[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 159 (2013), Part 3]
[Senate]
[Pages 4095-4118]
[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.
  The assistant 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.
       Toomey amendment No. 115 (to amendment No. 26), to increase 
     by $60,000,000 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.


                   Recognition of the Majority Leader

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority leader is recognized.


                                Schedule

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, following leader remarks, the Senate will 
resume consideration of the continuing appropriations legislation. The 
time until 11:15 a.m. today will be divided and controlled equally 
between the two leaders or their designees.
  At 11:15 a.m. there will be three rollcall votes in relation to the 
continuing resolution: the Toomey amendment, which is a 60-vote 
threshold; adoption of the Mikulski-Shelby substitute amendment; and a 
cloture vote on H.R. 933, the underlying bill.


                             Budget Debate

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, for the last few years my Republican 
colleagues have been hollering, yelling, and screaming that the Senate 
has not passed a budget. They have done so in spite of the fact that 
Republicans in both Chambers voted for the Budget Control Act which set 
spending levels for the last 2 years. It was a law. Every reasonable 
political observer admits that the Budget Control Act, which had the 
force of law, was a budget, period. No, it was not a resolution. It was 
a law, which is much stronger than any resolution we do here.
  As I indicated, they have yelled and screamed. Still, Republicans 
pine for the days of the so-called regular order when the Senate would 
vote on a budget resolution that would set spending priorities for the 
fiscal year. Republicans--we were told, we heard, we saw--were 
desperate to have a budget debate. They were desperate. They have had 
charts out here. They were desperate for an amendment. They wanted a 
vote-arama. They had charts, speeches, and demonstrations to prove it.
  They have had press conference after press conference after press 
conference. They even had a calendar they brought out almost daily 
tallying the days since the Senate passed a budget resolution--not a 
law, which was already in effect, but a resolution.
  Yesterday I was amazed, flabbergasted, and stunned when Republicans 
blocked attempts to begin debate on the budget resolution. In fact, the 
ranking member of the Budget Committee said: Let's put it off for a 
while. Let's wait until after Easter.
  Can you imagine that? They have been pining for regular order, and we 
now have a chance to have a debate. They said: No, we can't do that. 
Can't do it. There was a chance, and they were not interested in doing 
it.
  My friend, the junior Senator from Kansas, objected to a request 
debating the budget unless we vote on his proposed amendment to the 
continuing resolution. He is concerned about air traffic towers in 
Kansas because of these across-the-board cuts.
  I say to all of my colleagues--I say to the Senator from Kansas--we 
are all concerned about the impact of these budget cuts. They are 
senseless, they are ridiculous, and we should do away with them. We 
have already cut $2.5 trillion from the debt. We can continue to do it 
but do it in a responsible and reasonable way, not a meat-cleaver way.
  More than 100 families in Nevada--almost immediately--are going to 
lose access to low-income housing because of the sequester. I met with 
the housing authority people yesterday. Some might say: Oh, that is not 
such a big deal. It is a big deal for those 100 families. Nationwide, 
70,000 little boys and girls are going to lose their ability to go to 
Head Start. Some may ask: What is that? Head Start will allow them to 
get started in life.
  These cuts--and I have only mentioned a few of them--are painful for 
millions of Americans, and it is only going to get worse. They are 
arbitrary.
  We are all concerned. The concern for the sequester is not focused on 
the Senate delegation from Kansas, it is all over. Instead of whining 
about it, let's

[[Page 4096]]

do something about it. Let's get rid of it. That is why the Senate 
Democratic budget proposal actually reverses the sequester. That is one 
way of doing it, but there are other ways.
  The policy outlined in Senator Murray's budget will save hundreds of 
thousands of jobs, safeguard communities by keeping police, air traffic 
controllers, and meat inspectors on the job. Reversing the sequester 
would alleviate Senator Moran's concern about air traffic controllers 
in Kansas. The Senate cannot debate a thoughtful way to replace the 
sequester if the Republicans will not even let us debate our budget 
proposal.
  We know Republicans and Democrats will not agree on every aspect of 
the budget which sets priorities for how the government spends money 
and how it saves money. Republicans have one plan for Medicare. Their 
plan is to turn it into a voucher program which will change Medicare 
forever. Democrats have another plan. The Democrats' plan is to 
preserve and protect Medicare for our children and grandchildren.
  Republicans have a plan for taxes. Listen to this one: They want to 
lower taxes for the rich and let the middle class foot the bill. 
Democrats have another plan. We believe the wealthiest individuals and 
corporations should contribute a little bit more to reduce the deficit. 
Surprisingly, the intelligent American people agree with us--Democrats, 
Independents, and Republicans--by almost a 60-percent margin. The only 
Republicans in America who disagree are those who serve in Congress.
  Republicans have one plan to reduce the deficit which will rely on 
harsh austerity that shortchanges the elderly, veterans, middle class, 
poor, and others. The Democrats have another plan. We have a balanced 
approach that couples smart spending cuts with new revenue from closing 
loopholes that benefit the wealthiest Americans.
  We have our differences, and that is fine. But Democrats are willing 
to discuss these differences; we are willing to debate the issues. 
Let's debate the issues. The Republicans have said for months and 
months: Let's debate the budget. Why can't we debate the budget? 
Because they will not let us.
  This is senseless. We have 60 hours of doing nothing--nothing. The 
American people are on our side. This is a debate we can win, but at 
least let's have the debate.
  Will the Chair announce the business of the day.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the time 
until 11:15 a.m. will be equally divided and controlled between the two 
leaders or their designees.
  Who yields time?
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, we are not in a quorum call, are we?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. We are not.
  Who yields time?
  If no one yields time, the time will be divided equally.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask 
unanimous consent that the time during the quorum call be equally 
divided.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, I wish to discuss with my colleagues here 
in the Senate an amendment I have filed to the continuing resolution 
that is now pending before the Senate. It is amendment No. 55. I have 
spoken about this issue on the floor previously this week but want to 
reiterate the merits of this amendment and ask my colleagues for their 
support.
  Amendment No. 55 deals with this issue of air traffic control towers. 
Under the administration's plan in implementing sequestration, the plan 
is to close, on April 7--just a few days from now--173 air traffic 
control towers across the country. The amendment I wish to offer avoids 
that. The administration would no longer be able to do that. I believe 
they should not for numerous reasons, but what we do, in order to 
accomplish that, is to transfer $50 million from two accounts, one 
dealing with research at the Department of Transportation and one 
dealing with unencumbered balances.
  This is an example of what we have talked about before: that we can 
make better decisions than across-the-board cuts. In fact, the 
amendment I wish to offer deals with an issue that is not even an 
across-the-board cut.
  In closing the contract towers, in eliminating the Contract Tower 
Program, the administration is cutting that program 75 percent. 
Sequestration is described to us as, in most circumstances, an across-
the-board 5-percent cut. The amendment I wish to offer continues the 5-
percent cut. That would occur for the air traffic Contract Tower 
Program, so that they would be treated like other programs at the 
Department of Transportation and throughout government, that they are 
not singled out for elimination of a program, resulting in a 75-percent 
reduction in that program's funding, not just the more minor 5 percent. 
So the administration's decision to close contract towers is far from 
balanced, and in choosing this program, in my view, has taken the 
opportunity to damage the safety and security of the flying public of 
America.
  I want to talk about that in a moment. But there was also the 
suggestion that this is a provincial argument on my part, that it is 
something I care specifically about for Kansas, my home State. 
Certainly there is not anything wrong with caring about our home 
States. That is what we do here, and it is part of our responsibility. 
But this is far from just being a Kansas issue. Many States and Members 
of the Senate are more greatly affected by this cut, this elimination, 
than my home State.
  In fact, this amendment has the sponsorship of 26 Republican and 
Democratic cosponsors. More Democratic Senators here are cosponsors of 
this amendment than Republican Senators. It is Senators Roberts, 
Inhofe, Blumenthal, Blunt, Johanns, Kirk, Manchin, Hagan, Klobuchar, 
Baucus, Tester, Enzi, Vitter, Boozman, Pryor, Merkley, Wyden, Kaine, 
Warner, Ayotte, Shaheen, Risch, Crapo, Murphy, Rockefeller, and Wicker.
  It does not sound very provincial to me. In fact, 42 States will have 
their air traffic control towers eliminated. This amendment is broadly 
supported by the aviation industry. If there is an aspect of this that 
is unique to Kansas, it is that we manufacture many general aviation 
aircraft. We are the air capital of the world. But this amendment, 
while being supported by the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, by 
National Business Aviation Association, the National Air Transportation 
Association, is also supported by the American Association of Airport 
Executives and the National Air Traffic Controllers Association.
  Again, it is not a very provincial amendment when sponsored by so 
many of my colleagues, affecting 40-some--43 States of the United 
States, and broadly supported by the aviation industry as a reasonable, 
commonsense solution to a problem we face.
  I have been adamant about bringing this amendment to the floor. I am 
a member of the Appropriations Committee. I will have the opportunity--
in fact, I serve on the subcommittee that deals with the Department of 
Transportation. I should and hope to have the opportunity to deal with 
this and other issues related to the Department of Transportation in 
the normal appropriations process that, hopefully, will follow the 
passage of a budget. So I ought to be in a position to be helpful to 
the cause I believe in at a point later in time.
  But here is the problem: The air traffic control towers will close on 
April 7. We will never get to an appropriations process between now, 
here at the end of March, and April 7. So the Appropriations Committee 
and, ultimately, the Senate, the House of Representatives, and the 
President will never have the ability to restore a program that is gone 
April 7.

[[Page 4097]]

  So while I have tried to put myself in a position to be helpful to 
the cause in the long run, there is no long-run battle to be fought 
because the control towers are gone in just a matter of a few short 
days.
  This amendment matters. This is my last opportunity. If and when 
cloture is invoked later today on the underlying bill, there is no 
opportunity for amendments to be considered. So my colleagues who 
indicate to me so strongly that they support my amendment, this is the 
only opportunity we have to have success.
  This clearly is not about my success in an amendment. Although I 
would love to have the opportunity for this amendment to be voted on, 
it may or may not pass. But the Senate ought to work its will in making 
that determination. With the broad support of the industry, with the 
broad support of my colleagues here in the Senate, one would think this 
is an amendment which is at least worthy of a vote. That has not been 
the case.
  So it is important for me to again reiterate to my colleagues that if 
you invoke cloture this afternoon or later this morning, if you invoke 
cloture, there is no other opportunity for us to address this issue, 
this problem. So let me again request the opportunity.
  I lay awake last night from 3:30 on trying to figure out what it is I 
can say to my colleagues to get their attention about why this is so 
important. There are lots of things that can be said. We have so little 
time before this is either a program that existed in the past and will 
no longer exist in the future--the consequences are so dramatic that I 
would again ask my colleagues for their assistance in at least bringing 
the amendment to the floor so that the Senate can make a decision, yes 
or no, about the merits of the amendment.
  This is about safety. There was an article I just happened to read 
today in reading my clips from Kansas. This is in a Kansas paper, but 
it is an AP story from Chicago. The article is entitled ``Trouble in 
the Air,'' and here is what the AP reporter writes about the planned 
shutdown. The article says:

       The planned shutdown of nearly 240 air traffic control 
     towers across the country under federal budget cuts will 
     strip away an extra layer of safety during takeoffs and 
     landings, leaving pilots to manage the most critical stages 
     of flight on their own.
       But airport directors and pilots say there is little doubt 
     that the removal of this second pair of eyes on the ground 
     increases risk and will slow the progress that has made the 
     U.S. air system the safest in the world.
       It's not just private pilots in small planes who stand to 
     be affected. Many of the airports in question are serviced by 
     major airlines, and the cuts could leave towers unmanned 
     during overnight hours that some big-city airports such as 
     Chicago's Midway and General Mitchell Airport in Milwaukee. 
     The plans have prompted airlines to review whether the 
     changes might pose problems for commercial service that could 
     mean canceling or rescheduling flights.
       Without the help of controllers, risk ``goes up 
     exponentially,'' said Mark Hanna, director of the Abraham 
     Lincoln Capital Airport in Springfield, Ill., which could see 
     its tower close.
       But many in the aviation sector are frustrated by the 
     political brinkmanship in Washington that has affected such a 
     sensitive area of aviation. Jim Montman, manager of the Santa 
     Fe Municipal Airport, which is on the list for tower 
     closures, said the absence of controllers raised the risk of 
     midair collisions ``or some sort of incident where somebody 
     lands on the wrong runway. . . . That critical link is 
     gone.''
       Pilots are trained to watch for other aircraft and announce 
     their position over the radio during approaches, landings and 
     takeoffs. But past crashes, however rare, have exposed 
     weaknesses in that system. On November 19, 1996, a 19-seat 
     United Express flight landing in Quincy, Ill., collided with 
     another twin-engine turboprop that was taking off. They 
     slammed into each other at the intersection of two runways, 
     killing all 14 people aboard the two planes. The National 
     Transportation Safety Board concluded the probable cause was 
     a failure of the pilot in the outbound flight to monitor the 
     radio frequency for air traffic and to properly scan for 
     other planes. ``If a tower was there, it's highly likely that 
     the accident would have been prevented,'' said Hanna, who 
     became the director of the Quincy airport about two years 
     after the crash.
       The 238 air traffic control facilities that could be closed 
     were chosen because they are at airports with fewer than 
     150,000 flight operations per year. They are located in every 
     state.

