional $1.5 
trillion, it would also increase Federal spending by roughly 60 percent 
and increase our national debt by $7.3 trillion.
  I should say that as bad as it is, the budget that was passed out of 
the Budget Committee last week represents progress. How could I 
possibly say that? Because it has been 1,419 days since the Senate has 
passed a budget under Democratic control. So I guess we could say 
actually passing a budget out of the Budget Committee and having the 
budget come to the floor this week represents progress.
  The reason I said Democrats have raised taxes again--or proposed an 
additional revenue increase in this budget--is because they already did 
so previously by $1 trillion with the passage of ObamaCare. In my 
experience, ObamaCare is unique compared to other legislation we have 
passed here. We passed it in 2009 and early 2010. Many of its 
provisions have yet to even kick in, and some of the provisions--
including the tax increases--will not kick in until 2014. As I said, it 
will raise taxes by an additional $1 trillion.
  Earlier this year--we know as a result of the fiscal-cliff vote at 
the end of December--there was an additional $620 billion tax increase 
at that time, but apparently that was not enough. There is an important 
lesson here. For those who believe that bigger and more government is 
the answer to every problem that confronts our country, more taxes is 
never enough. In fact, the Leviathan is insatiable.
  This debate comes down to a basic philosophy in how we should govern 
ourselves as a free people. Our friends on the other side of the aisle 
seem to be focused incessantly on the government and growing the 
government in the hope that if the Federal Government spends enough 
money--even if the money is borrowed from our creditors--some of that 
might trickle down into the private sector economy. Meanwhile, this 
side of the aisle fundamentally believes it is the job creation in the 
private sector which helps grow the economy and creates opportunity and 
prosperity. We look for ways to rein in wasteful Washington spending to 
a more sustainable level so it stops hampering private sector 
investment and job creation.
  I wish to ask President Obama: If we don't have a spending problem, 
why is it we have accumulated more than $6 trillion in additional debt 
since you took office about 4 years ago? If we don't have a spending 
problem, why is it we still have $100 trillion in unfunded liabilities 
because of programs that literally are not funded into the future? Why 
is it that today we are spending more than $200 billion a year on 
interest payments on the debt? We cannot borrow $16.5 trillion interest 
free. Even at the low interest rates we have today, we are paying $200 
billion a year on interest on that debt.
  Is the President arguing we should postpone measured spending cuts 
and measured entitlement reforms until we have experienced a full-blown 
European-style meltdown? I hope not. I don't think so because that 
would be grossly irresponsible. I will remind the President and his 
allies that after $4 trillion in deficits--that would be the annual 
difference between what we bring in and what the government spends. 
After four times in a row of deficits that are more than $1 trillion, 
after more than $1.6 trillion in tax increases, after hundreds of 
billions of dollars worth of new regulations, our country is mired; we 
are mired in the longest period of high unemployment since the Great 
Depression. That is a direct consequence of this huge debt and our 
creditors' lack of confidence that we are actually serious about 
dealing with it.
  Indeed, many workers have simply given up on finding work, which is 
one reason why our labor force participation rate is now at a 32-year 
low. Unemployment is almost 8 percent, but that doesn't take into 
account the millions of people who have simply given up looking for 
work after a long period of unemployment.
  Since June 2009 when the recession officially ended, median household 
income has fallen by more than $2,400. So instead of treading water, 
the average American family is seeing their buying power decrease by 
more than $2,400 since 2009. At the same time they are finding that not 
only are their taxes going up with the return of the payroll tax to its 
previous level, but they are finding their costs for gasoline, food, 
and the other necessities of life are going up. Does this sound like an 
economy that can stand another massive tax increase? I don't think so.
  President Obama said to ABC News that we should not try to balance 
the budget ``just for the sake of balance.'' Well, once again, the 
President was knocking down a straw man. We weren't talking about doing 
something symbolic; we were talking about doing

[[Page 3830]]

something real, something that would benefit the economy and job growth 
and getting people back to work instead of dependency, which I know 
none of them want. We see more and more people on food stamps, more 
people receiving disability benefits, and more people on unemployment. 
These are people who would like to get back to work and regain their 
sense of dignity and self-sufficiency, but because the economy is 
growing so slowly, they cannot do that. We believe that balancing the 
budget and reducing our debt burden is absolutely essential to long-
term economic growth--long-term economic growth--which creates more 
jobs, more taxpayers, and people who are actually putting money into 
the Treasury to help us balance our deficits.
  We also believe that balancing the budget and reducing our debt 
burden is essential to saving important programs our seniors depend 
upon, such as Medicare and Social Security. If we want to remain an 
opportunity society with high levels of upward mobility--something we 
call the American dream--we must act sooner rather than later. The 
longer we delay, the more expensive and the more difficult the 
challenge of fixing these problems will become. Again, the basic 
question is: Are we more concerned with growing the job-creating 
private sector or with growing the Federal Government?
  The budget that passed out of the Senate Budget Committee--along a 
party-line vote with strictly the votes of Democrats--last week makes 
it clear they are ultimately more concerned with growing the Federal 
Government. We will have a chance on the floor of the Senate this week 
for Democrats and Republicans alike to offer amendments and get votes, 
which I think will provide a lot of clarity to the contrasting 
approaches of the major political parties.
  We have simply had the weakest economic recovery since the Great 
Depression, and so it is now time to do something different. I cannot 
recall who the original author was of the saying that the definition of 
insanity is to do the same thing over and over again and to expect 
different outcomes. Well, if that is the definition of insanity, that 
is what is happening here in the U.S. Congress. It is time to put 
economic growth ahead of government growth.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Hirono). The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, I want to bring my colleagues up to 
date on where we are. Right now the vice chairman of the committee, 
Senator Shelby, and I are in conversation on some possible agreements 
we could make on the outstanding amendments so we can get them down to 
a manageable list. We are waiting for his arrival. He was at the 
airport, and we have been in communication. Our conversations have been 
constructive. When Senator Shelby arrives, we look forward to perhaps 
presenting something to the Senate that will give us a clear path on 
specific amendments.
  While we are waiting for that, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business about some very sad events that occurred in Maryland.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, over the weekend, we in Maryland were 
saddened by three separate yet poignant deaths.
  CPT Sara Cullen, one of our very own--a wonderful woman who served in 
the U.S. military--died in Afghanistan. Kristina Quigley, a young woman 
who showed enormous promise, was killed in an awful bus crash. She was 
the lacrosse coach at Seton Hill. Also, someone beloved to so many of 
us, Larry Simns, was the head of the watermen's association. For those 
who are from different parts of the country, they are called 
fishermen's associations. For people who enjoy Maryland crabs and 
oysters, they are harvested by the men who sail the Chesapeake Bay in 
open waters. The head of their association was Larry Simns.
  I wish to talk briefly about all three.