  Again, the point of this amendment is not whether or not I find the 
right words to convince my colleagues to allow this amendment to come 
to a vote. As much as I struggled through the morning hours trying to 
figure out what those might be, the real issue is not about my words or 
my personal success in getting this amendment considered, but it is 
about the safety of Americans.
  I cannot figure out why this amendment cannot be made in order. 
Again, broad support--broad support with Republicans and Democrats. I 
have had many Senators, including very senior Senators from the 
Democratic side of the aisle, come to me and express amazement that 
this amendment, so broadly supported, so important, cannot be 
considered. I cannot come up with an explanation. I do not know why 
this is the case.
  Every Senator I have talked to about this amendment tells me they do 
not oppose it, it ought to be voted on, they support it. Yet for some 
reason the Senate is incapable of agreeing to even a vote on an 
important and critical amendment that promotes the safety of the 
American people. I can only guess--and it is always difficult to 
attribute motives, but as I talk to my colleagues, the only explanation 
I ever get that has any semblance of truth is that there is a point to 
be made here. By denying the amendment's passage, we prove that 
sequestration cannot work; we cannot cut money from budgets.
  Again, I did not vote for sequestration. So when the majority leader 
says this morning about the hatchet being taken to programs and it is 
all bad--I did not vote for sequestration. I believe in the 
appropriations process that allows us to make these decisions to 
increase funding for some things, decrease funding for other things, 
and eliminate programs. Yet sequestration, in my view, has an effect 
upon all programs equally, whether they are effective or ineffective, 
whether they are valuable or invaluable. We treat them the same.
  So I am not here on the cause of sequestration, but apparently there 
are those in this city, in Washington, DC, who want to make the point 
that if the air traffic control towers are eliminated, it will 
demonstrate once and for all--I don't know; to Republican Senators, to 
Senators in general, to Congress, to the American people--that there is 
no opportunity to cut budgets.
  If people want to make that point and if they can convince people 
that it is true that there is no opportunity to eliminate $85 billion 
in spending, that is fine with me. That is what this place exists for, 
is for us to have the debate about whether we can reduce spending, 
increase spending, what our Tax Code ought to be, what the value is of 
government services and programs and how they ought to be funded. But 
if it is true that the reason this amendment is not being considered is 
because we want to prove a point--that there is no money to be cut, 
that sequestration is a bad idea, that reducing spending is a bad idea, 
that we have to raise taxes--if that is the point that is trying to be 
made here in the process of denying this amendment's consideration, 
then it is a very dangerous way to try to prove a point.
  Prove your point in argument and debate about the merits of spending, 
about the merits of the program. Prove your point in the Appropriations 
Committee, in which we take testimony and hear from people about what 
is important to them, priorities, what their needs are, what their 
wants are, what has value, what does not. But do not try to make the 
political point about this topic by reducing the safety of people who 
fly in and out of communities across the country. As the article said, 
this reduces the nature of our air traveling safety from the best in 
the world to something less than that.
  So make the point. Have the debate and argument about the value of 
sequestration, about the value of what money we spend and do not spend. 
But let's not try to prove the point by reducing the chances that the 
American people, when they travel, are safe and secure in our airways.
  I do not know, and I hope this is never the case--this point may 
never be proven about the safety, but once there is an accident and 
someone dies

[[Page 4098]]

and a plane crashes, the question will always be, what if there had 
been an air traffic control tower there? What if we had left the 
program in place?
  These communities that have the air traffic control towers have spent 
years in developing a plan to put them in place, have worked with the 
FAA and the Department of Transportation over decades to bring their 
airports and airport safety, flying safety to high standards. An issue 
here is that this is going to disappear overnight. So you can be an 
airport manager, an airport authority, a member of an airport board 
anyplace in the country with 200-plus air traffic control towers, and 
you have worked hard over years, decades, to get the standards in place 
and to have the air traffic control process at your airport. In one 
day, April 7, one night, the lights go off in the tower. They no longer 
exist. All the work you have tried to accomplish on behalf of your 
community and those who fly in and out of your airport disappears in 
one stroke.
  So I speak with a level of passion about this issue, for really the 
purpose of which I think we are here to do, which is to advance the 
common good of the American people. It is not a provincial amendment. 
It is not something that just Moran and Kansas need. There are many 
States much more affected by this. But the truth is that every 
American, every person who flies will have less safety and security in 
the skies as a result of this issue, as a result of the decision made 
by the Department of Transportation to eliminate this program.
  So, once again, I intend to ask later in the morning, when our 
leaders are on the floor, for unanimous consent to bring this amendment 
forward before the time expires. In my time in Congress--I have only 
been in the Senate a little more than 2 years--I have not been trying 
to be obstreperous. I have not tried to be difficult to deal with. I 
believe in the opportunity to reach out and work together. I followed 
the rules. I did what everybody tells me to do: Go find people who 
support this amendment who are Democrats and Republicans, bring them 
together.
  And as the leader said earlier in the week--I guess it is now last 
week--earlier last week about how we are going to get back to regular 
order, we are going to have amendments offered, I hope we can dispose 
of them quickly, we have an opportunity to do that with this amendment. 
It is not controversial. It is not partisan. It is about something that 
ought to be of importance to all Americans, certainly to every Senator.
  Later in the morning when the leaders are present, I will ask 
unanimous consent once again that we consider this amendment. I know 
there are others who want to offer amendments. I see my colleagues from 
Arkansas and Missouri on the floor. I know they have an amendment--I 
think it is No. 82--with which they want to offer the opportunity to 
address a problem by taking money from one account and putting it in 
another account in order to keep meatpacking plants operational, that 
we have the meat inspectors present at the plants. Boy, that is an 
important issue too. That is about the safety and security of 
Americans. It is about food safety. I hope no one objects to the 
amendment Senators Pryor and Blunt are going to offer this morning. 
That is another amendment which is very similar in nature, about 
deciding that we are smarter to spend money here than here.
  As the Pryor-Blunt amendment comes before the floor, I would ask my 
colleagues, just as I would ask them to grant unanimous consent, I hope 
no one objects to their request for unanimous consent that their 
amendment be considered. I would ask that no one object to the 
amendment I intend to offer. I certainly will not object to the Blunt-
Pryor amendment. I wish it was leverage to get my amendment considered, 
but it is too dangerous to play that game. That is what we do here in 
Washington, DC, is strike a deal. In this case, when we strike that 
deal, we are leaving people behind whose lives are going to be 
adversely affected.
  I certainly will not stand in the way of people who work in the 
meatpacking industry and the consumers of meat products across our 
country, in the way of trying to solve a problem that is clearly there. 
I hope their amendment receives unanimous consent, and I hope it passes 
by this Senate's will. I would ask the same thing. When the appropriate 
time comes, I will ask for the same thing on an amendment that is about 
the safety and security of American people.
  I thank the Presiding Officer for his indulgence and at least his 
appearance of listening to me.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. MORAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. (Ms. Heitkamp). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. MORAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the next quorum 
call be equally divided between the Republicans and Democrats, the 
majority and the minority.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. MORAN. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. AYOTTE. 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. AYOTTE. Madam President, I come to the floor to speak about an 
amendment I made to the continuing resolution. This is a continuing 
resolution for appropriations bills which are pending on the floor 
right now, and we are spending over $1 trillion.
  I filed an amendment, amendment No. 127, which would have struck the 
funding of $380 million for a missile to nowhere. This is funding for a 
program called the Medium Extended Air Defense System, otherwise known 
as MEADS. Up to this time, we have expended $3 billion for this system. 
Yet we will never receive a result our Army or our military can use. 
This is why it is a missile to nowhere.
  The chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Senator Carl 
Levin, has said of the funding for this MEADS program: With regard to 
the committee, we feel strongly that it is a waste of money.
  In the 2012 Defense authorization, the Senate Armed Services 
Committee made very clear this was going to be the last appropriation 
for this missile to nowhere. In the 2013 authorization, on a unanimous 
bipartisan basis before the Senate Armed Services Committee, the 
committee voted to say no more money for a missile to nowhere.
  Right now, our military is facing great challenges with 
sequestration. We have heard this from our military leaders. These are 
difficult choices they must make to cut training for our troops and cut 
needed flying hours when our troops absolutely need to be prepared and 
ready. For equipment, an announcement was made we were going to 
withdraw a carrier, which sends the wrong message to Iran.
  Despite all this, the continuing resolution, which is on the floor 
with the appropriations bill attached, contains $380 million for a 
missile to nowhere. This is something our military will never be able 
to use. And why is it there? It is there because people are worried 
about their parochial interests, that their State builds part of this, 
and also because, apparently, they want to provide employment to the 
Germans and the Italians, because they are getting a substantial amount 
of this money. Yet we will never see anything our troops can use from 
it.
  My amendment was very straightforward. The amendment would do this: 
It would take the $380 million and strike it from the MEADS Program, 
then take those resources and, instead of spending the $380 million on 
the MEADS Program, it would go to the operations and maintenance fund 
for our troops for real needs they have on the ground--whether it is 
equipment or training--rather than for a missile to

[[Page 4099]]

nowhere that they do not need and don't want.
  It seems to me we owe it to our troops to make sure our taxpayer 
dollars don't continue to be wasted on funding a MEADS Program we will 
never get a result from. In fact, we have had large unanimous agreement 
on a bipartisan basis about striking this MEADS Program. In fact, I 
mentioned the Senate Armed Services Committee has said we should 
prohibit funding for it. The House Armed Services Committee did the 
same thing and said we should prohibit funding for it, and the House 
Defense Appropriations Subcommittee zeroed out funding for MEADS. The 
only committee that allocated funding for it was the Senate 
Appropriations Subcommittee. Talk about a waste of money.
  It is shocking to me, by the way, that this amendment makes so much 
sense, that it has bipartisan support, and yet I can't get a vote on 
the floor of the Senate to strike the money for this missile to nowhere 
and to apply the funds to where our troops need them so the funds can 
actually be used to make sure they have what they need to be prepared. 
It is appalling that I am being denied the right to offer this 
amendment, to bring it to the floor, to let people vote on it. At a 
time when we face great fiscal challenges, it is absolutely appalling 
to me that here in the Senate we can't strike $380 million in funding 
for a missile to nowhere when we are almost $17 trillion in debt. This 
is what is wrong with Washington. It is appalling we cannot be in a 
position to get a vote that is germane to fund a program that the 
Concerned Veterans for America has said is wasteful, in support of my 
amendment; that the Citizens Against Government Waste agrees as well 
and supports my amendment; and that I have bipartisan support for my 
amendment. In fact, Senators Begich and Shaheen are cosponsors of my 
amendment. So this is not a partisan issue, this is about not wasting 
taxpayer dollars. I can tell you this sort of thing is what is 
appalling to the American people, that we cannot and we will not strike 
wasteful spending. We can't even get a vote on it here in the Senate.
  I am going to continue to fight to end the funding for this program 
and other wasteful spending programs and to make sure the money we have 
and the taxpayer dollars, particularly in the Pentagon but in every 
area of government, go for what they are intended--for things our 
troops need, and not a missile to nowhere where we are protecting, 
apparently, parochial interests that people are worried about more than 
they are worried about the overall fiscal state of the country.
  This is something that has been very disappointing to me. I think it 
is appalling we wouldn't allow a vote on such a relevant, germane 
amendment on a bill in which we are going to spend over $1 trillion. I 
don't know why we continue to fund things such as the missile to 
nowhere when there are real needs our troops have. I know this 
amendment had bipartisan support in the past. Both sides of the aisle 
do not want to spend money on a missile to nowhere when there are real 
needs our troops have.
  I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this issue on the floor 
today.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, it took 4 years to get a budget from 
the Senate majority--4 long years.
  As the days go by, it has become increasingly clear why it took so 
long; their budget is so extreme and so unbalanced. That is why they 
are having such a hard time selling it to the American people and why 
they have had to fall back on some tired talking points to defend it, 
claiming their budget would, for instance, grow the economy from the 
middle class out. That is a clever sound bite, but it doesn't describe 
the Senate Democratic budget at all.
  Maybe a better way to put it is that the Democratic budget would grow 
the bureaucracy from the pockets of the middle class out. That is 
because it would increase Federal spending by almost two-thirds by 
imposing a massive tax hike that could cost the average middle-class 
family literally thousands.
  The Democrats like to say the up to $1.5 trillion tax increase 
authorized in their budget--the largest tax hike in American history, 
by the way--would be funded by closing loopholes for millionaires and 
billionaires, but the math simply doesn't add up. They will have to 
come after the middle class to fund this spending spree.
  There is something else. The Senate Democratic budget wouldn't 
balance ever--not in 2013, not in 2023, not in 2023, not ever. It 
wouldn't balance in any of our lifetimes. It wouldn't balance in the 
lifetimes of our children or our grandchildren. It would simply never 
balance.
  Think about it. That means a child born today would grow up knowing 
nothing but massive deficits their entire life. That means trillions 
upon trillions in more debt and an economy that would never ever reach 
its full potential. That is simply not right, but it is what we would 
get with the Senate Democratic plan. It is an extreme approach that is 
more than just fiscally reckless; it is deeply irresponsible.
  That is why so many middle-class families agree with Republicans that 
we should be growing the economy, not the government. They know we need 
to control Washington spending and balance the budget in order to kick-
start economic growth and to create American jobs. They are so tired of 
the Obama economy.
  They are tired of the endless pivots to jobs that never result in the 
kind of sustained job creation we need. They are tired of the sluggish 
growth, of always looking to the future with anxiety or worrying 
whether Medicare will even be there when they retire.
  They are tired of the ideological DC Democratic extremism that got us 
here: knee-jerk, tax-first solutions to almost every single problem, 
massive overspending, steadfast opposition to reforms that would make 
government programs more efficient, effective, and sustainable.
  So my friends across the aisle shouldn't be surprised their budget is 
getting such a rough ride. It contains up to $1.5 trillion in new 
taxes. This would be the largest tax hike in American history. It 
contains $\1/2\ trillion more in spending, money that could be siphoned 
out of the economy and into the hands of politicians and bureaucrats.
  It lacks meaningful reforms to save and strengthen Medicare, allowing 
it to go bankrupt in just a few years, and it enshrines massive 
deficits into law, ensuring they continue forever and ever without end.
  The Senate Democratic budget is nothing more than a rehash of the 
same tired politics that continue to pummel the middle class. It is 
time to move beyond this failed extremist approach and try a new one. 
Instead of expanding the power of the bureaucratic elite at the expense 
of hardworking taxpayers, I would urge Washington to change course. 
Let's focus on growing the economy, not the government.


                               ObamaCare

  I would also like to discuss ObamaCare for a moment.
  As I just stated, Senate Republicans want policies to grow the 
economy, not the government. Yet ObamaCare is a law that grows the 
government and will slow our economy. On Saturday, we will mark the 
third anniversary of its passage into law.
  Republicans have long warned that ObamaCare would have a devastating 
impact on our country. I have spoken about 100 times on the Senate 
floor against ObamaCare and I have warned about its consequences: 
increased premiums, lost jobs, and higher taxes.
  Unfortunately, many of those things have already started happening. 
It is not just off in the future. It has already happened, and the 
Federal Government has only just begun implementing the law.

[[Page 4100]]

  Instead of premiums going down $2,500, as President Obama promised, 
they have actually gone up by about the same amount, $2,500. Congress's 
own nonpartisan budget experts tell us the premiums will increase by 
about $2,100 after more rules, more taxes, and more mandates take 
effect.
  The Federal Reserve also came out with a report that confirmed 
something else Americans already know: ObamaCare is costing us jobs. By 
some estimates, it could end up costing 800,000 jobs at a time when we 
desperately need more of them.
  Members of the President's own party have begun sounding the alarm 
about the law's tax hike, including its tax on medical devices.
  His union allies are concerned the law will make them less 
competitive too. Of course it will. Perhaps some of the union bosses 
should have more thoroughly considered the well-being of their members 
before supporting ObamaCare's passage in the first place.
  ObamaCare has already become a regulatory nightmare. I would call the 
attention of my colleagues to this chart. This is the ObamaCare law, 
hundreds of pages in itself. But these are the regulations so far: 7 
feet tall, almost 20,000 pages of ObamaCare regulations so far.
  The law itself is not small, hundreds and hundreds of pages. But 
nearly 20,000 new pages of regulations, 7 feet tall, and they are just 
getting started. This monster of a bill, as I indicated, was hundreds 
of pages long itself, but that is actually nothing compared to the 
regulations it has spawned.
  This more than 7-foot stack of paper next to me is what has become 
known as the redtape tower--the redtape tower, almost 20,000 pages of 
ObamaCare regulations so far. It is nearly 20,000 pages' worth of 
complexity. That is just what the bureaucracy has dreamed of so far, 
and we can only imagine how much more is yet to come.
  Do we expect small businesses to be able to cope with all the rules 
in this tower? If you were a small business owner, how could you? Would 
you even be able to read through all of them and figure out which ones 
applied to you? I doubt it. I don't expect the average American to have 
much luck either.
  The administration released a draft ObamaCare application last week. 
It is 21 pages long. Unbelievable. If you like doing your taxes, you 
are going to love applying for the ObamaCare exchanges.
  So Washington Democrats may pop the champagne this Saturday to 
celebrate the law's third anniversary, but more Americans and small 
business owners will be reaching for an aspirin once they are forced to 
start navigating this bureaucratic nightmare.
  In my view, ObamaCare is a colossal mistake for our country. There is 
no way to fix this thing. It needs to be pulled out by its roots, and 
we need to start all over. This bill needs to be repealed and it needs 
to be replaced, not with another unreadable law or another 20,000 pages 
of regulations but with commonsense reforms that actually lower health 
care costs.
  Anyone who thinks we have given up this fight is dead wrong.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, in a few seconds I will be propounding 
a unanimous consent request. We were originally scheduled to have a 
series of votes at 11:15. We think we have a way of working out some of 
our concerns if we just take a little bit of a breather and do the kind 
of negotiation based on the civility and common sense that we have been 
using during this deliberation.
  Therefore, Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that 
notwithstanding the previous order, all postcloture time be considered 
expired at 2 p.m., with the time until 2 p.m. to be equally divided 
between the two leaders or their designees, with all other provisions 
of the previous order remaining in effect.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, just to give everybody the lay of the 
land, it means we are working through our legislative issues, and at 2 
o'clock we will then proceed to a series of votes which will be 
announced in plenty of time for people to know what is happening.
  I ask unanimous consent that the quorum calls be equally divided, and 
I thank the able floor staff for giving me advice. There are days when 
I think it is an opera and they are calling out the arias we need to 
sing. But we are moving, and I thank Senator Shelby for consulting with 
his side of the aisle.
  At 2 o'clock we are going to have a series of amendments, and I think 
the Senate will feel very solid about the direction in which we are 
going.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. AYOTTE. 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. AYOTTE. Madam President, in a minute I am going to call up an 
amendment that I was speaking about on the floor of the Senate over the 
last few days. Essentially, this is an amendment that is pending to the 
bill--the continuing resolution and appropriations bills--that would 
strike $380 million of spending for the MEADS program. It is 
essentially a missile to nowhere that our troops will never be able to 
use in theater. We want to transfer that money to the operations and 
maintenance funding for the troops so we can make sure there are 
resources they can use to, obviously, make sure they have what they 
need for the very best equipment and training--particularly in light of 
sequestration and what we are facing. I know there is an agreement that 
is being worked out, and I hope my amendment is included in that 
agreement.
  At this time I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending 
amendment so I may call up my amendment, amendment No. 127.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Ms. AYOTTE. Thank you, Madam President.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, before the Senator leaves the floor, I 
have listened to most of her speeches, and she has been very 
articulate. I appreciate how she feels. There are some Democrats who 
agree with her, but the problem is it is hard to arrive at a list of 
amendments. I appreciate her intensity, and I certainly do not in any 
way denigrate what she has been trying to do, but this is the situation 
in which we find ourselves.
  I reluctantly object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. MORAN. Madam President, I too have an amendment that I have been 
attempting for a number of days to have made in order. This is the 
amendment that deals with the air traffic control towers. It is an 
amendment that very directly and simply transfers money from two 
accounts that have lots of money in them--the unencumbered balances of 
the Department of Transportation as well as a research fund--transfers 
$50 million from those two accounts to the air traffic control program. 
If we do that, we can at least avert--at least what the Department of 
Transportation says is necessary to eliminate that program--closing 
more than 170 air traffic control towers on April 7.
  I spoke earlier this morning, and I intend to speak before the vote 
occurs. I will not repeat myself at this point in time, but this 
morning I outlined--and

[[Page 4101]]

I hope my colleagues were listening--the importance of this amendment 
to the safety of the traveling public. The modest nature of what we are 
trying to accomplish has the bipartisan support, as well as the wide 
range of support, from groups outside the Congress that support this 
amendment.
  I again ask unanimous consent to amend the previous order and bring 
up my amendment. It is amendment No. 55, that 10 minutes be equally 
divided, and we proceed immediately to a vote on that amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. REID. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. MORAN. Thank you, Madam President.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I note the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I withdraw that. My understanding is the 
Senator from Montana has a brief statement to make regarding a big 
event in Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. That is basically correct.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I ask to speak as if in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The remarks of Mr. Baucus are printed in today's Record under 
``Morning Business.'')
  Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I yield the floor and suggest the 
absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Murphy). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, at an appropriate time I will ask for 
some consideration of an amendment of mine, amendment No. 6. My 
amendment would hold the Obama administration accountable for its 
recent decision to release more than 2,000 undocumented immigrants from 
detention centers across the country in the past month. U.S. 
Immigration and Customs Enforcement claimed they were releasing these 
people because they needed to reduce their average daily detention 
population of about 34,000 people--a congressionally mandated 
requirement. They claimed they had to reduce the detention population 
for budgetary reasons. Week after week, agents were tasked to release 
so many individuals.
  At first the Department of Homeland Security claimed it only released 
a few hundred people. However, last week the Director of Immigration 
and Customs Enforcement admitted that the administration had misled the 
American people by confessing that over 2,200 aliens were actually 
released. They continue to stand by the excuse that budget cuts were 
the reason for releasing these individuals.
  Simply blaming budget reduction as a means to turn a blind eye toward 
the national security of the American people is a very dangerous plan 
and one that calls into question the Department's preparation for 
sequestration, particularly when we consider that months before 
sequestration the Office of Management and Budget put out an order to 
all departments that national security, law enforcement, and safety and 
health should be a top priority. So if keeping criminals off the 
streets of the United States shouldn't be a top priority--as per the 
order from the Office of Management and Budget--I don't know what 
should be. So I want an accounting for it, and that is what my 
amendment does--requests a simple accounting for why they were released 
and what it was all about. What is even more disturbing is the fact 
that the Department had billions of unobligated funds from the past 2 
years that could have been put into protecting the American people.
  On February 27 I sent a request to Secretary Napolitano questioning 
the decisions of the Department. The letter, cosigned by Chairman 
Goodlatte of the House Judiciary Committee, was an attempt to better 
understand--just a simple understanding--how the Department will better 
confront sequestration and reduce operational challenges that could 
affect the life, safety, and health of the American people--the same 
life, health, and safety of the American people evidenced by this very 
administration's directive going out from the Office of Management and 
Budget of the priorities that ought to be established during 
sequestration.
  Now, you know what. So often what we find from this administration--
and have even found in previous Republican administrations--is that 
letters that are embarrassing go unanswered. Unfortunately, this is not 
unusual. About a dozen of my letters to the Secretary of Homeland 
Security on just the immigration issue have gone unanswered. There is 
no respect for congressional oversight. It is very frustrating.
  We are on the cusp of undertaking a massive reform of our immigration 
system. Yet getting answers to the most basic questions seems to be an 
impossible operation. Time and again, we have seen this administration 
refuse to be held accountable, and what we want is just information. It 
is not as though we are saying that what the administration has done--
even if we disagree with it--can't be done or shouldn't be done. But 
shouldn't the people know about who is being turned out in the streets 
when they have been held in confinement for a long period of time? I 
fear what will become of the President's promise of transparency if and 
when we do pass an immigration bill. And this is an example of things 
to fear in the future. Enacting a bill is one part of the process, and 
implementing the law is another part of the process. If we don't have 
faith in this administration now, what about trust for the future?
  So my amendment would require U.S. Immigration and Customs 
Enforcement to submit weekly reports--just submit reports--to the House 
and Senate Committees on Appropriations and the Judiciary. The reports 
will be required to contain detailed budgets on how ICE will maintain 
the 34,000 detention bed occupancy levels authorized by Congress. It 
also requires ICE to provide the number of aliens released from 
detention as well as the following information on aliens released for 
budget-related purposes: the conviction or charge for which they were 
detained, fugitive status, existence of a prior deportation order, and 
the terms of release.
  My amendment happens to be cosponsored by Senators Inhofe, Vitter, 
Boozman, Roberts, Coats, McConnell, and Collins.
  Within the last few days, we have had the Director of ICE, Mr. 
Morton, testify--well, it was just yesterday in the House. Chairman 
Goodlatte said his testimony raised more questions.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
a press release that expresses the testimony of Director Morton.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                    U.S. House of Representatives,


                                          Judiciary Committee,

                                   Washington, DC, March 19, 2013.

               Director Morton's Testimony Doesn't Add Up

       Washington, D.C.--Today, U.S. Immigration and Customs 
     Enforcement (ICE) Director John Morton testified before the 
     House Judiciary Committee regarding criminal and illegal 
     immigrants who are priorities for removal but were released 
     by the agency, which claimed release was necessary due to 
     sequestration. However, several of the claims made by 
     Director Morton do not match the facts and here's why:
       At today's hearing, Director Morton blamed the release of 
     criminal and illegal immigrants on the lack of funding in the 
     Continuing Resolution (CR) and the sequester. But the CR 
     funded ICE above their budgetary request and provided the 
     required funding to maintain detention beds at their average 
     daily requirement of 34,000 through the end of March. 
     Meanwhile, an internal ICE document shows that the agency 
     began releasing detainees on February 15 and had already 
     released thousands of criminal and illegal immigrants ahead 
     of sequestration.

[[Page 4102]]

       In addition, while the sequester cuts the agency's funding 
     by 5%, the savings resulting from the decision to mass 
     release criminal and illegal immigrants into the population 
     goes well above 5%. A 5% reduction of 34,000 detention beds 
     is about 1,700, but ICE has already released over 2,200 
     criminal and illegal immigrants and the plan was to reduce 
     the daily population by 5,000.
       Furthermore, Director Morton today acknowledged that he 
     could have made a reprogramming request to Congress or could 
     have used other funds to keep criminals off of our streets. 
     However, he did not provide any reasoning as to why he did 
     not make such a request.
       House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) 
     released the statement below regarding these inconsistencies.
       Chairman Goodlatte: ``Director Morton's testimony given to 
     the House Judiciary Committee today doesn't add up. U.S. 
     Immigration and Customs Enforcement had more than enough 
     money to continue detaining criminal and illegal immigrants 
     that are priorities for removal and could have made a 
     reprogramming request to Congress if the money ran out. But 
     Director Morton never made such a request nor provided any 
     rationale as to what is more important than keeping criminal 
     immigrants off of our streets.
       ``In addition, the sequester mandated a 5% cut at ICE but 
     the agency released more than 5% of detained criminal and 
     illegal immigrants. These facts make it appear that the 
     decision to release more than 600 convicted criminals and 
     others facing charges into our communities was more of a 
     political calculation than a budgetary necessity. This 
     decision not only undermines ICE's credibility but also 
     undercuts the American people's trust in this 
     Administration's ability to enforce our immigration laws.''

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Last week Mr. Morton said they released 10 level 1 
offenders. These are people convicted of violent crimes. They are 
repeat drunk drivers, as an example. Yesterday he said they only 
released eight, but he also said they were trying to relocate them and 
bring them back in. Well, if you have these dangerous people out on the 
streets, the public ought to know about it.
  So I suspect that when I ask unanimous consent now, the other side 
will object to my amendment. And I don't know why they want to go to 
such lengths to protect this administration when all we want is simple 
information--just simple information. We aren't saying that the 
decisions made--even though we disagree with them--ought to be changed. 
We are just saying that the public ought to know when we put violent 
people out on the streets, and when we put people out on the streets 
who shouldn't be out on the streets, we ought to know where they are, 
why they were put out there, and what it is all about.
  I think the objection to allowing this amendment to have a vote--as I 
presume it will be objected to--is indefensible, but at this point I 
call up for consideration my amendment No. 76, and I ask for just 10 
minutes of debate and a vote on my amendment. I ask unanimous consent 
to do that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. REID. Reserving the right to object, I understand how the Senator 
feels. Over the years I have served with him, he has always made his 
opinions very clear. We had his amendment in the list of amendments we 
were going to do before, with some modifications that my friend 
wouldn't agree to. So I understand his feelings about this, but the 
good news is that within the very near, foreseeable future--hopefully, 
I can start it in the next work period--we are going to start 
immigration legislation here on the floor. We are finally going to be 
able to move to something that will include issues people have wanted 
to deal with for a long time.
  So I say to my friend, I object, but I understand how he feels about 
the issue.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding 
cloture having been invoked, the following amendments be in order to 
the Mikulski-Shelby substitute: Coburn No. 69; Coburn No. 93; Coburn 
No. 65, as modified; Coburn No. 70, as modified; Inhofe-Hagan No. 72, 
as modified; Mikulski-Shelby No. 98, as modified with changes that are 
at the desk; 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; that no second-
degree amendments be in order to any of the amendments listed above 
prior to the votes; that the time until 2:15 p.m. be equally divided 
between the two leaders or their designees, with 30 minutes of 
Republican time under the control of Senator Moran prior to votes in 
relation to the amendments in the order listed; that upon disposition 
of the Pryor-Blunt amendment No. 82, the Durbin second-degree amendment 
to the Toomey amendment No. 115 be withdrawn; that it be in order for 
the Toomey amendment to be modified with the changes that are at the 
desk; that the Senate proceed to vote in relation to the Toomey 
amendment No. 115, as modified; that upon disposition of the Toomey 
amendment, the Senate proceed to vote on the Mikulski-Shelby substitute 
amendment, as amended; that all amendments, with the exception of the 
Mikulski-Shelby substitute, be subject to a 60-affirmative-vote 
threshold; that upon disposition of the substitute amendment, as 
amended, the Senate proceed to vote on the motion to invoke cloture on 
the underlying bill; that if cloture is invoked on H.R. 933, as 
amended, all postcloture time be yielded back and the Senate proceed to 
vote on passage of H.R. 933, as amended; and, finally, that all votes 
after the first vote be 10-minute votes and there be 2 minutes equally 
divided in the usual form between the votes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I appreciate everyone's understanding on 
both sides. This is going to allow us to get to the issue at hand very 
soon, and that is the budget, with Senators Murray and Sessions leading 
us on that issue.
  Also, we were able to get a number of these amendments that people 
have been wanting very badly to get. So I appreciate everything people 
have done to this point.


                            Amendment No. 72

  Mr. MANCHIN. Mr. President, I rise today to urge my colleagues to 
support an amendment to H.R. 933 requiring the military services to 
resume their tuition assistance programs, which are so vital to our 
military's professional and educational development.
  On March 5, 2013, the Department of Defense Comptroller Robert Hale 
sent a letter to the services to provide ``additional guidance for 
handling budgetary uncertainty in fiscal year 2013.'' In his letter, 
Secretary Hale said that ``all services should consider significant 
reductions in funding new tuition assistance applications.''
  Three days later, on March 8, the Army suspended tuition assistance 
for all its soldiers--Guard and Reserve--and as a result, more than one 
million Army soldiers immediately lost this important education 
benefit. There was not a single exception, not one, not even for troops 
wounded in combat.
  The Air Force, Coast Guard, and Marines also suspended their tuition 
assistance programs.
  This matter concerns me greatly, and I hope it does my colleagues as 
well. I understand the difficult fiscal decisions facing our military 
as a result of the sequester, but I object to the way they are handling 
tuition assistance with what amounts to blunt force policy making.
  I want to reexamine the exact wording of Secretary Hale's letter. He 
stated that the military services ``should consider significant 
reductions in the tuition program.'' I want to repeat, he said to 
``consider significant reductions.'' Although his guidance was non-
specific in terms of what amounts to ``significant,'' four of our five 
military services followed with the most extreme reduction possible--
they suspended all tuition assistance, indefinitely.
  This decision affects lives, real lives of one of our nation's 
greatest treasures--the less than 1 percent of our fellow citizens who 
are willing to volunteer and serve in our Armed Forces, regardless of 
the dangers they are likely to face in the defense of freedom.
  I want to highlight one example of the thousands of lives now 
affected--a young soldier who recently enlisted in the National Guard. 
His personal story reflects the negative impact the tuition assistance 
cuts are going to have on our Armed Forces.