                       Honoring Our Armed Forces

                      Captain Sara Knuston Cullen

  Captain Cullen died on March 11 from a crash in a UH-60 Black Hawk 
helicopter in the Kandahar Province in Afghanistan. It was during a 
training mission in a very heavy rain. She was assigned to headquarters 
and the combat aviation brigade. She was a wonderful woman with 
enormous promise. She was a graduate of the U.S. Military Academy. She 
graduated from West Point in 2007, and she got married very recently to 
another pilot, Chris Cullen.
  I want to comment that we in Maryland mourn the loss of Captain 
Cullen. She was well known and well regarded here locally in Carroll 
County. She went to a school called Liberty High School. Isn't that a 
great name? She wanted to go to West Point. She was not nominated by me 
but by another member of the Maryland delegation. We try to share that 
responsibility in order to maximize our talent. I know the gentlelady 
from Hawaii does that as well. We have so much talent in Maryland, we 
don't want to waste one nomination, so we all work together.
  By all accounts, Captain Cullen was on her way to being an 
outstanding officer with a deep commitment to her country. Friends and 
family of hers in Eldersburg, a community in Carroll County where she 
grew up, said she was dearly loved.
  ``She was always looking for the next adventure, the next challenge, 
and the next task to being a better person,'' said her best friend 
Katie Owens.
  NATO told us of the crash last week, and I was mortified about this 
over the weekend. On behalf of all of Maryland, we want to extend our 
condolences to her husband, to her family, and to her parents, who 
obviously gave her a great home and saw to her education. It is a sad 
day when we lose somebody in Afghanistan, and it is a very sad day for 
those of us in Maryland.


                      Remembering Kristina Quigley

  We also remember another wonderful woman by the name of Kristina 
Quigley. Kristina Quigley grew up in a community called Dundalk. 
Dundalk is a blue-collar suburb outside Baltimore City. She went to 
Dundalk High School and then to Duquesne and then, because she was a 
great athlete, she went on to a sports career in college at Duquesne 
and then fulfilled a dream of hers to be a coach.
  On a road trip of the college women's lacrosse team, there was a 
terrible accident on the Pennsylvania Turnpike. The bus went off the 
road and she was, obviously, sitting in a place where she received one 
of the first impacts. She was only 30 years old. She was married with a 
young child. She was 6 months pregnant at the time of the accident. Her 
unborn child perished as well.
  This is very sad. There were many who were injured on this bus. 
Several were from Maryland who were also members of the team, and the 
assistant coach is also from Maryland. The assistant coach is from 
Baltimore. There were 23 students on board when this happened in 
Cumberland County. We are now awaiting details. We are now awaiting the 
investigation. But it is a very sad day when this promising young woman 
with the world ahead of her who, by all accounts, was not only an 
athlete who could teach athletics, but she was an inspirational leader. 
Girls and young women just loved her. Lacrosse is a tough sport to 
play. They were on their way to a great game. Seton Hill is a great 
Catholic college. There was excitement on the bus, anticipation, and we 
are sorry about this terrible tragedy.
  Again, we extend our heartfelt condolences to her parents who live in 
Baltimore and to her husband who lives on the Seton Hill campus.


                        Remembering Larry Simns

  In addition, because each one has a story, is my own pal and good 
friend Larry Simns. Larry Simns was a great Marylander. His official 
name was Lawrence Simns, Sr., and he passed away Thursday. He fathered 
three children. He had 5 stepchildren, 12 grandchildren, and 3 great-
grandchildren. He

[[Page 3831]]

was a friend to a host of people up and down the Chesapeake Bay. If you 
were involved in cleaning up the bay or making sure the people who live 
alongside the bay had jobs, you knew Larry Simns. He was a true 
champion. For me, he was a wonderful adviser on how we could clean up 
the bay but ensure that our watermen could continue to work on the bay.
  We have been plagued over the last several years with the declining 
of our species, including our crabs and our oysters. If we want to save 
them, it means rules and regulations. If my colleagues know our 
watermen, they know they are kind of like the Wild West guys who want 
to ride the range. They don't like rules and regulations. They are not 
rules and regulations kind of guys, but they also know we have to be 
able to save the species.
  For decades Larry himself saw the bay's declining health: poor water 
quality, fewer fish and crabs, barren oyster reefs. Then he worked with 
me to help the watermen navigate through these tough environmental 
factors, tough economies, and stiff regulations. He did not have an 
easy job, but he approached it with such tenacity, such persistence, 
and in such a way where he spoke with humility about what God had given 
us, this spectacular Chesapeake Bay, and how we had to preserve it and 
the jobs. He became an unlikely spokesman because, he said: I am not 
much for words; you know me. We did know him and he spoke eloquently 
for these men and women.
  I worked very hard with the watermen on how we could help them clean 
up the bay, along with Senator Cardin and the Members of the House 
delegation, and worked with our watermen and worked with our scientists 
studying the bay so we could make sure we could preserve the 
livelihoods and heritage of the bay and the men who work on it. 
Fortunately, working together, we were able to do many wonderful 
things. But we could only do it because Larry Simns was such a great 
advocate.
  We are going to miss him. I just can't believe Larry will not be with 
us anymore. When I first came to the Senate--now over 20-some years 
ago--Larry was one of the first to reach out to me, to help me learn 
the ways of the watermen, learn what they were up against, including 
tough weather, harsh working conditions, escalating fuel prices, 
because our men and women go out on those waters using boats that 
consume diesel oil, and, again, the declining species. But working 
together, we were able to accomplish a lot.
  So I wish to say to his family: Thank you for lending Larry to us, 
because he spent much time in government meetings, regulatory hearings, 
sitting with me at Fisherman's Inn or pulling the watermen together for 
a roundtable so we could talk things over to find a sensible center to 
preserve their jobs and still have the smart science and smart 
regulations. We want to thank Larry for all the time he put in, taking 
a very green Senator--and by green I don't mean only in the 
environmental sense but as a new Senator--and helping me learn the ways 
of the people because we want to preserve their way of life.
  It is a sad day. It is a sad day for all of us. So when Memorial Day 
comes and the restaurants open and piles of Maryland crabs start coming 
in and the restaurants start serving the steamed crabs and so on, I 
just want to say this: Larry, wherever you are, whenever I pound the 
crab claw, I will be thinking of you and all you meant in terms of what 
we did to be able to create jobs, clean up the environment, and be able 
to keep our way of life going on the Chesapeake Bay.
  The Presiding Officer can see we had three great Marylanders, each 
doing a very different thing. But what I am so proud of with Captain 
Cullen, Larry Simns, and Kristina Quigley is that each in their own way 
was trying to make a difference, one to protect America, the other to 
protect jobs and a way of life on the Chesapeake Bay, and the other to 
inspire young women not only to be ready for the playing fields of 
lacrosse but for the playing fields of life. All three in their own way 
were inspirational leaders. All three in their own way made a 
difference in the lives of the people I came in contact with. I wish to 
say God bless them and God treat them kindly and may their souls rest 
in peace.
  I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. I ask there be order in the Senate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will come to order.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I am going to propound a unanimous consent 
request. Everyone has to look at this from way up high and understand 
how much has been accomplished during the last week. Senator Mikulski 
and Senator Shelby have worked very hard to change the bill that came 
from the House of Representatives, and they have done a good job, a 
really good job. People have requested further changes to the bill, and 
we have tried hard. I say ``we,'' I have gone to Senator McConnell many 
times, Senator Mikulski, Senator Shelby, and others trying to come up 
with some way to move forward on this legislation.
  There is a big spotlight on the Senate to see if we can do something. 
Whatever we come up with, what Mikulski and Shelby, what they have come 
up with, it is not perfect. I could improve it. The Senator from 
Tennessee could improve it. Anyone in this body could improve what they 
did, but they did the best they could--and it was hard.
  Both of these Senators gave up things that help them in their States. 
They worked together on Commerce-State-Justice for many years. They 
know that subcommittee better than anyone has ever known that 
subcommittee. They both have many issues within their States that are 
affected by that subcommittee, but they gave that up for the greater 
good.
  I am asking Senators here to give up a few things for the greater 
good, to try to allow us to get this done. The reason this is important 
is it will allow us to go forward and start having appropriations 
bills. We changed the rules at the beginning of the year to make it 
easier to go to certain bills, and what we had in mind was 
appropriations bills.
  It has been hard to come up with this. I repeat, is it really, really 
good? No, probably not. But it is not bad.
  I hope we could approve this unanimous consent request. We would have 
nine votes on matters that people believe are really important. There 
are other people who have things that are just as important, but this 
is legislation, the art of compromise.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the two cloture motions 
be withdrawn; that the following amendments be in order to the 
Mikulski-Shelby substitute: Coburn No. 69, Coburn No. 93, Coburn No. 65 
as modified with the changes that are at the desk, Coburn No. 70 as 
modified with the changes that are at the desk, Inhofe No. 72 as 
modified with changes that are at the desk, Grassley No. 76 as modified 
with changes that are at the desk, Mikulski-Shelby No. 98, Leahy No. 
129 as modified with changes that are at the desk, and Pryor-Blunt No. 
82; that no other first-degree amendments to the substitute or the 
underlying bill be in order and no second-degree amendments be in order 
to any of the amendments listed above prior to the vote; that there be 
30 minutes equally divided between the two leaders or their designees 
prior to votes in relation to the amendments in the order listed; and 
that upon the disposition of Leahy No. 29 as modified, the Durbin 
second-degree amendment to Toomey amendment No. 115 be withdrawn; that 
all the amendments be subject to a 60-affirmative-vote threshold; that 
the Senate proceed to vote in relation to the Toomey amendment No. 115; 
that upon disposition of the Toomey amendment, the Senate proceed to 
vote on the Mikulski-Shelby substitute amendment, as amended; that if 
the substitute amendment, as