[[Page 4103]]

  I saw him interviewed by a news station. He is 19, but with his new 
buzz cut, he looked much younger. His military mannerisms were 
unmistakable he gave short responses, always beginning with a ``Sir'' 
or ``Ma'am.''
  When asked how the decision to suspend tuition assistance affected 
him, he said, politely, ``I was really counting'' on tuition assistance 
for college.
  You see, this young man does not have any comparable education 
benefits to fall back on. He is only 19, as I said, and just back from 
training. As a Guardsman, he would need to deploy at least once to 
receive some of the new GI Bill benefits.
  What do you think he will tell his friends about the military as a 
result of this experience? What will his family say? And how much 
warning did we give this young man that he could no longer count on 
$4,500 per year in tuition assistance?
  As I said, this young man was 19 years old. Last month the veterans' 
unemployment rate for those ages 18 to 24 rose again. It is now a very 
troubling 36.2 percent. We are in the midst of a grave unemployment 
crisis and now is the time to invest--not divest--in continuing 
education for our military.
  This is not the way we should treat our service men and women. We 
should keep our commitments, especially those we have made to those who 
are willing to sacrifice everything for their fellow Americans and the 
Nation.
  I urge my friends and colleagues to support our amendment to require 
the services to resume tuition assistance the minute this bill passes. 
It is sponsored by Senators Inhofe and Hagan, and it is a necessary 
response to an unnecessarily harsh and short-sighted policy decision.
  The sequester is not a thoughtful or balanced approach to cutting 
spending, and we should find an alternative. But, until that moment 
occurs, everyone, especially the military services, must reject the 
impulse to ``grab low hanging fruit,'' and cut it down, in its 
entirety, simply because it is more convenient.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I commend the chairwoman and vice 
chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Senators Mikulski and Shelby, 
on crafting a strong bill to close out the remaining 6 months of the 
fiscal year. This bill was developed under difficult circumstances and 
time constraints, and I really feel they have done a good job of 
returning some semblance of regular order to this process. I am hopeful 
this progress will continue in the coming fiscal year.
  One of my disappointments with this legislation, however, is that we 
are not able to fund any new Army Corps of Engineers projects.
  The lack of new starts in the Corps is of particular concern to my 
State, as it impedes progress on the flood control project in Hamilton 
City, CA. It is a project that could potentially serve as a model for 
Corp projects throughout the Nation. More importantly, the construction 
of a new levee is critical for the protection of Hamilton City and 
Glenn County from catastrophic flooding. The project has been ready for 
construction for several years now but has been entangled in the new 
starts prohibition.
  It is my hope and intention that for fiscal year 2014 we will have 
regular order in appropriations, and I will work to support this 
project moving forward.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I met with FAA Administrator Michael 
Huerta last week to discuss sequestration and how it will affect our 
national aviation network. Sequestration will reduce the FAA's budget 
by approximately $600 million in the middle of this fiscal year. The 
Administrator told me this swift and sudden reduction in funding will 
have serious consequences to the efficiency of our national aviation 
system, especially in Illinois. Airport managers throughout the State 
of Illinois have also registered their serious concerns about the 
sequestration impact on commercial and general aviation.
  The FAA will have to severely reduce service or completely close 
approximately 180 air traffic control towers across the country. Nine 
air traffic control towers in Illinois will have their service either 
eliminated or severely reduced: Alton, Aurora, Bloomington-Normal, 
Decatur, DuPage, Carbondale, Marion, Springfield and Waukegan. The FAA 
has also said that overnight air traffic control service at Peoria and 
Midway airports could be eliminated. These are serious steps that will 
increase delays, reduce capacity and potentially compromise the safety 
of the airspace in the areas surrounding these airports.
  I will continue to monitor this situation and will work with the FAA 
and airport managers throughout the State of Illinois to address 
aviation safety and air traffic delays.
  However, the aviation system is not the only harm sequestration will 
have on this country. The White House estimates sequestration will 
reduce the readiness of our troops; put up to 10,000 veterans at 
substantial risk of becoming homeless; drop 70,000 children from Head 
Start, including 2,700 from Illinois; take nutritional assistance away 
from 600,000 families because of cuts to WIC; and reduce foreclosure 
prevention and other counseling to 75,000 fewer households.
  Many Republicans have said they are comfortable with allowing 
sequestration to continue. They think no one will notice what 
sequestration does to the country. I disagree. These sequestration cuts 
will have real impact on real people in Illinois. We need to stop 
sequestration with a balanced solution of budget cuts and revenue. I am 
pleased we will soon start debating the budget resolution. Budget 
Chairwoman Patty Murray has produced a budget that will stop 
sequestration and the negative impacts it will have on our economy, our 
troops and working families across America.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I will vote for the bill before us because 
it ensures the continued operation of government. The overall spending 
in the bill conforms to the Budget Control Act yet provides needed 
flexibility for agencies to operate as best they can while under 
sequestration.
  I will continue to seek a comprehensive, bipartisan approach to avoid 
the harmful effects of sequestration. Any compromise to do so will 
require both prudent spending cuts and additional revenues. Considering 
that revenues are necessary as part of the way to alleviate the 
negative effects of the sequester, this bill is not the appropriate 
vehicle to address our current budgetary situation. I am hopeful that 
by passing this bill and ensuring no government shutdown occurs, we can 
work in a bipartisan and responsible manner to undo sequestration.
  This bill does contain important funding for Michigan, including 
$210.5 million for Army research on combat vehicle and automotive 
technologies through the Army Tank and Automotive Research, Development 
and Engineering Center, TARDEC, in Warren. TARDEC is the Department of 
Defense's leading laboratory for research and development of advanced 
military vehicle technologies, including efforts to protect Army 
vehicles against rocket propelled grenades, improvised explosive 
devices and explosively formed projectiles; advanced materials for 
tactical vehicle armor; more efficient engines; fuel cell and hybrid 
electric vehicles; unmanned ground vehicles; computer simulations for 
vehicle design and training of Army personnel; and technology 
partnerships with the automotive industry.
  The bill also includes funding for the programs of the Army's TACOM 
Life Cycle Management Command, LCMC, in Warren. TACOM LCMC is the 
Army's lead organization for the development and acquisition of ground 
vehicle combat, automotive and armaments technologies and systems. 
TACOM LCMC-managed systems include the Abrams main battle tank, Bradley 
Fighting Vehicle, Stryker Armored Vehicle, Mine Resistant Ambush 
Protected vehicle, and all Army tactical vehicles, such as the HMMWV 
and Family of Medium Tactical Vehicles.
  The bill provides full funding for transportation programs authorized 
under MAP-21, the 2-year transportation bill signed into law in July 
that provides critically needed funding for our Nation's roads and 
bridges. This is a victory because the CR for the first

[[Page 4104]]

half of the year, and the House-passed CR, do not include the full 
funding levels authorized in MAP 21.
  The bill also provides needed support for American manufacturing. The 
Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program, MEP, receives 
level funding at $128.5 million. It is the only Federal program 
dedicated to providing technical support and services to small and 
medium-sized manufacturers. MEP is a nationwide network of proven 
resources that enables manufacturers to compete globally, supports 
greater supply chain integration, and provides access to information, 
training and technologies that improve efficiency, productivity, and 
profitability. This program has been used extensively in my home State 
by the Michigan Manufacturing Technology Center, which operates the 
Michigan's Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program. MMTC works with 
manufacturers around the State of Michigan to innovate so they can 
become more efficient and profitable in order to grow and create jobs.
  The bill protects the life and safety of boaters on the Great Lakes 
by including a provision that denies the administration request to 
close the U.S. Coast Guard Seasonal Air Facilities in Muskegon. Closing 
the station would put at risk the large number of boaters on Lake 
Michigan during the summer. The Muskegon facility has been in place 
since 1997 and provides an important safety presence during the boating 
season on Lake Michigan.
  During the course of consideration of the Continuing Resolution, the 
Senate adopted by voice vote an amendment offered by Senators Coburn 
and McCain that will limit the use of funds of the National Science 
Foundation for political science research. The amendment was modified 
before it was adopted under an agreement between the sponsors and 
Chairman Mikulski and represented a significant improvement over the 
original amendment. The amendment as modified allows for political 
science research projects to be conducted when the Director of the 
National Science Foundation certifies those projects as promoting the 
economic interests or national security of the United States. I am 
concerned that this amendment will restrict high quality research in 
critical areas beyond our national security and economic interests and 
creates a threshold for certifying eligible political science research 
projects that could eliminate very worthy projects, if it is not 
applied wisely and thoughtfully. I hope that a broad interpretation 
will avoid unnecessary restrictions of legitimate research.
  I am disappointed that the continuing resolution does not provide for 
adequate funding for our financial markets regulators, the Securities 
and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. I 
worked with a number of my colleagues on an amendment to improve their 
funding to ensure they have the resources they need to police the 
markets. Unfortunately that was not adopted.
  On balance, while the bill does not contain sufficient funding for 
many programs, it also contains funding important to Michigan and 
ensures the continued operation of government. For this reason, I will 
vote for it.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum, and ask 
the time be equally divided.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                  Amendment No. 69 to Amendment No. 26

  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment be set aside and amendment No. 69 be called up.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn], for himself and Mr. 
     McCain, proposes an amendment numbered 69 to amendment No. 
     26.

  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment 
be considered as read.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To prohibit Urban Area Security Initiative grant recipients 
      from funding projects that do not improve homeland security)

       On page 392, line 25, strike ``training.'' and insert the 
     following: ``training: Provided further, That none of the 
     funds made available under paragraph (2) may be used for 
     employee overtime or backfill pay, for security measures at 
     sports facilities used for Major League Baseball spring 
     training, to pay for attendance at conferences, or to 
     purchase computers or televisions.''


                    Amendment No. 93 to Amendment 26

  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment 
be set aside and amendment No. 93 be called up.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 93 to amendment No. 26.

  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment 
be considered as read.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

    (Purpose: To transfer appropriations from the National Heritage 
Partnership Program to fund the resumption of public tours of the White 
   House and visitor services and maintenance at national parks and 
                               monuments)

       On page 542, strike lines 3 through 21 and insert the 
     following:


reopening the white house for public tours and preserving our national 
                               treasures

       Sec. 1404. Notwithstanding section 1101--
       (1) the amount appropriated for the National Recreation and 
     Preservation account shall be reduced by $8,100,000, which 
     shall be taken from the National Heritage Partnership 
     Program; and
       (2) the amount appropriated under section 1401(e) for 
     ``National Park Service, Operation of the National Park 
     System'' shall be increased by $6,000,000, which shall be 
     used for expenses related to visitor services and maintenance 
     of national parks, monuments, sites, national memorials, and 
     battlefields, including the White House, Grand Canyon 
     National Park, the Washington Monument, Yellowstone National 
     Park, and the Flight 93 National Memorial.


           Amendment No. 65, as Modified, to Amendment No. 26

  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment 
be set aside and amendment No. 65, with modifications, at the desk be 
called up.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn], for himself and Mr. 
     McCain, proposes an amendment numbered 65, as modified, to 
     amendment No. 26.

  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment 
be considered as read.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To prohibit the use of funds to carry out the functions of 
 the Political Science Program in the Division of Social and Economic 
   Sciences of the Directorate for Social, Behavioral, and Economic 
   Sciences of the National Science Foundation, except for research 
projects that the Director of the National Science Foundation certifies 
as promoting national security or the economic interests of the United 
                                States)

       On page 193, between lines 11 and 12, insert the following:
       Sec. __. (a) None of the funds made available by this Act 
     may be used to carry out the functions of the Political 
     Science Program in the Division of Social and Economic 
     Sciences of the Directorate for Social, Behavioral, and 
     Economic Sciences of the National Science Foundation, except 
     for research projects that the Director of the National 
     Science Foundation certifies as promoting national security 
     or the economic interests of the United States.
       (b) The Director of the National Science Foundation shall 
     publish a statement of the reason for each certification made 
     pursuant to subsection (a) on the public website of the 
     National Science Foundation.
       (c) Any unobligated balances for the Political Science 
     Program described in subsection (a) may be provided for other 
     scientific research and studies that do not duplicate

[[Page 4105]]

     those being funded by other Federal agencies.


           Amendment No. 70, as Modified, to Amendment No. 26

  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment 
be set aside, and amendment No. 70, as modified, be called up.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn], for himself and Mr. 
     McCain, proposes an amendment numbered 70, as modified, to 
     amendment No. 26.

  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment 
be considered as read.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       After section 573 of title V of division D, insert the 
     following:
       Sec. 574.  Fourteen days after the Secretary of Homeland 
     Security submits a report required under this division to the 
     Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and the House of 
     Representatives, the Secretary shall submit a copy of that 
     report to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental 
     Affairs of the Senate and the Committee on Homeland Security 
     of the House of Representatives.

  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I want to comment a minute, before I talk 
about the individual amendments, on the process we have seen.
  We are going to have several amendments, and this is well in excess 
of $1 trillion in spending. We have had four amendments voted on, and I 
think unanimous consent will give us seven or eight more. So we are 
going to have a total of 12 amendments. All but the first one were not 
tabled, but we are at 60-vote margins, which is fine. But for a bill 
that spends $1 trillion, to choke down the Senate in a way that does 
not allow either side the appropriate opportunity to impact $1 trillion 
worth of spending doesn't fit with either the culture or the history of 
the Senate, and certainly doesn't fit with the agreement going forward 
and the rules changes we had this year.
  On a bill that has $1 trillion worth of spending, in past history--if 
you look at the 104th, the 105th, the 103rd Congress--bills of that 
size would have 70 or 80 amendments, and we are going to choke down to 
11 or 12 amendments on this. The question is, Why would we do that? Why 
would we limit the discussion and the division of thought, manifested 
through votes, for the American people to actually see what we are 
doing? There are only two reasons why this is happening. One is--and 
from a phone call with the President, in his own words, he wants 
sequester to hurt.
  Now, think about that for a minute. And he is my friend. I challenged 
him on that when he said it to me. But there is a philosophical divide 
in this country. The Federal Government over the last 10 years has 
grown 89 percent, while the average median income has declined 5 
percent. The reason my colleagues want sequester to hurt and be painful 
is they want to rationalize that bigger government is better, that we 
cannot afford to cut a penny out of the Federal budget. So what we do 
is the Federal Government is doing less with more money while every 
American is doing more with less money. That goes against the greatest 
tradition of our country. It is also a prescription for failure for our 
country when we are willing to sacrifice, in the short term, direct 
benefits to major segments of our population for a political point.
  Nobody has done more oversight on the Federal Government than I have 
in the last 8 years, and I will tell you, conservatively, out of the 
discretionary budget, $250 billion a year is spent that does not 
positively impact this country in any way. Yet we cannot get up 
amendments to demonstrate that.
  Not only can we not have an amendment up, we cannot even spend the 
time on it to have a real debate about it. That is because they really 
do not want to debate these issues of waste, duplication, fraud, and 
inefficiency.
  Then the second reason we are not having amendments, or we are having 
amendments at 60 votes, is to provide the political cover. Our country 
is in so much trouble it should not matter what party you are in. What 
should matter is if we are fixing the long-term problems of our country 
in such a way as to secure the future of our country.
  What we have seen through this process last week and this week is a 
focus on the short term, a focus on the politically expedient, a focus 
on the parochial--and from both sides of the aisle. This is not just 
Democrats, this is Republicans too. Senator Ayotte can't even get an 
amendment to eliminate spending for a missile program that is never 
going to be built. It is never going to be built, but we are going to 
spend $360 million on it next year because it is a parochial prize to a 
member of the Appropriations Committee.
  Washington is not sick because it is partisan. Washington is sick 
because it is political, and it is short term in its thinking. Nobody 
in their right mind, no matter how much it benefits their State, would 
say they want to spend $380 million or $360 million--I am not sure of 
the exact amount of money--on a program that is never going to come 
into fruition unless they are thinking about them and not our country 
and not the families of our country and not the programs that have to 
be reformed to save them. Nobody would do that. Yet we have 60 votes on 
all these amendments we are going to offer because they are going to 
offer protection for people to vote on them to know that they will not 
even pass, but they can still get the cover for a vote. They can say: I 
voted for it but it didn't pass because it has to have 60 votes.
  That is the smallest part of the problem. To have to go through what 
we have gone through over the last 5 or 6 days and only have had four 
votes says something about this place. I would just proffer that I bet 
had we had an open amendment process we would have been finished with 
this bill yesterday.
  When I came here, for the first 2 years you could offer an amendment 
for anything at any time at a 51-vote threshold. So all this time we 
have wasted in quorum calls or on speaking on issues that have nothing 
to do with the bill in front of us is because we really do not want to 
govern. What we want is we do not want the body to do its work and have 
the input of both sides into a bill--other than in the committee. What 
we want is a fixed outcome that will allow the administration to make 
sequester as painful as it can be.
  So when you shut down packing plants, when the USDA says they cannot 
have food inspectors there at the same time the USDA is advertising for 
social service workers and event planners--which, if you did not hire 
them, could at least give you 52 people not being furloughed for a 
week. What is happening to America today is we are focused inward on 
the politics rather than our country. We are focused on gaming the 
system rather than governing. We are focused on all the wrong things 
because it is all about the next election.
  We have our eyes so far off the ball that now every bill that comes 
to the floor has to have essentially a rules committee of one, which is 
the majority leader, deciding whether he wants his members to vote on a 
bill. That doesn't have anything to connect with the history of the 
Senate. This is no longer the greatest deliberative body in the world 
because we do not deliberate; we do not have an open amendment process; 
we are too afraid of our own shadows to cast a vote and think we might 
have to defend it.
  If you cannot defend any and every vote in this body, you do not have 
any business being here. To stifle debate and to limit amendments in 
the way this bill has done certainly will not breed any goodwill going 
forward and certainly does not do service that the American citizens 
are due.
  Mr. President, I will now take some time to talk about the various 
amendments I have called up. Amendment No. 69 is the first amendment I 
called up. As the ranking member on Homeland Security and the ranking 
member on the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, what we know is 
Homeland Security, in its grants program, through what is called the 
Urban Area Security Initiative, is out of control. They have not 
prioritized their funding. They have not put metrics on their

[[Page 4106]]

funding. They have not controlled their funding.
  We put out a report in December 2012 called Safety At Any Price, and 
we highlighted the problems with this particular grant program. No 
clear goals, DHS has not established any clear goals for how the funds 
should be used to improve national security. The 9/11 Commission warned 
against DHS spending becoming pork spending. UASI, this Urban Area 
Security Initiative, has become another pork barrel program providing 
public safety subsidies to cities such as in my home State, Tulsa.
  No. 3, what we found is a tremendous amount of waste in these grants. 
The lack of clear goals has led States and cities to use this funding 
on wasteful projects, including paying for overtime for employees; 
purchasing computers, printers, televisions, underwater robots, 
bearcats--all the things that do not really connect to national 
security and the prevention of terrorism.
  This amendment prohibits $500 million allocated for the UASI grant 
program that has been wasted on items that do not relate to homeland 
security. It prohibits the use of funds on overtime, backpay--backfill 
pay, security at Major League baseball parks, spring training camps, 
attendance at conferences, and the purchase of flat-screen TVs.
  The other thing we found in our report is the Department of Homeland 
Security doesn't know what this money was spent on. Not only do they 
not have goals and metrics for what the money is supposed to be spent 
on, they cannot tell us what the money was spent on because they don't 
actually have any record of it. We have spent $35 billion in total on 
all DH grant programs since 2003. We have spent $7.1 billion on this 
program.
  What I can tell you is it has helped some communities, I don't doubt 
that, especially during our tough times. It has filled in. But if we 
are ever going to get out of the problem we are in as a country in 
terms of our debt and deficits, we have to have programs that have 
metrics on them that have to be followed up. The grants have to be 
followed, and they need to be held to account.
  My colleagues, I have no hopes of this passing because most of my 
colleagues will not look at the research done on this, will not look at 
the ineffectiveness of it, will not look at the waste, and will vote a 
party-line vote to defeat this amendment. We will get 45 or 50 votes or 
51 or 52, but it will go down. So, consequently, real problems that 
have been oversighted by the Permanent Committee on Investigations--
really oversighted by the Department of Homeland Security--the real 
solutions to problems will not happen because of the way this place is 
being run.
  Next, I would like to talk about amendment No. 93. Amendment No. 93 
follows a recommendation of the President. It is not my recommendation, 
it is the President's recommendation. What this amendment would do is 
actually take money that has been directed for expired heritage area 
authorizations that were not any recommendations of the President--
actually the President's recommendation was to cut this money in half--
and we are going to do exactly that with this amendment. We are going 
to cut it by $8.1 million.
  What heritage areas are, when we started them--the 12 heritage areas 
this is about are at least 16 years old. One of them is 25 years old. 
The whole idea behind heritage areas was to fund them with a grant 
program to get them started and then let them run on their own with 
State and local funds. They have become a dependency program.
  The OMB and the President's budget said we ought to eliminate the 
dependency of these by trimming back the amount of money. Instead of 
becoming temporary programs directed toward self-sufficiency as 
originally intended, these national heritage areas have turned into 
permanent entities that continue to grow in number and funding amount--
totally opposite the original authorization intent. In other words, 
they are parochial based.
  As a matter of fact, one of them, the John Chaffee Blackstone River 
National Heritage, has existed for more than 25 years. They actually 
thought the funding might get cut, so they created another way to pay 
for it, just as the government had intended for them to do, and they 
raised the money for it this year. But we are going to fund them anyway 
in this appropriations package, this Omnibus appropriations package. It 
is not really a CR, it is an Omnibus appropriations. Of these, 12 have 
already received $112 million, more than half the total ever spent on 
national heritage areas.
  So they have been in existence at least 16 years. They should have 
become self-sufficient. They need to become self-sufficient, and we 
should not be spending the money. What will we do with the money that 
will amount to about $16 million? We will turn that money into opening 
the tours at the White House, opening Yellowstone National Park and the 
rest of the parks. In terms of the way that money is spent out, we will 
be able to take $6 million or $7 million of that money and the national 
parks will open on time.
  Most of you haven't heard about this, but in Jackson Hole, WY, and 
Cody, WY, the citizens of that State are raising private money to plow 
the snow so Yellowstone National Park can open on time. I want you to 
see the contrast because it is important to their livelihood and their 
commerce. They are going to sacrifice personally to get that park open 
on time. At the same time we are going to send money to 12 national 
heritage areas that have been dependent on the Federal Government for 
16 years.
  Tell me what is wrong with that picture. We are going to create a 
dependency, and then we are going to indirectly tax the people of 
Wyoming--one of their great areas of commerce, a place where visitors 
come to Wyoming to see Yellowstone Park--and have them use their own 
post-tax money to pay for that. That cannot fit with the vision of 
America that almost everybody else in this country believes in. It 
doesn't fit.
  Other national parks have reported campgrounds that are going to be 
closed to reduce maintenance. So we are going to take this $6 million, 
and we are going to use it to help open these parks and allow the Park 
Service to have the parks open on time. In the original authorization, 
it was not supposed to get any money. They should not have been getting 
money for the last 10 years. Instead of creating a dependency in the 
program, we are going to take that money and do something for the 
American people.
  The next amendment is amendment No. 65, as modified. And this is one 
that really gets my goat. The National Science Foundation funds lots of 
great scientific endeavors in this country. As a matter of fact, they 
have about four times as many applications for grants as they have 
money to give out. But they spend a considerable amount of money doing 
such things as funding ``research in political science.'' In 2008 they 
spent $8.6 million funding research in political science, $10.9 million 
in 2009, $11 million in 2010, $10.8 million in 2011, and $10.1 million 
in 2012. What this amendment does is prohibit the National Science 
Foundation from wasting Federal resources on political science projects 
and redirects that to other areas within NSF that are going to give the 
American people a much greater return on their investment.
  Let me give some examples of what they fund: campaigns and elections, 
citizen support, and emerging and established democracies, bargaining 
processes, electoral choice, democratization, political change in 
regimes, transitions. Those are all important things if we were not in 
a budget and spending crisis. Tell me whether it would be better to 
have the next new computer chip generation developed through a grant at 
the National Science Foundation or if the actions of a filibuster in 
the Senate are more important to the American people. Which one is a 
greater priority? Which one is more important to the further 
advancement of this country? I guarantee it is the former and not the 
latter.
  In the years hence, we are going to be making a lot of choices about 
priorities, and every amendment I am putting out here today is about 
priorities.

[[Page 4107]]

Do we fund things that do not adequately or accurately help us in the 
short term in creating jobs, in being wise and prudent spenders of 
taxpayers' money, or do we fund things that are a low priority and let 
things that are high priority suffer? That is basically what this 
amendment does. It says: Until we get out of this pinch, we should not 
be spending money to--for example, the $251,000 used to study 
Americans' attitudes toward the Senate. We spent a quarter of a million 
dollars last year studying Americans' attitude toward the Senate; 
$106,000 was spent to study the rise of candidate-centered elections 
over those dominated by political parties; $47,000 was spent to study 
the President's level of cooperation with Congress when they utilize 
Executive orders; $28,000 was spent to examine the prohibition 
movement. It has been a long time since we had prohibition in this 
country. That has to be a priority for us. How about a quarter of a 
million dollars to investigate how people perceive the political 
attitudes of others? That has to be important right now. It has to be a 
priority right now for our country. We spent $144,000 to track how 
politicians change their Web sites over time. Who cares? That money--
$144,000--will keep a whole bunch of meat inspectors at meat plants. 
There will not be any furloughs if we get rid of this kind of stuff. I 
could go on.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
what I consider nonpriority studies that the NFS has funded.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

       Taxpayers would have realized a better return on their 
     investment in biomedical research than in political science.
       While political sciences studies may be interesting to the 
     investigators, as investment in this studies will not yield 
     the same return on investment or benefit to Americans as 
     biomedical research.
       Consider what grants NIH may have been able to award in 
     lieu of these ongoing political science investigations:
       $251,525 used to study Americans' attitudes towards the 
     U.S. Senate filibuster from survey results
       $106,868 to study the rise of candidate-centered elections 
     over those dominated by political parties
       $47,783 to study American Presidents' level of cooperation 
     with Congress when they utilize executive orders
       $28,356 to examine the Prohibition movement, in part to 
     help lobbying organizations better understand how to 
     influence policy debates
       $250,000 to investigate how people perceive the political 
     attitudes of others and operate with group-centered 
     mentalities
       $144,609 to track how politicians change their websites 
     over time
       $20,862 to answer the question, ``What makes politics 
     interesting?'' and to analyze how individuals process 
     messages distributed by mass media
       $259,231 to execute a national survey on ``the role of 
     optimism and pessimism in shaping the political beliefs and 
     behavior of Americans''
       $91,016 to study which legislation gets roll call votes and 
     to guess the outcome when bills do
       $23,233 to administer an Internet survey of 1000 people 
     about ``how citizens react to public political 
     disagreements''
       $236,422 to study how lobbying campaigns, logrolling and 
     other trades affect bill development over time
       These surveys and models are receiving millions of NSF 
     dollars every year, while groundbreaking biomedical science 
     falls to the ground. Why should taxpayers have to contribute 
     to studies of questionable value when so many worthwhile 
     biomedical research projects go unfunded? NCI received 4,143 
     applications in 2012 for major R01 grants, and only funded 
     618 of them, leaving thousands of promising ideas unfunded.
       Much of political science's studies have not even generated 
     useful data. Political science often involves finding a 
     situation for which researchers can develop a clean model to 
     predict future outcomes. However, yet one Northwestern 
     University political scientist famously noted in the New York 
     Times these models are typically inaccurate.
       ``It's an open secret in my discipline,'' wrote Jacqueline 
     Stevens, ``in terms of accurate political predictions (the 
     field's benchmark for what counts as science), my colleagues 
     have failed spectacularly and waste colossal amounts of time 
     and money.''
       Increasing funding for the National Science Foundation has 
     been promoted as a way to bolster our economy, preserve 
     national security, protect the environment, and educate our 
     youth. As a result, the agency has enjoyed strong bipartisan 
     support.
       By no longer funding political science and increasing NCI's 
     budget, Congress has an opportunity to continue improving the 
     nation's health and to steward more wisely federal resources.
  Mr. COBURN. This is where we should be doing our work. We should be 
making choices for the American people. We should be making the hard 
choices that say this is more important than this. We don't have enough 
money. We are borrowing $40 million a second, and we are going to fund 
these kinds of political studies that have no benefit except to the 
politicians and the political science professors because they are the 
ones who will read them. The average American doesn't care. But they do 
care whether their meat is going to be safe and whether they are going 
to get meat.
  Mark my words, this amendment will go down. It won't be passed 
because we don't have the courage to make priority choices in the 
Senate. We don't have the courage to allow the number of amendments, 
such as this--there should have been 30 or 40 such as this--on the 
floor to make those choices.
  Finally, I will talk about amendment No. 70. This amendment has been 
modified. The appropriators have requested that Homeland Security-
related reports--which are demanded in this bill--come to them. They do 
appropriate for Homeland Security, but there is an authorizing 
committee. It happens to be the Homeland Security and Government 
Affairs Committee. What this amendment says is: If you are going to 
give information from the administration to appropriations, you might 
want to think about giving it to the actual committee that has the 
authority to authorize and change the program.
  I hope this will be accepted. We are going to get it 14 days after 
the appropriators. I don't know what that is all about, but I am 
willing to concede. I think Senator Carper and myself ought to see what 
the administration is saying to the appropriators about programs that 
are run through the Department of Homeland Security. So of all the 
amendments we have, I think this is the only one that has any 
possibility.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to address the 
Senate for up to 20 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, when I was on the floor this morning, I 
outlined the merits of an amendment I tried to have to this continuing 
resolution. It is amendment No. 55. It is an amendment that deals with 
the air traffic Control Tower Program that the Obama administration has 
indicated will be terminated on April 7. I don't want to go over all 
the things I talked about this morning, but I do want to talk about how 
we got to the point we are today in which apparently this amendment is 
not going to be considered by the Senate.
  This morning I indicated how, in my view, important this amendment 
is. I read from an AP story from Chicago about how air safety was in 
jeopardy. There were indications that a plane crash which occurred 
previously would not have occurred if there had been an air traffic 
control tower present. The complaint by Americans is that our aviation 
sector is so frustrated by the political brinkmanship which goes on in 
Washington, DC.
  Again, this is an important amendment that is about the safety and 
security of the American people--particularly those who fly. It is 
amazing to me that despite the continued efforts to bring this 
amendment to the floor for consideration--not that I expect any 
guarantee. There is no such thing as a guarantee that this amendment 
would pass. But the inability to have it even considered is very 
troubling and surprising to me.
  Last week when we started on the continuing resolution, I was pleased 
to hear what the majority leader said about the process on the CR. This 
was not stated years ago or months ago, it was just last week. The 
majority leader said, when he was talking about the continuing 
resolution: There will be amendments offered. We are working