[[Page 3832]]

amended, is agreed to, the Senate proceed to vote on passage of the 
bill, as amended.
  It is my understanding that the Toomey amendment has a point of order 
against it; is that right? I make that request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there an objection? The Senator from New 
Hampshire.
  Ms. AYOTTE. Madam President, I reserve the right to object. I have 
filed an amendment. I filed it last week. It is a reasonable amendment 
that both sides have been aware of. It is one that is also germane. It 
is to strike funding, $380 million in funding from the continuing 
resolution for a missile defense program that will never protect a 
single warfighter. It is a medium extended air defense system. In fact, 
it has been called a missile to nowhere, and my amendment would 
transfer those funds to operation and maintenance so they could be used 
for our warfighters, particularly as sequestration is pending, for real 
purposes instead of a program we will never realize anything from, that 
would protect our warfighters. I reserve the right to object.
  Mrs. BOXER. Do you object?
  Mr. REID. The Senator has not objected; is that right?
  Ms. AYOTTE. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, this is over with. There has been 
objection. I regret the Senator has objected to this reasonable 
request. It really is reasonable. I understand how strongly the Senator 
from New Hampshire feels about the issue. I am aware of the issue. I 
understand it very well. I have talked to a number of Senators. I can't 
get them to agree to this. They may be wrong, she may be right. She may 
be wrong, they may be right. I cannot make that decision. I cannot go 
forward if somebody doesn't agree to this.
  Putting together a unanimous consent agreement like this, as I 
indicated, certainly has not been easy. The people I have empathy for 
are these two Senators here. They are veteran legislators. They have 
dedicated a large part of the last 2 weeks to this legislation.
  We could have an alternative. We could just vote for what the House 
sent us. All the work they have done--down the drain. There are scores 
of Senators--and I say that plural--scores of the 100 Senators who have 
benefited from the work they have done. It has helped them in their 
States. It has rearranged things. What they have done does not spend 
any more money. We are spending the same amount of money the House did. 
But the House was very emphatic that they would not allow flexibility 
on nondefense matters. They have some control over what we do.
  I just think it is such a shame that there is an objection preventing 
the Senate from being able to consider these amendments. There are nine 
amendments. This is a must-pass measure so we will need to move this 
Senate bill through the Senate back to the House to avoid the 
government shutdown. I think it is a shame, but that is where we are.
  I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Maryland, Ms. Mikulski, 
be recognized for up to 5 minutes, and the Senator from Alabama be 
recognized for up to 5 minutes prior to the vote on cloture.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. MORAN. Madam President, reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. MORAN. Madam President, had the Senator from New Hampshire not 
objected to the previous request for unanimous consent, I would have 
objected. I want to use this moment just to point out that an amendment 
that is, in my view, so critical to the air safety of our country, the 
traveling public's ability to feel secure and safe in their travel, was 
not included in the request for unanimous consent. This is an amendment 
that would transfer money to allow the air traffic control tower 
program to continue.
  While the majority leader has requested that there be magnanimity, 
that there be reasonableness, in my view, in the absence of this 
amendment being included, come April 7 those air traffic control towers 
are closed. And even I, as a member of the Appropriations Committee, 
will have no ability to reverse course once they are closed. So this 
program faces an immediate deadline.
  Had the Senator from New Hampshire not objected previously to the 
unanimous consent request, I would have on that basis. I have no 
objection to the request that time be given to the chair and the 
ranking member of the committee.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, my consent has been agreed to. In response 
to my friend from Kansas, everyone can give a heart-rending speech. We 
have tens of thousands of children who will not able to go to Head 
Start. I think that is pretty compelling. There are many other people 
in this body who could give a tearjerker--just like the Senator tried 
to do.
  This is about compromise. We are trying to work through this so we 
can continue to fund the government and set up a pattern in this 
Congress so we can have appropriation bills for 2014.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Donnelly). Is there objection to the 
request?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Maryland.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise to ask all of my colleagues on 
both sides of the aisle to vote for cloture on the Senate bill. I want 
to say to my colleagues, we have come very far on this bill, and as of 
Thursday we had 126 amendments. I love the Senate. We love to talk, and 
we love to amend. Everyone has, in many instances, outstanding ideas to 
improve the bill. We are now at the point where we have dueling 
amendments. We have matters of policy to discuss, but we are now at the 
point where the bill must come to a close, and that is why we proposed 
this limited number of amendments. Some of my colleagues have 
amendments on the issue related to flexibility.
  If I could ask the Senator from Kansas a question, it is not that we 
dispute what the Air Force is going to face or what our poultry farmers 
are going to face. Both sides of the aisle--whether it is Blunt of 
Missouri, Isakson of Georgia, Pryor or Boozman of Arkansas, or Mikulski 
and Cardin of Maryland, chicken is the mainstay of our eastern shore. 
We are all facing this.
  In my original underlying bill, I had a 1-percent transfer authority 
subject to the approval of Congress that would have solved all of these 
problems. It was the other Chamber--and even those on the other side of 
the aisle--that insisted I remove that from this bill. For all of those 
who wanted flexibility, I wanted to fix it. We could not fix it. 
Believe me, I wanted to fix it. Each and every one of these individual 
amendments has merit in and of itself.
  We are now at the point where we have to decide whether we want the 
Senate bill to stand and be voted on with further amendments subject to 
the Parliamentarian determining what is germane and therefore eligible 
for consideration or do we want the House bill? It is as simple as 
that.
  We have come so far. I want to thank the vice chairman, Senator 
Shelby, his staff, and all the clerks on the other side of the aisle 
for working so assiduously.
  We have to decide: Do we want to make the perfect the enemy of the 
good? Do we want to have a bill that substantially improves the House 
bill? It does not accomplish every objective we want, but, in fact, 
does do several things.
  No. 1, it would avoid a government shutdown. Say what, Senator 
Mikulski? Avoid a government shutdown? We could show that we could 
actually govern and that we could actually pass a bill that I believe 
the House will accept as well. Hallelujah. That in and of itself would 
be a major accomplishment. We would have taken the House bill and we 
would have made substantial improvements that I think both sides of the 
aisle agree are important. We could get that done. The question is: Can 
both sides of this Chamber take yes for an answer? If we take yes for 
an answer, again, we avoid a government shutdown. We will show we can 
govern