[[Page 4108]]

on a process to consider those amendments. This week we will be off to 
another opportunity for the Senate to return to regular order, an 
opportunity for this body to legislate through cooperation, through 
compromise, as we used to do. This legislation will be a test of the 
Senate's goodwill. We are anxious to move forward and start doing some 
legislating. We are going to take all amendments and try to work 
through them as quickly as we can. I hope we can move forward and set 
up votes on every one of them.
  That is the announcement that was made as we started the continuing 
resolution. As the majority leader indicated, this legislation will be 
a test of the Senate's goodwill. I think the Senate has clearly failed 
the test of goodwill. But more than goodwill, we are failing the 
American people in taking the steps necessary to secure their safety.
  This is not an amendment about me or an amendment about Kansas. 
Certainly, I am talking about my home State. There is nothing wrong 
with representing our home State which is affected by the loss of these 
control towers. There are 43 States--almost all of us--that have 
control towers. On April 7, they no longer will be operating.
  I indicated this previously, that one of the reasons why I thought 
this amendment, perhaps above others, should be considered is because 
the Control Tower Program will be eliminated April 7. I am a member of 
the Appropriations Committee. I am a member of the Subcommittee on 
Transportation. I will work to see that these programs are continued 
once we get to the regular appropriation process when the CR is behind 
us. My colleagues and I will never have the chance to do that because 
in a matter of just a few short days the control towers will be gone. 
They will be closed. The lights will be turned off.
  So my role as an appropriator and as a Member of the Senate--which I 
share with 99 other Senators--and the idea that we would then come back 
and restart a program that has disappeared is not going to happen. In 
the absence of this amendment passing--in the absence of this amendment 
being considered and passing--the ability for me to do my job on behalf 
of a program that I think matters to the American people disappears.
  I have never tried to be a difficult Member. I believe in 
collegiality. I believe in the goodwill the majority leader talks 
about. But I cannot imagine what I was supposed to have done. It is an 
amendment that is germane. I am not here trying to offer an amendment 
that doesn't matter to the bill at hand. I am not trying to score 
political points, I am not trying to put Democrats on the line for 
casting a vote that the voters might object to. There is nothing here 
that is political or partisan in nature. I did what I thought I was 
supposed to do.
  There are 26 cosponsors of this amendment. More than half are 
Democrats. The Senators include Inhofe, Roberts, Blumenthal, Blunt, 
Johanns, Kirk, Manchin, Hagan, Klobuchar, Baucus, Tester, Enzi, Vitter, 
Boozman, Pryor, Merkley, Wyden, Kaine, Warner, Ayotte, Shaheen, Risch, 
Crapo, Murphy, Rockefeller, and Wicker. If 26 of us in that group can 
agree upon the value of an amendment, why is it the Senate cannot even 
take a vote on a germane amendment that is broadly supported? It is 
broadly supported outside the Chamber of this Senate. The Aircraft 
Owners and Pilots Association, the National Business Aviation 
Association, National Air Transport Association, Association of Air 
Medical Services--they believe this is important for the ability of 
LifeWatch patients--NATCA, the National Air Traffic Controllers 
Association, and the American Association of Airport Executives.
  This is not a provincial issue that Moran is all about trying to take 
care of something for himself, nor is it about trying to create 
political difficulties for anybody. We broadly agree on a bipartisan 
basis that this amendment should be made in order.
  I have been in the Senate for a little more than 2 years. I served 
for a number of years in the House of Representatives. One of the 
things I thought was true and why I sought the opportunity to serve in 
the Senate is that it would be different from the House. Any Member of 
the Senate ought to be here--whether Republican or Democrat--on behalf 
of their ability to offer amendments.
  We had a debate about changing the rules and the proffer was made 
that if we would agree to change the rules, amendments would be made in 
order. I thought that was a positive development.
  Now, it seems to me, while I left the House in hopes of having the 
opportunity to represent my constituents as best as I know how and to 
represent America as best I know how, somebody stands in my way. I 
can't find out who that is. I have not talked to a Senator who is not 
supportive of my amendment. Every conversation I have is, well, I think 
it is a good idea. I don't know why it is not being made in order. 
There is no good explanation.
  Who sits down and develops the list and decides which amendment is 
important and which one isn't? This ought to be something that is not 
turned over to a one-person Rules Committee.
  Again, the House and Senate are structured differently. This is a 
historic body with a legacy of allowing debate, discussion, and 
amendment. And, again, not for purposes outside even the nature of the 
bill we are talking about, how can it be controversial to transfer $50 
million in a bill that has more than $1 trillion of funding, of 
spending? How can it be so difficult to transfer $50 million from two 
accounts--unencumbered balances and a research account--to save air 
traffic control towers, leave them in place until I at least get the 
opportunity to work with my colleagues to extend their life through the 
appropriations and legislative process into the future.
  So for a Senator such as myself--I lay awake last night from, I don't 
know, 3:15 to 4:30 trying to figure out what I could say that would 
convince my colleagues to support this amendment or to allow whoever is 
making the decision that it can't even be debated and heard and voted 
on--I don't know that there are any magic words. It does concern me. It 
bothers me greatly.
  We ought to all be here protecting the rights of each and every other 
Senator. This is important to us as a legislative body, not to us and 
our egos as Senators. It is not the sense that we have the right to say 
everything--we are Senators, we are important and powerful people--it 
is that on behalf of the American people, a person such as myself who 
represents 2\1/2\ million Kansans ought to have the ability to bring a 
germane amendment to a bill on the Senate floor.
  Had we brought these amendments forward, had we agreed to debate and 
pass my amendment, we wouldn't be here today still stalled on moving 
forward to conclude this business and move to the budget. We could have 
debated the amendments and voted on the germane amendments days ago. 
But for some reason we once again get bogged down in somebody deciding 
that this amendment qualifies to be considered and this one doesn't.
  So this is another example of where--again, I guess if we were to 
tell the story to the American people, it would be that today we are 
going to pass a bill that spends $1.1 trillion, and we have had four or 
five amendments offered and perhaps approved, maybe a couple more 
today.
  This bill has not worked its way through the Appropriations 
Committee. It comes from the House. We take it up immediately. It is 
written so perfectly that only three or four individual Senators have 
the opportunity to alter the bill--not the guarantee to change the bill 
but the opportunity to suggest to our colleagues whether it makes sense 
and then cast a vote, yes or no, based upon whether what I am saying 
has merit. We can't get to the point at which I am given the 
opportunity to explain on the Senate floor why this amendment is 
something that is important.
  I came to the Senate from the U.S. House of Representatives in hopes 
that

[[Page 4109]]

the Senate was different, where individual Members have value unrelated 
to their relationship with the Speaker or the minority leader of the 
House, unrelated to my relationship with the members of the Rules 
Committee. I have not always been the most perfect follower of my 
political party. I have tried to do what I think is right, and 
therefore I have not always developed the relationship I needed in the 
House to be able to get my amendments considered on the House floor.
  The Rules Committee is there for a purpose. It is a very unwieldy 
body, the U.S. House of Representatives, of 435 Members. Here we have 
100. Surely, based upon the history, the legacy, the rules of the 
Senate, we have the ability as Senators, whether we are in favor or 
disfavor and whether our amendment meets with a person's satisfaction 
on behalf of the American people, we have the right to represent their 
interests and have votes taken.
  The majority leader said the other day that I am an obstructionist. I 
lay awake last night thinking, I am not an obstructionist. I am 
following the rules. The majority leader said this morning that we need 
to show that sequestration is damaging to the country. I didn't even 
vote for sequestration, and yet I can't fix a problem that is caused by 
somebody else's vote. Again, it is so baffling to me how this works.
  I finally found somebody who would tell me they oppose my amendment. 
Today I talked to the Secretary of Transportation, who said: The 
administration opposes your amendment. So maybe that is the 
explanation. I have asked my colleagues on both sides of the aisle why 
I can't--a person who followed the rules, who did what one would think 
one should do to get an amendment made in order--why can't this 
amendment be heard?
  The only explanation that I guess makes sense is that there are those 
in Washington, DC, who want to prove we cannot cut spending without 
consequences that are dramatic. OK, prove that point. Come to the 
floor. Have the debate about spending, about budgets, about taxes. Have 
this conversation about whether we can afford to cut spending. Prove it 
to us. Take the votes. Demonstrate that it can't be done. But to use 
sequestration as the example for why we can never cut any money from 
any program, particularly on the amendment I am offering, is dangerous. 
What it says is, we want to make a political point, as compared to 
worrying about the lives of the American people who fly.
  So this circumstance in which I find myself--again this morning I lay 
in bed realizing that the radicalization of Senator Moran is occurring. 
The only way, apparently, to get an amendment heard is to be difficult. 
It is not my personality. It is not my nature. But on behalf of Kansans 
and Americans, if what it takes is for me to become more difficult to 
deal with so my amendments are considered--it is not about me 
personally--so amendments that matter to my constituents and, at least 
in my view, to America can be heard--you have to make yourself a pain 
around here if that is what is required in the Senate. I hope that is 
not the case.
  I hope the majority leader is right that this is the path by which we 
are going to get back to regular order. I want to be a member of the 
Appropriations Committee that works, debates, and discusses, we listen 
to witnesses and figure out that we can spend more here, but we have to 
spend less money here; this program matters, and this one is 
inefficient.
  I voted against sequestration because I don't believe across-the-
board cuts are responsible. What that means is that everything deserves 
the same reduction. There are things that we do well and that are 
appropriate for the government to be involved in, and there are things 
that we do poorly and that the government shouldn't be involved in. Yet 
we treat them all the same. I want to be a member of the Appropriations 
Committee that says: We are going to evaluate each one of these 
programs and make decisions about spending, and we are going to choose 
to spend money here and not here, or the decision will be made by the 
Senate and the House and the President that we are going to raise 
revenues so we can spend more money.
  But that is not a reason to block this amendment. It is not a reason 
to say that those people who are going to be traveling out of 179 
airports that have control towers--that their lives are going to be 
less safe and secure and run the potential of loss of life and injury 
as a result of us trying to prove the point that we apparently can't 
cut budgets around here because we want to show there is damage to be 
done when that occurs. That is a very dangerous political point.
  Mr. INHOFE. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. MORAN. I yield.
  Mr. INHOFE. First of all, as a cosponsor of the amendment, I am glad 
the Senator is getting around to the merits. Yes, it is a great 
injustice the Senator is going through right now, not getting his 
amendment heard. I have to say, though, as probably the only active 
commercial pilot in here, I jumped on this bill because a lot of people 
don't realize that the contract towers are just as in need of control 
as the noncontract towers.
  The Senator is aware that the University of Oklahoma in northern 
Oklahoma is contracted out. I have gone in there before where they are 
using all three runways at the same time. It is a huge issue.
  But what I want to ask the Senator is, why is it that when the 
bureaucracy is opposed to something they, No. 1, won't tell you about 
it; No. 2, they go whispering to the President; No. 3, they go 
whispering to other people around here?
  I went through this same thing, I suggest to my friend from Kansas, 
when I passed the Pilot's Bill of Rights. I had 67 cosponsors in the 
Senate, and they wouldn't bring it up. For an entire year they never 
would bring it up, and we had to rule XIV it on the floor. That is what 
is wrong. When we have something everybody is for, it is a good thing, 
but somehow--in this case, I know what it is: the same thing that 
happened to me. I got mine passed. It took me a year to do it.
  Best of luck to the Senator from Kansas. I would only say to him that 
this is a time to stay in there and fight for this because this is a 
great example to use. Everything that is being cut in government right 
now--all of these people who had to wait in line to get in here, there 
is no reason to do that. Everything people really want and the things 
that are popular, this is what they cut. So the Senator from Kansas is 
a victim of that. Just hang in there and try to make it happen.
  Mr. MORAN. I thank the Senator from Oklahoma. I know he has great 
expertise on the topic of aviation and airports and airplanes.
  Again, I am here to decry a system that is failing. And while it is 
personally troublesome to me--it bothers me--it is embarrassing not to 
be able to accomplish what seems so straightforward and simple. We all 
like to have victories, but it is not really about me. Every Member of 
the Senate ought to have the opportunity to present germane amendments 
and let the will of the Senate--let those 99 other people, as well as 
me, make a decision based upon the merits, however we all make 
decisions around here or whether we vote for or against something. This 
is not about my right as an individual Senator as much as it is about 
the rights of all of us on behalf of the American people, on behalf of 
our home State and constituencies, to be able to do our jobs.
  If there is a political game afloat that is preventing this amendment 
from being considered, then I would suggest we have transversed that 
plane in which we no longer are caring for Americans but we are caring 
about our own political skills, our own political reelection as 
compared to what we are here to do.
  This place is way too political. This is not a political amendment. 
It ought to be made in order. Yet, despite all the efforts, it has not 
occurred.
  I hope, in the few minutes that remains, there is still a chance that 
my unanimous consent request will be agreed to. I appreciate that 
others were able--a handful of folks were able to offer their 
amendments. I think we

[[Page 4110]]

ought to have more of that, not less. It is about the Senate doing its 
job; it is not just about Senator Moran not being able to accomplish 
his on this particular day.
  I appreciate the indulgence of my colleagues.
  I yield for the Senator from Pennsylvania.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.