[[Page 3833]]

and make substantial improvements not only in the areas of defense and 
national security, but in other areas where people protect us, such as 
border control and food safety. Do we get what we want? No. But we do 
get a bill that we can feel has made a major accomplishment.
  I could go through this item by item. I have a speech that would take 
me 20 minutes to go through. I am not going to go through it. What I am 
going to say to my colleagues is: Both sides of the aisle have worked 
together for the common good in such areas as the security of our 
country, meeting compelling human needs, and investments in research 
and technology. I think we ought to say yes and vote to move to cloture 
on the Senate bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, to some extent, I want to repeat what 
Senator Mikulski just said. No. 1, this would avoid a government 
shutdown. That should appeal to everybody. I think it appeals to the 
American people. It should appeal to everybody in this body tonight.
  No. 2, it enforces the Budget Control Act and sequester levels. I 
will say it again. It enforces the Budget Control Act and sequester 
levels. Granted, perhaps not everything is ideal, but what is here? 
There will be ample time to address some of the issues. Some of the 
issues that have been raised are bona fide issues that we were unable 
to address for one reason or another in this process. But I assure my 
colleagues--and I have been working with my colleagues and with Senator 
Mikulski's Democratic colleagues--that if we do not move forward, I am 
afraid there may be no future appropriations bills, which is not good 
for anyone in this legislative process.
  We have lurched from crisis to crisis. The CR is running out. What we 
are asking to do is to fund the government until September 30.
  I urge my colleagues to support cloture and move this process 
forward.
  I thank the Chair.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I want to follow up.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. To be clear, the first vote is on the cloture for the 
Senate bill. If this vote on cloture fails, we will go to the House 
bill. We have two choices tonight; we have two paths which we can go 
down. We can go down the Senate path, which is bipartisan in its 
approach. It is a good and solid bill, but if it goes down, we will 
immediately go to cloture on the House bill. If that passes, then 
essentially everything that we as U.S. Senators have worked on will be 
rubberstamping what the House sent us. So the path and choice are ours.
  I intend to vote aye on the Senate bill and I urge all of my 
colleagues on this side of the aisle to follow my lead. I know Senator 
Shelby feels the same about it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report----
  Mr. MORAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. No further debate is in order.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to address the 
Senate.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.


                             Cloture Motion

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under 
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
  The assistant legislative 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 Mikulski-Shelby substitute amendment No. 26, as 
modified, to 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, Sherrod Brown, Barbara 
           Boxer, Robert Menendez, Patty Murray, Amy Klobuchar, 
           Debbie Stabenow, Max Baucus, Tim Johnson, Benjamin L. 
           Cardin, John D. Rockefeller IV, Charles E. Schumer, 
           Carl Levin, Thomas R. Carper, Richard J. Durbin, Maria 
           Cantwell

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum 
call has been waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the 
Mikulski-Shelby substitute amendment No. 26, as modified, offered by 
the Senator from Nevada, Mr. Reid, to H.R. 933, 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, shall be brought to a close?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
  The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, this is an amendment offered by Reid on 
behalf of Senators Shelby and Mikulski.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. 
Lautenberg) is necessarily absent.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from South Carolina (Mr. Graham).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 63, nays 35, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 38 Leg.]

                                YEAS--63

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

                                NAYS--35

     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coats
     Coburn
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Enzi
     Fischer
     Flake
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heller
     Inhofe
     Johnson (WI)
     Kirk
     Lee
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moran
     Paul
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rubio
     Scott
     Sessions
     Tester
     Thune
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Wicker

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Graham
     Lautenberg
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 63, the nays are 
35. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in 
the affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
  The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be 
permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes and that following my remarks 
Senator Moran be granted up to 10 minutes and then Senator Boxer be 
recognized.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.


      Tenth Anniversary of the United States-Led Invasion of Iraq

  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, this month we mark the 10th anniversary of 
the United States-led invasion of Iraq. With more veterans per capita 
than nearly any other State, Montanans proudly answer when duty calls.
  The Book of John, chapter 15, verse 13 says: ``Greater love hath no 
man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.''
  On this anniversary, we remember the Montanans and all Americans who 
laid down their lives in the name of freedom.
  On my family ranch near Wolf Creek, MT, there is a willow tree that 
sways in the wind and stretches in the Sun.
  On July 29, 2006, my nephew, Marine Cpl Phillip Baucus, was killed 
during combat operations in Iraq's Al Anbar Province. He was just 28 
years old.
  He was laid to rest on the same mountain where my father lies, the

[[Page 3834]]

same ranch where he had married his lovely Katharine less than 1 year 
earlier.
  Phillip was a bright and dedicated young man. He was like a son to 
me.
  My brother John and I planted that willow tree on the ranch in memory 
of Phillip. We also planted a pine tree nearby.
  I am not the only Montanan who has grieved. Forty Montanans have lost 
their lives in Iraq and Afghanistan. We grieve for them all. We miss 
them all.
  We must honor their courage by living up to the ideals they died to 
defend. We must also honor their sacrifice by supporting the troops who 
come home forever changed. Thousands come home with traumatic brain 
injuries, post-traumatic stress disorder, and other injuries.
  Make no mistake, we have taken important steps to see that veterans 
receive the care they need when they come home. We have worked for a 
strong post-9/11 GI bill to ensure thousands of veterans can go to 
college. We also fought to make sure the VA is fairly and adequately 
supporting our student veterans. Yet it remains a disgrace that 
unemployment rates among veterans exceed that of nonveterans.
  In Montana, unemployment among Iraq and Afghanistan veterans stands 
at 17.5 percent. That is the fourth highest rate in the country.
  Since the Iraq war began, I have hired veterans to help draft 
policies that honor the sacrifices of our military. My staff has worked 
with me to draft the original tax credit for businesses that hire 
veterans. I am very honored to see that has been adopted by this 
Congress and by the President.
  We spearheaded efforts to improve mental health screenings for all 
branches of the military based on Montana's strong model for catching 
the warning signs of PTSD. We started that in Montana. It is now 
incorporated as national defense policy.
  In the last 10 years, our Nation has also been fighting terrorists in 
Afghanistan. As we reflect on the costs of the war in Iraq, we know 
that now is the time for Afghans to take responsibility for their own 
country.
  In 2013, $97 billion will go to the war in Afghanistan alone. Do you 
know that the money that is being spent in both Iraq and Afghanistan is 
enough to double the number of public elementary schools in the United 
States and rebuild the American Interstate Highway System five times 
over? Dollars spent daily in Afghanistan need to be spent on nation 
building here at home.
  While I am proud that we are closer than ever to bringing all of our 
troops home, it is not enough to just bring them back. We need to and 
can be doing a better job making sure our troops are ready to compete 
and win on the homefront. That means making sure that the day they are 
discharged from the service, they can transfer skills earned from the 
military into the civilian workforce.
  My first order of business this year was to declare war on veterans 
unemployment. Troops who are trained to do a job in the military should 
get civilian credentials at the same time. They should not have to get 
recredentialed and retrained when they get home. If they got 
credentialed in the military, that should be sufficient for driving 
trucks, et cetera. The effort is already underway for EMTs and 
truckdrivers, but my VETs Act goes even further to cover military 
police, firefighters, and air traffic controllers. In 2011, 1,000 Iraq 
and Afghanistan veterans were unemployed in Montana, 240,000 unemployed 
nationwide. With 34,000 troops scheduled to come home from Afghanistan 
next year, the time to get serious about tackling veterans unemployment 
is now.
  We will never forget the Montanans we have lost in combat in the 
Mideast over the last 10 years. They had big dreams. They looked 
forward to long, happy lives. They were volunteers. They were sons and 
daughters. They had children. They had dear friends. They grew up in 
small towns, such as Fairfield, Sand Springs, Philipsburg, and Wolf 
Creek. We hear their voices at Little League games, in the babbling 
creeks of Montana, in the rustling of willow trees we planted to 
remember them. We remember them in our hearts and in our deeds. 
President Lincoln concluded his second inaugural address with a call 
for the Nation to ``care for him who shall have borne the battle and 
for his widow and his orphan.'' Lincoln's charge remains our sacred 
duty today. The 40 Montanans we remember today left behind 28 children 
who will be growing up without them.
  I also applaud a group of patriotic Montanans who are working to make 
sure those children can get a college education in Montana. Grateful 
Nation Montana is a proud example of answering the call to serve, 
serving those who proudly served us. Their mission is to provide 
college scholarships at Montana schools for the sons and daughters of 
our fallen heroes.
  We must remember our vets. To all of our veterans and families of 
veterans who made the ultimate sacrifice, we want them to know they are 
not alone.
  Let's recommit ourselves to making sure our veterans come home safely 
to good-paying jobs and a nation that honors their sacrifices.


                            National Ag Week

  I would like to speak on another important issue in my home State as 
we mark National Ag Week. President Dwight D. Eisenhower once said, 
``Farming looks mighty easy when your plow is a pencil, and you're a 
thousand miles from the corn field.'' Truer words were never spoken to 
describe the divide of how agriculture is viewed between Washington, 
DC, and Montana.
  Agriculture is a central part of who we are as Montanans. Fifty 
percent of Montana's economy is tied to ranching and farming, 
supporting one in five jobs in Montana.
  I had the privilege to grow up on a ranch outside of Helena, MT, near 
Wolf Creek, MT. It taught me firsthand the values of hard work, faith, 
family, and doing what is right. Those are the values I take with me to 
work every day.
  Paul Harvey, who got his start in broadcasting in Montana, said it 
best in his poem ``So God Made a Farmer":

       God looked down on the Earth he created and said, I need a 
     caretaker for this world I have made, and so God made a 
     farmer.

  So as part of trying to bridge that divide between Washington, DC, 
and Montana, I honor the strong legacy of farming and ranching families 
in Montana by celebrating National Ag Day. For those Montana families 
involved in agriculture, it is so much more than a livelihood, it is a 
way of life. I am honored to represent so many ranchers, so many 
farmers from Montana who have dedicated their lives to the land and 
provide a service from which everyone in the world benefits.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. MORAN. The bill we are debating, the so-called continuing 
resolution, spends slightly more than $1 trillion between now and the 
end of the fiscal year. As those who were either on the floor or 
watching a few moments ago discovered, the opportunity to amend this 
bill in even a minor fashion, although, in my view, an important 
fashion, was denied.
  So the Senate, in passing the CR, will spend more than $1 trillion, 
and we have had the opportunity to vote on two amendments, potentially 
three. That is the total extent to which 100 Senators representing 
millions of Americans have had the chance to influence the outcome, the 
content of a significant bill that spends lots of money.
  The amendment I have been trying to offer, in my view, is an 
important one.
  One of the things the administration announced following 
sequestration was that the control tower program, which provides about 
179 air traffic control towers across the country, would be eliminated. 
That certainly is of importance to those who fly. It is important to 
people in our States, rural America. But this is not just a rural 
issue. These control towers are located in large cities across our 
country.
  I have been trying to fathom why the Department of Transportation 
would, in a sense, single out this program. It is hard for me to fathom 
a good answer to that question.
  As close as I can come is there are those in Washington, DC, who wish 
to

[[Page 3835]]

demonstrate we can't cut a dime. We can't cut $85 billion from Federal 
spending, a $3.6 trillion spending program. We can't eliminate 28 days 
of spending at all. To prove that point, they apparently wish to single 
out programs which are the most important to Americans.
  The idea we would put at risk an air traffic control tower program 
which is so important to the flying and traveling public is amazing to 
me. Again, it is not I think that the sequestration and the 5-percent 
cut in this program could not be handled by the Department of 
Transportation, but that is not what the Department of Transportation 
is doing.
  In fact, the amendment which I hope to offer continues the 
sequestration and reduces the program spending by 5 percent. What the 
Department of Transportation is doing is eliminating the program, 
reducing the spending in this program by 75 percent.
  Again, I can't figure out why this program of such importance would 
be treated in this fashion unless there are those who simply wish to 
demonstrate anytime we attempt to reduce spending--it is actually not 
even reducing spending; sequestration reduces the increase in spending. 
The only thing I can think of is there are people who wish to 
demonstrate here we cannot do that without having huge consequences to 
the safety and security of Americans. In my view, that concept 
certainly is false. We can find savings, but beyond that it is a 
dangerous game to play in trying to prove a point we can't cut spending 
by putting at risk those who utilize air traffic control towers.
  My frustration is increased by the fact we are spending all this 
money and the bill comes to the floor. I serve on the Appropriations 
Committee. I ought to have the opportunity to deal with this bill in 
the committee on which I serve. This hasn't happened.
  I think what is my next opportunity, since I didn't have one as a 
member of the Senate Appropriations Committee? Maybe I ought to find 
colleagues from across the aisle, from around the country, rural, 
urban, Republican, Democrat, who would understand the value of this 
program. I did this and we found 23 sponsors of this amendment. We 
could probably find more. The point I wish to make this evening is 13 
of those 23 are Democrat sponsors.
  This place ought to function. We have been asked, why can't we work 
together? Why can't we find bipartisan ways to work together, 23 
Senators, where 10 Republicans and 13 Democrats come together to say, 
yes, this needs to pass? Yet I have had no opportunity to offer that 
amendment. Numerous Members of the Senate from both sides of the aisle, 
but especially Democratic Senators, visit with me on the Senate floor 
saying, why can't you get this amendment made in order? It is a good 
amendment.
  I don't have a good answer for that question.
  We have worked hard with the chairperson and the ranking Republican 
on the committee. We have worked across the aisle and worked with the 
leadership, attempting to clarify how important this amendment is. Yet 
we will spend more than $1 trillion. However, one amendment, which 
transfers $50 million from two accounts, from unencumbered balances and 
from research funds, to keep the air traffic control program alive and 
well, is not in order.
  As a member of the Appropriations Committee, my hope was I could 
solve this problem in the normal appropriations process. We spoke about 
this tonight. The majority leader spoke about getting back to the 
regular order and working on appropriations bills. Presumably sometime 
this week--although as a result of this amendment not being made in 
order, it will be later in the week than expected--we will get to the 
budget. Presumably we will pass a budget and go through the 
appropriations process.
  The problem is I, as a member of the Appropriations Committee, and my 
colleagues who care about this program, who serve on this committee and 
who serve in the Senate, will have no opportunity to save this program. 
The Department of Transportation, the U.S. Department of 
Transportation, is going to terminate this program on April 7. By the 
time we ever get to regular order, if and when we do, the program will 
be eliminated. We will have lost the only opportunity, which is now on 
this continuing resolution, to make certain this program remains in 
place.
  If we do what we ought to do here, come together and find a solution, 
reach bipartisan agreement, we ought to have the opportunity to address 
$50 million out of a more than $1 trillion bill. The idea we would pass 
a $1 trillion appropriations bill, with only allowing two, maybe three 
amendments, is something which again suggests we do not have our order 
in the appropriate place.
  This is certainly important to folks across the country, and it is 
something which deserves attention and deserves a vote. It is something 
the American public ought to insist we not play the game of whether we 
can cut anything and put their safety at risk.
  My plea to my colleagues tonight, having voted to advance this bill 
and cloture has been granted, which means no amendments are in order, I 
would ask our colleagues to realize the importance of this amendment 
and potentially others. Other Members of the Senate wish to offer 
amendments to establish and prove our priorities and, as the majority 
leader, demonstrate we can govern. The majority leader spoke about 
proving to the American people we can govern by passing this bill. It 
seems to me governing is something more than passing a continuing 
resolution without the opportunity for Members of the Senate to make 
their imprint on behalf of their constituents, and in my case Kansans, 
on behalf of the American people.
  The air transportation system is essential to local communities and 
it is vital to our economic engine. It matters across the country. This 
amendment, if I am allowed to offer it, would continue access to the 
system which has worked so well for so many communities across our 
country. My plea is between now and when the 30 hours runs on the 
postcloture debate of this bill, there are those in the Senate who will 
work with me and others to see the amendment process works and we 
return to the days in which a Senator has the ability to influence the 
outcome of important pieces of legislation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.