                           Amendment No. 115

  Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, I rise to discuss briefly an amendment I 
have that is going to be voted on later today, but I wish to begin by 
completely agreeing with the Senator from Kansas. It is extremely 
unfortunate, to say the very least, that the majority party is so 
afraid of casting votes, they are now disallowing the most ordinary, 
sensible, germane amendments that transfer modest sums of money from 
one account to another account. I am not suggesting that everybody 
needs to agree with it. I am not sure I agree with the amendment of the 
Senator from Kansas. But the idea that an amendment such as that 
shouldn't even have an opportunity to be debated on the Senate floor is 
amazing.
  Let me address the amendment I have introduced. I will start by 
observing that the bill under consideration today significantly 
underfunds the Defense Department's operations and maintenance 
accounts. The Army's subset of this category of funding is underfunded 
by $2 billion. That is just the Army alone. This has implications for 
the safety and readiness of our troops. I am not suggesting that my 
amendment solves that whole problem--it doesn't, but it makes a modest 
step in the right direction.
  Just quickly, some of the things the operations and maintenance 
account funds--it is a lot. It is maintenance of ships and tanks and 
aircrafts. It is avionics and engines and navigation systems. It is 
artillery. It is all kinds of things our service men and women use to 
fight and to win and to protect themselves. It gets funded through the 
operations and maintenance account, and it is not only maintenance of 
this important equipment, it is also training--training such as unit 
training when an Army battalion, for instance, trains in an exercise 
against an opposition force that is modeled after a real-world 
potential enemy. That kind of training is very important. It gets 
funded out of this account, the operations and maintenance account, and 
that account is underfunded. So I would suggest that this is a very 
important account, and I think there is almost universal acknowledgment 
that it is being underfunded.
  Meanwhile, in the same bill, while we are underfunding our operations 
and maintenance account, we have a bill that would spend $60 million 
forcing the Defense Department to build biofuels refineries. This 
forces our Defense Department to build these expensive refineries to 
make very expensive fuel. How do we know it will be very expensive 
fuel? How many of us fill up our gas tanks with biofuels? The component 
we are forced to buy--the ethanol--is part of what drives up the cost 
of gasoline. The fact is that conventional fuel is much cheaper than 
these biofuels, but we are going to force the Defense Department to 
spend a whole lot of money building a refinery, the purpose of which is 
to produce extremely expensive and inefficient fuel. I would suggest 
that is a waste of precious resources we can't afford to waste.
  Now, the House Defense appropriations bill did not include this, and 
the Senate Armed Services Committee--these are our experts who analyze 
this--opposed wasting money this way when they reported the bill out of 
committee. Unfortunately, when it got to the floor, it got put in, and 
this is our opportunity to correct it.
  Now, some have suggested these biofuel refineries are somehow a 
solution to the expensive cost of moving fuel to combat zones. The only 
problem is this item is going to fund the construction of refineries in 
the United States. They are not going to be in combat zones. So that is 
just not true.
  I would suggest if anyone thinks this is a good idea--to force 
taxpayers to build expensive, inefficient refineries to produce very 
expensive fuel--shouldn't it at least happen through the Department of 
Energy or some other experimental research-oriented institution?
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
  Mr. TOOMEY. I will be happy to yield to the Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. I know something about this being the ranking member of 
the Armed Services Committee. We went through this.
  Is the Senator aware that in one purchase the administration--now, I 
am talking about the White House--forced the Navy to buy 450,000 
gallons of fuel at $29 a gallon? You can buy it on the open market for 
$3 a gallon.
  Secondly, I think the Senator does know this because I heard him 
mention the Department of Energy, when we formed the Department of 
Energy, they were supposed to do all this stuff.
  But I would have to make one observation. We have a President, an 
administration, that has been cutting dramatically, and we are all 
concerned about what has happened to our military, our ability to 
defend ourselves. They do it in three ways. No. 1, they cut; No. 2, 
they delay; but, No. 3--and this is what we are getting to now--they 
take the agenda, and in this case this green agenda, and put it not 
where it should be but under the defense budget. So for every dollar 
that goes to the green energy programs, the Senator and I would like--
since I am cosponsoring the Senator's amendment--every dollar is 
something we cannot spend for our fighters in the field.
  Mr. TOOMEY. Well, reclaiming my time, I completely agree with the 
Senator from Oklahoma. We already force our Defense Department to waste 
enormous amounts of money purchasing fuel that is much more expensive 
than readily available alternatives. I think that is a very bad idea. 
And I think it is a bad idea to do even more of that in the form of 
building these biofuel refinery plants that would further propagate 
this ill-conceived process.
  If you think it is somehow a good idea to do this then, as the 
Senator from Oklahoma suggests, wouldn't it make sense to at least do 
this in the Department of Energy rather than wasting precious Defense 
Department resources at a time when we know we are underfunding the 
operations and maintenance account? This is the reason for my 
amendment.
  My amendment transfers $60 million out of the biofuel refinery 
account in the Defense Department appropriations bill and moves money--
the amount permissible under the budget rules--into the operations and 
maintenance account. This is not a complete solution, I understand 
that, but it is a modest step in the right direction of providing a 
little bit more resources to an area that is badly underfunded.
  I urge my colleagues to support my amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Heinrich). The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I just would briefly say that I believe 
Senator Moran, Senator Ayotte, and maybe others have good amendments on 
which they are seeking to vote. I am aware that Senator Moran's 
amendment, I believe, has 28 cosponsors--a large number of Democratic 
cosponsors. Virtually no one seems to be opposed to it, but somehow a 
decision has been made by the majority leader to not let him have a 
vote.
  I believe we need to understand something very fundamental in the 
Senate, and we are heading to a crisis on this issue; that is, a duly 
elected Senator who serves in this body should be able to bring up an 
amendment that is reasonable, that is germane, and get a vote on it. It 
is amazing to me that it seems to be now accepted that the majority 
leader picks and chooses the people who get their amendments.
  I think the Moran amendment, from what I have seen and heard about 
it,

[[Page 4111]]

would pass. So it is not going to pass. It is going to fail because 
someone, presumably the leader, has decided they will not get a vote, 
and it has been killed in that fashion. That is not the tradition of 
the Senate. I am worried about that. We cannot continue that way.
  To our new Senators--Republicans and Democrats--you need to 
understand that as a Senator, you have a right to have votes that are 
legitimate on bills that are legitimately amended. That is where we 
are, and I am disappointed those votes have not been allowed.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator withhold his suggestion?
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I withhold my suggestion of the absence 
of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Mr. President, I rise today in vigorous opposition, 
and with very deep concern, to an amendment offered by the Senator from 
Oklahoma that would prohibit Urban Areas Security Initiative, or UASI, 
funds from being used to be able to pay local public safety employees 
overtime and backfill pay.
  I share the Senator's commitment to ensuring that homeland security 
funds are spent wisely. I believe his efforts are in good faith, and I 
am eager to work with him toward this goal. However, as the threat from 
al-Qaida has metastasized to the Arabian Peninsula and elsewhere, there 
are still terrorists whose objective is to inflict wide-scale harm to 
Americans on our homeland.
  New York City remains the No. 1 target for terrorists around the 
world who want to do us harm. Therefore, we must remain vigilant and 
continue to provide local law enforcement with all the tools necessary 
to keep us safe. So as well-intentioned as this amendment may be, law 
enforcement organizations across the country have been loud and clear: 
This is simply the wrong prescription at the wrong time.
  This amendment is opposed by a range of law enforcement and first 
responder organizations, including the International Association of 
Fire Chiefs, the International Association of Firefighters, Major 
Cities Chiefs Association, Major County Sheriffs' Association, the 
National Fusion Center Association, the National Homeland Security 
Coalition, and the U.S. Conference of Mayors.
  In fact, I have a letter from our Commissioner Kelly that I ask 
unanimous consent be printed in the Record, along with another letter.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                      The Police Commissioner,

                                     New York, NY, March 15, 2013.
     Hon. Thomas Coburn,
     Ranking Member, Senate Committee on Homeland Security and 
         Governmental Affairs, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Coburn: I am writing to express my concern 
     about an element of your proposed amendment, Number 69, to 
     the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act 
     for FY 2013. This amendment would prohibit Urban Areas 
     Security Initiative (UASI) grant funds from being used to pay 
     local public safety employees overtime and backfill. Such a 
     restriction would jeopardize our collective efforts to 
     safeguard New York City, which has been the target of 16 
     publicized terrorist plots since September 11, 2001.
       The New York City Police Department (NYPD) uses UASI 
     funding to pay for, among other things: overtime expenses 
     associated with members of the Joint Terrorist Task Force 
     working on major terrorism investigations with the FBI; and 
     backfill expenses incurred by sending members of the service 
     to critical counterterrorism training courses, including a 
     course on active shooter response, which they cannot attend 
     during their normal shifts because of regular job 
     responsibilities.
       At times of fiscal constraint, it is essential to direct 
     the limited homeland security grant funds available to the 
     programs that are most effective. Without a doubt, the 
     overtime and backfill funding that the NYPD uses to support 
     investigations, training, and deployments are essential to 
     the NYPD's layered approach to security. I appreciate your 
     attention to this matter and the Homeland Security 
     Committee's ongoing efforts to ensure that New York City will 
     continue to benefit from the most robust counterterrorism 
     program possible.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Raymond W. Kelly,
     Police Commissioner.
                                  ____

                                                   March 14, 2013.
     Hon. Barbara Mikulski,
     Chairwoman,
     Hon. Richard Shelby, 
     Ranking Member, Committee on Appropriations, U.S. Senate, 
         Washington, DC.
     Hon. Mary Landrieu,
     Chairwoman,
     Hon. Dan Coats, 
     Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Homeland Security, Committee 
         on Appropriations, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senators Mikulski, Shelby, Landrieu, and Coats: We are 
     writing on behalf of local elected officials, major city 
     police chiefs, sheriffs, intelligence professionals, and 
     major fire service organizations to express our strong 
     opposition to the Coburn amendment to the Consolidated and 
     Further Continuing Appropriations Act for FY 2013. This 
     amendment would prohibit, among other things, Urban Areas 
     Security Initiative (UASI) grant funds from being used to pay 
     local public safety employee overtime or backfill. Such a 
     restriction would overturn over a decade's worth of policy 
     and inhibit local security operations at high risk critical 
     infrastructure sites, major events, and along the border. The 
     amendment would also prevent first responders from training 
     and exercising to prevent or respond to terrorist attacks and 
     other major disasters.
       Urban areas use UASI grants to pay overtime to local 
     personnel to be operationally ready to respond to a potential 
     terrorist incident and to provide extra security in a 
     heightened threat environment, often based on federal 
     intelligence and at the request of federal officials. This 
     includes protecting critical infrastructure such as nuclear 
     power plants, chemical facilities, public arenas, and water 
     treatment plants during high threat periods.
       In addition to protecting critical infrastructure, UASI 
     funded overtime is often used to help pay local responders to 
     secure major events, including National Special Security 
     Events such as the G-8 summit, as well as border security 
     operations at both the northern and southern border. In these 
     high threat environments, additional local responders 
     coordinate with and support the Department of Homeland 
     Security, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and other 
     federal agency officials. This amendment would hamper this 
     federal, state and local coordination that is vitally 
     important to protecting our homeland.
       Prohibiting the use of UASI funds for employee overtime or 
     backfill pay would eliminate critical training and exercises 
     for many urban area first responders. The UASI grants enable 
     first responders, intelligence analysts, and emergency 
     managers to receive the latest training and test their 
     capabilities in exercises by paying for overtime and backfill 
     costs associated with attending the training and exercises. 
     Personnel who would be negatively impacted by a change to 
     this policy include fire fighters, public safety bomb squad 
     members, urban search and rescue team members, intelligence 
     analysts, special weapons and tactics (SWAT) team members, 
     and hazardous materials response team members, among others. 
     With so many public safety agencies short staffed, sending 
     personnel to training and exercises during overtime is often 
     the only option. Ending this ability will directly undermine 
     the Nation's readiness to prevent and respond to the next 
     major terrorist attack, hurricane, or cyber attack.
       If we can provide any further information, please contact 
     us through the National Homeland Security Coalition Chair Bob 
     Nations at (901) 222-6702 or [email protected].
           Sincerely,
         Congressional Fire Services Institute; International 
           Association of Fire Chiefs; International Association 
           of Fire Fighters; Major Cities Chiefs Association; 
           Major County Sheriffs' Association; National Fusion 
           Center Association; National Homeland Security 
           Coalition; The United States Conference of Mayors.


                            Amendment No. 26

  Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Under the leadership of New York City Police 
Commissioner Raymond Kelly, 16 publicly known terrorist attacks on our 
city have been thwarted since 9/11. Our local law enforcement must 
continue to have every tool available to them to remain one step ahead 
of terrorists at every single turn. Even at a time of fiscal restraint 
in Washington, protecting our families from the unimaginable should not 
be a place where we make cuts.
  According to Police Commissioner Kelly, this amendment would 
``jeopardize our collective efforts to safeguard New York City . . . '' 
and that ``without a doubt, the overtime and backfill funding that the 
NYPD uses to support investigations, training and deployments is 
essential to the NYPD's layered approach to security.''

[[Page 4112]]

  I ask my colleagues to stand with local law enforcement officials, to 
stand with the American public who have given us the duty to protect 
them. I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment because, if passed, this 
amendment will put the training and security deployments needed to keep 
us safe in jeopardy. These are not esoteric programs. We are talking 
about programs that include counterterrorism training, region-wide 
planning exercises designed to prepare emergency responses to large and 
catastrophic events, and boots-on-the-ground security measures, 
including heavy weapons training and intelligence sharing.
  These overtime funds actually reduce costs. If the NYPD needed to 
hire full-time officers or assign current full-time efforts to the 
specialized patrol and intelligence duties described, they could not 
afford to do so.
  So while I commend my colleagues for attempting to be good stewards 
of the taxpayers' money, these are cuts that our families cannot 
afford. We have a solemn duty to protect the American people. That 
should be our first priority in this body. I ask each and every Member 
of this body to ask themselves how history will judge them if we fail 
to live up to that duty.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to Coburn amendment 
No. 26 which deals----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is expired.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for an additional 
2 minutes to address this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to Coburn amendment 
No. 26. What it does is prevent certain types of funding to be given to 
UASI, which is the lifeblood of New York's antiterror programs. It has 
gotten rave reviews from people. The person in charge is Ray Kelly, who 
is very much in the mainstream, right in the center of our fight 
against terrorism, not only in New York but in the country.
  As you know, New York City has more than 100 police officers devoted 
exclusively to antiterrorism. They work very closely with FBI 
taskforces and others. Some of this amendment is befuddling. To say 
that UASI, our antiterror division of the New York City Police 
Department, could not buy computers, flat screens makes no sense.
  The Lower Manhattan Security Initiative is an antiterrorism computer 
system. It is one of the mainstays of preventing terror. How do we 
fight modern 21st century terrorism and say they cannot use computers. 
That makes no since whatsoever. Make no mistake, if this amendment 
passes, New York City training and security deployments would be in 
jeopardy.
  Another aspect is we often need to use overtime in our antiterrorism 
units. For instance, we have to guard bridges and tunnels, particularly 
when there are threats against them. To have officers constantly 
changing because of time commitments and time limitations makes no 
sense whatsoever.
  The bottom line is simply New York had a terrible tragedy on 9/11/
2001. America rallied to New York's side, of which we are very 
appreciative. One of the ways, one of the most material and important 
ways was this U.S. grant. It has been used well. It has received 
plaudits from around the country. To tie the hands of the very people 
who are leading the fight on terror and saying they can do this but not 
this, they can do this but not this, this is the kind of micromanaging 
for which I think most people in America resent Washington.
  I urge that this amendment be roundly defeated.
  I yield the floor.


                        Vote on Amendment No. 69

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
  Under the previous order, the question is on agreeing to Amendment 
No. 69 offered by the Senator from Oklahoma, Mr. Coburn.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a 
sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. 
Lautenberg) is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 48, nays 51, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 39 Leg.]