                    Sequester and Climate Disruption

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I have come to the floor to talk about a 
very important issue called climate change or climate disruption.
  Before I do, I wish to address the issue my colleague has raised. He 
did not want to stop debate on the continuing resolution bill because 
he wanted to offer an amendment to ensure we cut somewhere as well as 
keep the FAA able to keep open air traffic control towers.
  As someone who fought a partial government shutdown which shut down 
the FAA, my friends on the Republican side--my friend wasn't here 
then--I can tell you I was instrumental in making sure we passed that 
FAA authorization bill. It was a great bill.
  It breaks my heart to see this sequester in action. This is not the 
way to govern.
  I respect my colleague's point of view. He has a right to his 
opinion, but to say this is the only opportunity to stop the sequester 
is absolutely incorrect. The President has said he is ready to sit down 
with the Republicans, pass a balanced plan which would fix the 
sequester, get the FAA back up to snuff, take care of all of our 
problems which were caused because of the sequester, deficit reduction, 
and balance our budget. If this happens, this sequester will end not 
only for the FAA--my friend is right, this is ridiculous--but for the 
70,000 children who are being cut out of Head Start. Why isn't there 
more discussion about that when we know every dollar invested in a 
child in Head Start saves $10 because they get that head start in life?
  Where is the outrage of the 421,000 fewer HIV tests? This is a public 
health emergency when 421,000 people can't get their HIV test. They 
don't know if they are HIV positive and could spread the virus. This is 
what is happening with this sequester.

[[Page 3836]]

  There are 10,500 teacher positions lost and 2,700 will lose title I 
funds, which amounts to 1 million children who will lose special 
reading help because of the sequester.
  I think we all agree the sequester is no way to govern. We can get to 
a balanced budget without a sequester. We did that under Bill Clinton. 
We had a balanced approach. We made investments in our people, we cut 
out unnecessary spending, and we had a fair Tax Code.
  I could go on with the problems. There are 25,000 fewer women who 
will not receive breast cancer screening. I could offer an amendment on 
that. I want to offer an amendment on that. I understand we need to 
keep the government running, and that is what this continuing 
resolution does.
  I praise the Republicans on the other side who crossed over to vote 
with Democrats. Thank you very much for seeing we can't turn this bill 
into everyone's favorite amendment to restore something which is cut 
because of the sequester, which none of us ever thought was going to 
move forward.
  I want to repeat this. My friend speaks about the FAA. I agree with 
him. I hope he would agree with me on Head Start, on teachers, on title 
I, on HIV tests, and on breast cancer screenings. What about the $540 
million which is cut from the Small Business Administration loan 
program which is so critical to our small businesses and job creation? 
There are 600,000 children losing their nutrition assistance because of 
the sequester.
  Let's all agree. The sequester is bad, and we need to stop it. Why 
not do it in the right way, which is to sit down with the President, 
ensure we can get the deficit reduction the sequester is bringing in in 
a better way. He is offering this. He is offering a balanced plan. All 
of these cries about, oh, they are cutting this, that, and the other--
it is all bad. Sequester is not the way to budget or to govern.
  We have 1 week to keep this government open. The House has told us 
not to start a series of amendments or we are never going to be able to 
keep the government open. Let's do our work and keep this as clean as 
we can. Let's make sure we all listen to our President, who was 
reelected in a huge victory. He said he wanted to move us toward 
balance with a balanced plan, cuts in spending, new revenues. Patty 
Murray's budget, the Democratic budget, does that.
  I am very pleased we are moving toward keeping this government open. 
This is the basic thing we need to do--keep this simple and move on.
  As you know, I am the chairman of the Environment and Public Works 
Committee. It is a joy for me to have that job, truly. My whole life I 
have cared about environment and about infrastructure. The way the 
Senate works, they put those two together. Not only am I able to speak 
about clean air, safe drinking water, cleaning up Superfund sites, and 
protecting the health of our families, but I also get to talk about 
jobs which are created when we build roads, highways, and water 
systems.
  There is something which does not bring us together on that 
committee, and that is the issue of climate change. What I have decided 
to do is come down to the floor every Monday possible when the floor is 
available to speak a few minutes about the devastating consequences of 
unchecked climate disruption. I wish to discuss and put into the Record 
every week the latest scientific information. On March 4 I began these 
talks and spoke about a front-page story in USA Today which spotlights 
the impacts of climate change unfolding around us. The story is the 
first in a year-long series called ``Why You Should Sweat Climate 
Change.'' It describes how climate disruption is happening all around 
us. Last week I discussed a report entitled ``The 2013 High Risk 
List,'' which was a GAO study, Government Accountability Office study, 
which said climate disruption is leading to intense weather events, 
such as Superstorm Sandy, which threaten, our Nation and the finances 
of our Nation. Plus, I told colleagues of an Oregon State study which 
appeared in Science which said that we have had the warmest decade in 
over 11,000 years--the warmest decade in over 11,000 years. Now, not 11 
years, not 1,100 years, but 11,000 years. So Earth to my Republican 
colleagues, please wake up to this fact and let's do something about 
it.
  Today I want to talk about the impact of unchecked climate change on 
the health of our people. This is a statement made by Dr. Cecil 
Wilson--and let's look at this chart--the former president of the AMA, 
the American Medical Association:

       The scientific evidence clearly indicates that our climate 
     is changing, air pollution is increasing, weather is becoming 
     more extreme, and with these changes come public health 
     consequences.

  That is why our President made a finding there actually is a danger 
to public health. It is called an endangerment finding for a reason. It 
is putting our people in danger. Wake up, colleagues. Please, wake up 
before it is too late.
  The fact is the Bush administration found--and we got this through 
documentation--that climate change was a threat. The CIA has found that 
climate change is a threat. The defense establishment has found that 
climate change is a threat. The only place that doesn't seem to get 
excited about it is right here, in a bipartisan way, in the Senate.
  Again, we know temperatures are continuing to increase. The Draft 
National Climate Assessment of January 11, 2013, said this:

       Heat caused by climate disruption is especially harmful to 
     our children.

  Now I want to talk to colleagues who might just be listening. They 
might not be because it is 7:20 at night, but if they are, you all say 
you want to protect our kids. You all love your children and your 
grandchildren and your nieces and your nephews. This is according to 
the American Academy of Pediatrics Committee--and I think we have a 
chart on that:

       Anticipated direct health consequences of climate change 
     include injury and death from extreme weather events and 
     natural disasters, increases in climate-sensitive infectious 
     diseases, increases in air pollution-related illness, and 
     more heat-related, potentially fatal illness. Within all of 
     these categories, children have increased vulnerability 
     compared with other groups.

  Again, I say to my colleagues, if we were sent here to do anything, 
it is to protect the health and safety of our children, for goodness' 
sakes, and they are one of the most vulnerable groups if we don't act 
on climate change. And if that doesn't move you, I say to my friends, 
what about the elderly? They are particularly vulnerable. This is from 
the Draft National Climate Assessment.

       Older people are at much higher risk of dying during 
     extreme heat events. Preexisting health conditions also make 
     the elderly susceptible to cardiac and respiratory impacts of 
     air pollution and to more severe consequences from infectious 
     diseases.

  So if I didn't touch your heart with your kids and grandkids, how 
about your grandmas, your grandpas, your great-grandmas, and your 
great-grandpas. They also are terribly vulnerable to the impacts of 
climate change.
  Laurence Kalkstein, a University of Miami professor, who studies the 
effects of heat on health, said:

       Climate change is a silent killer. Heat can cause 
     fatalities among even the fittest.

  It is a silent killer. And he knows because he studies the impact of 
heat on our health.
  So let's not be silent. Maybe climate change is a silent killer, but 
we can't be silent in the face of the information we have. Continuing 
to quote Laurence Kalkstein:

       The warming planet can cause many other serious health 
     problems that are harmful to our families. Scientists predict 
     they will get worse.

  Scientists believe it will only get worse. Listen to what they say:

       Heatwaves are also associated with increased hospital 
     admissions for cardiovascular, kidney and respiratory 
     disorders. Extreme summer heat is increasing in the U.S., and 
     climate projections indicate that extreme heat events will be 
     much more frequent and intense in coming decades.

  Is this the future we want for our people, increased hospital 
admissions for cardiovascular, kidney, and respiratory disorders? I 
think not. But,

[[Page 3837]]

boy, part of me thinks so. I can't seem to get anybody excited about 
this in the Senate.
  You might ask me why that is? I have my theories. There is a lot of 
power on the other side. There is a lot of power on the other side--
people who don't want to move off coal, people who don't want to move 
off oil. There is a lot of power on the other side.
  The increase in temperatures can lead to respiratory illnesses 
associated with air pollution, such as asthma. Have you ever seen a 
child with asthma gasping for breath? I say to my colleagues, asthma is 
a leading cause of hospital admissions for kids at school. I go around 
and visit the schools, and I ask a simple question: How many of you 
kids have asthma or know someone with asthma? Almost 50 percent of the 
room has hands up.
  If you saw a child gasping for air on the street, you would hold them 
close, you would calm them down, you would get them oxygen, you would 
do everything in your power. You would call 9-1-1, you would take them 
to the hospital, you would sit by their side, you would hold their 
hand, you would nurse them back to health.
  We have a situation, folks, where climate disruption is going to 
bring us more cases of asthma. Let's not stand with the giant 
polluters. Let's move to clean energy. Let's clean up our act and save 
our children, save our grandparents.
  We are not talking about a remote possibility sometime in the near 
future. Climate disruption is here. It is happening before our eyes. 
More American children are getting asthma and allergies, more seniors 
are suffering from heat strokes. And let me tell you about what is 
happening in New York right now. They are seeing indications that 
extreme weather events such as Superstorm Sandy are linked to health 
problems.
  They have already given a name to a cough that has developed in that 
part of the country known locally as the Rockaway cough because it is 
in Rockaway. The Rockaway Peninsula on Long Island, NY, was devastated 
by Sandy. Lives were lost, homes and businesses were destroyed, and now 
local residents are experiencing health problems from the flooding--
coughing, which is a common symptom, health officials said, that could 
come from mold or the haze of dust and sand kicked up by the storm and 
demolitions. Governor Cuomo said they are seeing these so-called 100-
year storms--supposed to come once in 100 years--all the time.
  I say to my colleagues: Wake up to the truth. Look out the window. 
Figure it out.
  Look at this. Is this what we want to see in our country?
  I was speaking to Senator Warren about what happened recently, and I 
was shocked to see houses in Massachusetts on the beach, beautiful 
homes, being totally razed and taken away because the ocean is moving 
so close they can't stay there. It is happening before our eyes. Right 
here.
  With the haze of dust and sand kicked up by the storm and 
demolitions, the air in the Rockaways is so full of particles the 
traffic police wear masks, though many recovery workers do not, and 
that worries people who recall the fallout of another disaster.
  Another real threat we are seeing more and more in the West is 
wildfires. Wildfire smoke contains dangerous compounds. Why do we see 
this? The droughts that are coming. Smoke exposure increases 
respiratory and cardiovascular hospitalizations, emergency department 
visits for asthma, bronchitis, chest pain, chronic obstructive 
pulmonary disease, respiratory infections, and medical visits for lung 
illnesses, and has been associated with hundreds of thousands of global 
deaths annually.
  That is the bad news. Now, if I stopped here, I wouldn't sleep very 
well tonight, having gone through all this. But there is good news. We 
can take steps now to address climate change, and those steps will 
benefit public health. We have an opportunity to turn this crisis into 
a win-win situation. When we reduce carbon pollution from powerplants 
to address climate disruption, we reduce dangerous air pollutants, such 
as soot and toxic metals that are harmful to our health.
  Here is a chart: Policies and other strategies intended to reduce 
carbon pollution and mitigate climate change can often have independent 
influences on human health. For example, when you reduce carbon 
emissions, you reduce air pollutants, such as particles and sulfur 
dioxides.
  We call that cobenefits, Mr. President. When you go after one kind of 
pollution--carbon pollution--you get the cobenefits of going after the 
soot, the small particles that lodge in our lungs. So we know when we 
reduce carbon emissions, we reduce those small particles and sulfur 
dioxide.
  Here is the other good news. As we move away from the very dirty 
power sources of, what I hope will be, the past, and we move toward 
clean energy, we help our families' budgets because we move away from 
polluting automobiles. I drive a hybrid, a plug-in hybrid car. I have 
to tell you, it is pretty amazing. I get the first 12 miles on 
electricity, and if I do a few chores and come home and plug the car in 
again, then when I go past the 12 miles, it goes to a hybrid, which is 
part gas, part electric. So overall I am getting about 150 miles to the 
gallon. You know what. That feels pretty good when you don't have to 
stop and fill up your car all the time and get the sweats because of 
what it costs to fill up that car.
  President Obama and my colleague Senator Feinstein, and my former 
colleague Senator Snowe, I have to compliment them because in a 
bipartisan way they moved us toward fuel efficiency. So we are moving 
toward 50-miles-per-gallon fuel efficiency, and that will help us. But 
we have to do more.
  We have to do more because the health costs associated with climate 
change are heartbreaking and expensive. Taking steps to reduce carbon 
pollution will lower our doctors' bills when we don't have kids 
wheezing and gasping for air. The evidence is clear: Climate change is 
a public health threat.
  We have moved before when we have seen threats to public health. We 
did it on cigarettes. I was here when the Congress voted to ban smoking 
on airplanes. Let me tell you, that was a hard vote. We had all the 
money of the cigarette and tobacco companies against us. And I want to 
compliment Senators Lautenberg and Durbin. Senator Durbin was in the 
House. This was a long time ago, but I can tell you what it was like 
because I do so much travel across the country.
  Mr. President, I would get off the plane where there was smoking, and 
I would reek of smoke. You felt it all over, and you certainly were 
breathing it in. It was unhealthy. Everyone said it would never happen; 
that we would never, ever ban smoking on the airlines. But guess what. 
We did the right thing.
  Now some people say: Well, how do you know that human activity and 
the kinds of power we are using, the dirty oil and so on, the coal, is 
causing this? Let me tell you how I know. Because 98 percent of the 
scientists tell me so.
  People say, what if they are wrong. Ninety-eight percent of the 
scientists agree that human activity is causing this climate 
disruption. If you stand with the 2 percent, you are standing with the 
2 percent who said smoking never caused lung cancer. I would say, if we 
went to the doctor and the doctor looked at us and said there is a 98-
percent chance if you don't change your eating habits or your smoking 
habits you are going to die an early death, you would say, 98 percent 
chance? OK, I will change my ways. Well, 98 percent of the scientists 
are telling us to change our ways when it comes to carbon pollution.
  How do we do that in a way that is smart? We have several bills to 
put a price on carbon. We have the Sanders-Boxer bill. We have the 
Whitehouse bill. There will be other bills. Once we put a price on 
carbon, it makes sense because we are factoring in the true cost of 
carbon pollution, which I just explained is enormous in public health 
alone and economics related to superstorms and the rest.
  So we need to put a price on carbon. What Bernie Sanders and I do is 
we

[[Page 3838]]

take the funds that come in from that and we give it right back to the 
people and say: Here is a check, and now you can pay for your new clean 
energy. It is kind of capping the carbon and giving a dividend to the 
people. With the rest of the money we lower the deficit, we invest in 
solar rooftops, and a little bit in solar transportation. It is the way 
to go.
  Some say wait. We can't wait. We wasted 8 long years when George W. 
Bush was President. Do you know why? He said carbon pollution wasn't 
covered in the Clean Air Act. All one had to do was read the Clean Air 
Act. I am not an attorney, but it is right there. It says, in essence, 
here are the following pollutants that are covered, and it listed 
greenhouse gas emissions. But, oh, no. He took it all the way to the 
Supreme Court and wasted 8 long years while the problem got worse and 
worse.
  So here is the deal. Here is a quote from Washington School of Public 
Health, University of Washington, Dr. Howard Frumkin, who says:

       In public health, when faced with threats to entire 
     populations, we act. For infectious diseases, we vaccinate.

  If 98 percent of the doctors say vaccinate to prevent illness, there 
is always 2 percent who are going to say don't do it. But we go with 98 
percent.

       For lung cancer, we ban smoking.

  We didn't stand with the doctors who were paid off by big tobacco. We 
stood with the doctors who had an independent judgment, and we banned 
smoking on airplanes and in close quarters and in the Senate cloakroom 
and all the other places in government buildings.

       For injuries, we install seat belts and air bags.

  Another big battle. Remember that battle? The auto companies said: We 
don't want to spend the money installing airbags or seatbelts. We said: 
You have to do it. You know what. It is worth the cost, and so many 
lives are saved.

       For obesity, we promote physical activity and healthier 
     eating.

  The First Lady has taken this on as a cause and we are starting to 
see a change. We have a long way to go. Why do that? Because we know 
the connection between obesity and diabetes and heart disease and 
stroke. So even though it is a difficult issue, we have tackled it.

       For climate change, we need to act.

  We surely do. I am talking to pretty much an empty Chamber, but I am 
glad the Presiding Officer is here, and I feel a few people are 
watching. It is good. But there are a few of us who are determined to 
keep on bringing the facts to the floor of the Senate. Everyone has the 
right to act or not act, but I believe we need to make the record now, 
because when my grandchildren grow up, I want them to look back and 
say: Wow. That was great what grandma's generation did. They took care 
of this issue. I don't want them to look back and say: What were they 
thinking? What was wrong with them? Why didn't they act when they could 
have made a difference?
  So next week I will be back. I will be talking about national 
security threats. This is one of the biggest national security threats 
we face. That doesn't come from me. That comes from the Pentagon. It 
comes from the CIA. It comes from the national security teams. So we 
can just close our eyes to this and we can wish it goes away, but it is 
not going away or we can ease the pain of climate disruption by moving 
to clean energy, energy efficiency, and we will face a win-win as we 
eventually have better public health, save money, and save the planet.
  Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. Mr. President, I come to the floor today 
in strong opposition to Amendment No. 115, offered by the junior 
Senator from Pennsylvania, to strike funding for the Department of 
Defense's, DoD, Advanced Drop-In Biofuel Production.
  The intent of this amendment is to further limit the Department of 
Defense's ability to use alternative fuels to enhance our country's 
national security. Under the authorities of the Defense Production Act, 
DPA, the Department of Defense has created the Advanced Drop-In 
Biofuels Production Project. This initiative is focused on creating a 
public-private partnership that will provide incentives for private-
sector investment in cost competitive, advanced biofuels production 
capability. It also requires at least a one-to-one cost share with 
private stakeholders. During consideration of the National Defense 
Authorization Act of 2013, the Senate demonstrated bipartisan support 
for DoD's alternative energy initiatives. This amendment would prevent 
DoD from taking the necessary steps to diversify its energy supply.
  As chairman of the Banking Committee, which has jurisdiction over the 
DPA, I believe it is misguided to limit the authority of the Defense 
Department to continue with this project. As one of the largest 
consumers of oil in the world, the Department of Defense spent $17 
billion in fiscal year 2011 on petroleum-based fuels. When oil prices 
spike, this dependency forces the Department of Defense to reallocate 
funding from other critical needs. Last year alone, spikes in oil 
prices required the Navy to pay an additional $500 million on higher 
fuel costs. Amendment No. 115 will further increase DoD's vulnerability 
to fluctuations in the price of oil.
  This amendment should also be opposed because if it were adopted it 
would not have the effect intended. Due to a technical drafting error 
this amendment would not strip money from the account that funds 
biofuel production, but rather other unrelated programs at the DoD. The 
amendment still scores in outlays per the Congressional Budget Office 
and is subject to a budget point of order. This technical drafting 
error is another reason for Members to oppose this amendment.
  The renewable fuels industry has played an important role in 
addressing our energy needs. Unfortunately, this amendment would hinder 
our Nation's ability to promote renewable domestic energy sources. We 
should allow the Defense Department to retain its authority to take 
steps to diversify the energy sources available to our military. Our 
national security relies on energy security, and this amendment would 
weaken both.
  I urge all my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
  I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________