                                YEAS--48

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Baucus
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coats
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Donnelly
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Fischer
     Flake
     Graham
     Grassley
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (WI)
     Lee
     Manchin
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rubio
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Thune
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Wicker

                                NAYS--51

     Baldwin
     Begich
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Boxer
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Collins
     Coons
     Cowan
     Durbin
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Hagan
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Hirono
     Johnson (SD)
     Kaine
     King
     Kirk
     Klobuchar
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Lautenberg
       
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 48, the nays are 
51. Under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the adoption of 
this amendment, the amendment is rejected.


                            Amendment No. 93

  Under the previous order, there is 2 minutes of debate equally 
divided prior to a vote in relation to amendment No. 93 offered by the 
Senator from Oklahoma, Mr. Coburn.
  Who yields time?
  The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I would like to speak on the amendment, but 
I see the sponsor is here. If he has no objection, I will speak, then 
ask for a vote.
  The Coburn amendment proposes to reduce funding for 49 national 
heritage areas by $8 million and redirect $6 million to park 
operations. It also strikes the reauthorization of 12 areas located 
across the country, including one in my State of Rhode Island but also 
in Tennessee, South Carolina, and Georgia, among other States.
  The amendment doesn't provide a real fix for the problems with 
respect to national park funding. Moving $6 million is not going to 
make up for the $134 million cut we have had to impose upon the Park 
Service.
  In addition, there has been some suggestion this would help restore 
White House tours. Those tours are governed by the Secret Service 
budget, which is not part of this amendment. So that would not be 
affected.
  These heritage areas are private-public partnerships. They are not 
national parks. They provide huge economic development. They are 
located across the country. It is something we should restore, 
maintain, and not cut.
  With that, I would simply add the National Park Conservation 
Association opposes the amendment, and I ask my colleagues to oppose 
the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, the average age of the heritage areas in 
this bill is 16 years. If you look at the original authorization, none 
of them was supposed to get any Federal money now. As a matter of fact, 
the Senator's

[[Page 4113]]

heritage area has planned and raised the money for his area and had an 
alternative plan to do it.
  The fact is, the national parks will open with this amount of money 
on time this year, so it will make a big difference in Yellowstone and 
all the rest of the national parks. The National Park Service does have 
something to do with the White House tours because they can take this 
money and allocate that. It is not a Secret Service problem, it is a 
national park problem.
  I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. 
Lautenberg) is necessarily absent.
  The Acting PRESIDENT pro tempore. Are there any other Senators in the 
Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 45, nays 54, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 40 Leg.]

                                YEAS--45

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Baucus
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coats
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Enzi
     Fischer
     Flake
     Graham
     Hatch
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (WI)
     King
     Kirk
     Lee
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moran
     Paul
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rubio
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Thune
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Wicker

                                NAYS--54

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

                             NOT VOTING--1

     Lautenberg
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. On this vote, the yeas are 45 the 
nays are 54. Under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the 
adoption of this amendment, the amendment is rejected.
  The Senator from Maryland.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, what is the next regular order?


                  Amendment No. 65 to Amendment No. 26

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The next amendment is Coburn 
amendment No. 65.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, we have some good news. The good news is 
that the Senator and I have reached an agreement.
  There is an acceptable modification. I didn't know if the Senator 
wanted to speak on this amendment. May I continue.
  This amendment ensures that the NSF funding for political science 
research is widely used focusing on national security and economic 
interests. I, therefore, believe we can agree to this amendment with a 
voice vote.
  I ask unanimous consent that the 60-vote threshold be waived for this 
amendment.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Is there further debate?
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I request a voice vote.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on agreeing to the 
amendment.
  The amendment (No. 65) was agreed to.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider that vote.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


           Amendment No. 70, as Modified, to Amendment No. 26

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The next amendment is Coburn 
amendment No. 70, as modified.
  The Senator from Louisiana.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I am happy to tell our colleagues we 
have also worked this out and can take this by voice vote.
  I appreciate the cooperation of the Senator from Oklahoma. We have no 
objection to providing the reports to the committee which he has 
requested, reports to Homeland Security. However, many of these reports 
are expenditure plans, and all we ask is that the Appropriations 
Committee receive them 2 weeks in advance. The Senator has agreed to 
that, and we have no objection to taking this by voice vote.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I believe we can agree to this amendment with a voice 
vote, so I ask unanimous consent that the 60-vote threshold be waived 
for the amendment.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection? Without 
objection, it is so ordered.
  Is there further debate?
  If not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 70), as modified, was agreed to.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and to lay 
that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


           Amendment No. 72, as Modified, to Amendment No. 26

  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 72 and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report the 
amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Inhofe], for himself and 
     Mrs. Hagan, proposes an amendment numbered 72, as modified, 
     to amendment No. 26.

  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to waive the 
reading of the amendment.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To require the continuation of tuition assistance programs 
 for members of the Armed Forces for the remainder of fiscal year 2013)

       At the end of title VIII of division C, add the following:
       Sec. 8131. (a) Requirement To Continue Provision of Tuition 
     Assistance for Members of the Armed Forces.--The Secretaries 
     of the military departments shall carry out tuition 
     assistance programs for members of the Armed Forces during 
     the remainder of fiscal year 2013 using amounts specified in 
     subsection (b).
       (b) Amounts.--The minimum amount used by the Secretary of a 
     military department for tuition assistance for members of an 
     Armed Force under the jurisdiction of that Secretary pursuant 
     to subsection (a) shall be not less than--
       (1) the amount appropriated or otherwise made available by 
     this Act for tuition assistance programs for members of that 
     Armed Force, minus
       (2) an amount that is not more than the percentage of the 
     reduction required to the Operation and Maintenance account 
     for that Armed Force for fiscal year 2013 by the budget 
     sequester required by section 251A of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985.

  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I am perfectly willing and I know some of 
the Democratic sponsors of the bill, Senator Hagan and others, would be 
in agreement to go ahead and accept this by voice vote.
  What this does is reverse the decision from the Department of Defense 
that took away some of the abilities our troops, when they are brought 
into service, have in terms of subsidizing their tuition. So this would 
return it to the way it was before.
  I have to say quickly and briefly, this is something I have talked 
about to our troops in the field. Many of them were so alarmed that it 
was even suggested they would take away the very thing that caused them 
to enlist in the first place.
  I think this is one that is going to enjoy wide bipartisan support 
for a voice vote, and I ask for its adoption.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from North Carolina.
  Mrs. HAGAN. I would like to speak on this amendment. I think it is a 
very

[[Page 4114]]

good amendment. We have 100,000 servicemembers in our Active-Duty 
military who actually utilized this last year, and 50,000 of them 
received diplomas, certificates, and licenses. It truly does help 
prepare our servicemembers for a successful transition into the 
civilian workforce when they choose to leave the military.
  This is good news for a recruitment tool and it is good news as a 
retention tool and I think it is imperative that we continue to offer 
this tuition assistance benefit to our members.
  I certainly want to thank Senator Inhofe for working with me on this 
issue. I think it is a very good amendment. I also want to thank 
Senators Mikulski, Shelby, Durbin, and Cochran for helping us reach an 
agreement and move this amendment forward.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Maryland.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, thanks to the excellent work of both 
Senators Inhofe and Hagan, who reached an agreement on this, I believe 
we can agree to this amendment with another voice vote.
  I ask unanimous consent that all time be yielded back and that a 60-
vote threshold be waived for this amendment.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 72), as modified was agreed to.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and to lay 
that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


           Amendment No. 98, as Modified, to Amendment No. 26

  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I now call up the Mikulski-Shelby 
amendment No. 98, as modified.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Maryland [Ms. Mikulski], for herself and 
     Mr. Shelby, proposes an amendment numbered 98, as modified, 
     to amendment No. 26.

  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further 
reading be dispensed with.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 378, line 3, strike ``a grant for''.
       On page 580, line 22, strike ``0.092 percent'' and insert 
     ``0.1 percent''.
       On page 585, line 11, strike ``through C'' and insert 
     ``through F''.
       On page 586, line 16, strike ``division C'' and insert 
     ``division F''.

  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, this amendment makes technical changes 
to citations, bill language related to the Department of Homeland 
Security and an adjustment resulting from a CBO scoring.
  I believe we can agree to this amendment with a voice vote, so I ask 
unanimous consent that the 60-vote threshold be waived for the 
amendment. I want to thank Senator Shelby for the excellent work he and 
his staff have done in cleaning up this bill for the technical aspects.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 98), as modified, was agreed to.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and to lay 
that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


          Amendment No. 129, as Modified, to Amendment No. 26

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 129, as 
modified.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Vermont [Mr. Leahy], for himself, Ms. 
     Mikulski and Mr. Shelby, proposes an amendment numbered 129, 
     as modified.

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further 
reading be dispensed with.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       At the appropriate place, insert the following: 
     ``Notwithstanding section 1101, section 7054(b) in division I 
     of Public Law 112-74 shall be applied for purposes of this 
     division by inserting before the period in paragraph (2) `; 
     or (3) such assistance, license, sale, or transfer is for the 
     purpose of demilitarizing or disposing of such cluster 
     munitions'.''.

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, this is a technical correction amendment. 
Current law prohibits transfers of U.S. cluster munitions that do not 
meet certain reliability requirements.
  Years ago Japan purchased U.S. cluster munitions that do not meet 
such requirements, and that Japan now wants to dispose of. Japan has 
contracted with a company in Germany to do this. But transferring the 
cluster munitions to Germany violates the law.
  Section 1706(c) of the continuing resolution provides an exception to 
the prohibition on transfers if the purpose is to dispose of the 
cluster munitions.
  The Leahy amendment #129, which is supported by Senator Graham, fixes 
a minor drafting error. It is a purely technical amendment which does 
not affect the substance of section 1706(c).
  Mr. President, I suggest we dispose of this amendment by voice vote. 
It should not be controversial.
  I yield back all time.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Maryland.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, this too is an amendment I believe we 
can agree to with a voice vote. Again, I wish to thank Senator Leahy 
for the excellent job he did.
  I ask unanimous consent that all time be yielded back and the 60-vote 
threshold be waived for this amendment.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment, as modified.
  The amendment (No. 129), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and to lay 
that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore.
  The Senator from Arkansas.


                  Amendment No. 82 to Amendment No. 26

  Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 82.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report the 
amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Pryor] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 82 to amendment No. 26.

  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 84, between lines 3 and 4, insert the following:
       Sec. 74__.  Notwithstanding any other provision of this 
     Act--
       (1) the amount made available for buildings operations and 
     maintenance expenses in the matter before the first proviso 
     under the heading ``Agriculture Buildings and Facilities and 
     Rental Payments'' under the heading ``AGRICULTURAL PROGRAMS'' 
     in title I shall be $52,169,000;
       (2) the amount made available for necessary expenses to 
     carry out services authorized by the Federal Meat Inspection 
     Act, the Poultry Products Inspection Act, and the Egg 
     Products Inspection Act in the matter before the first 
     proviso under the heading ``Food Safety and Inspection 
     Service'' under the heading ``AGRICULTURAL PROGRAMS'' in 
     title I shall be $1,056,427,000; and
       (3) the amount made available to provide competitive grants 
     to State agencies in the second proviso under the heading 
     ``child nutrition programs'' under the heading ``Food and 
     Nutrition Service'' under the heading ``DOMESTIC FOOD 
     PROGRAMS'' in title IV shall be $10,000,000.

  Mr. PRYOR. I believe this has been basically agreed to by both sides. 
I do not think we will require a rollcall vote. I believe we can go by 
voice vote. I thank my cosponsors. We have had several Senators working 
on this: Senator Coons, Senator Carper, Senator Hoeven--I appreciate 
his great leadership--Senator Moran, who relented earlier and said he 
would not object to this, and also Senator Blunt. He has done a 
fantastic job of moving this through.

[[Page 4115]]

  This is about the Food Safety Inspection Service. Basically this has 
a very direct impact on the private sector. When these Food Safety 
Inspection Service employees are furloughed, that means basically the 
processing plant is furloughed. They have to close for the day because 
they have to have a food safety inspector there when they are 
producing.
  I think it is agreeable, and I ask unanimous consent, that we do it 
by voice vote. I thank all of my cosponsors.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 82) was agreed to.
  Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


               Amendment No. 115, As Modified, Withdrawn

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Durbin second-degree amendment to the Toomey amendment is withdrawn.
  There will be 2 minutes of debate on the Toomey amendment, as 
modified.
  The amendment, as modified, is as follows:

   (Purpose: To increase by $25,000,000 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)

       At the end of title VIII of division C, insert the 
     following:
       Sec. 8131. (a) Additional Amount for O&M for Activities in 
     CONUS.--The aggregate amount appropriated by title II of this 
     division for operation and maintenance is hereby increased by 
     $25,000,000, with the amount to be available, as determined 
     by the Secretary of Defense, for operation and maintenance 
     expenses of the Department of Defense in connection with 
     programs, projects, and activities in the continental United 
     States.
       (b) Offset.--The amount appropriated by title III of this 
     division under the heading ``Defense Production Act 
     Purchases'' is hereby decreased by $60,000,000, with the 
     amount of the reduction to be allocated to amounts available 
     under that heading for Advanced Drop in Biofuel Production.

  Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, I rise to make the case for this 
amendment. I think we all know that this bill funds the Defense 
Operations and Maintenance Account to a very large degree. This is a 
very important account from which we fund the maintenance of all kinds 
of military equipment, from trains to tanks to avionics--you name it, 
it gets funded from this account. So too does a whole lot of training 
come from this account.
  Meanwhile, we have $60 million going to build a biorefinery that 
would force the Defense Department to pay too much for fuel. This is 
about priorities, and it is my suggestion and my amendment to take $60 
million out of this account that would force us to build an 
inefficient, expensive refinery to make too-expensive fuel and transfer 
it into this Operations and Maintenance Account that we need.
  I appreciate the support of the ranking member of the Armed Services 
Committee for this amendment, Senator Inhofe, and I urge my colleagues 
to vote in its favor.
  I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I know Senator Udall wanted to speak against the Toomey 
amendment. In his absence, I will comment on the Toomey amendment. I 
believe the Senator proposes to cut $60 million from the Advanced Drop-
In Biofuels Production Program. He would move $25 million from these 
funds to the Operations and Maintenance Account. The Department of 
Defense recognizes that its dependence on foreign oil supplies presents 
a real risk to its ability to operate around the world. I agree. As the 
largest single customer of oil in the world, DOD spent $17 billion in 
fiscal 2011 on oil. DOD estimates that for every 25-cent increase in 
the price of a gallon of oil we incur over $1 billion in fuel costs. 
Every time oil prices go up, so does the cost of running the Department 
of Defense. Imagine if our military were cut off from these supplies.
  The Senate has made it clear that there is support for biofuels. The 
Senate has voted twice in support of the Department of Defense biofuels 
program during floor consideration of the Armed Services Committee 
Defense bill. The funds appropriated for this project are available 
until expended. When the Departments of Energy and Agriculture are able 
to meet their obligations to fund this program, as required by the 
National Defense Act, the Department of Defense will have their funds 
ready. The Toomey amendment would cut a modest investment to provide 
security alternatives to petroleum dependence.
  I urge the defeat of the amendment.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, this amendment could have a profound impact 
on our Nation's energy security by reducing funding for efforts that 
support finding clean energy replacements for oil.
  High oil prices and tensions in the Middle East could not present a 
better national security case for moving quickly away from our 
military's overwhelming dependence on oil, especially as currently 
supplied to critical operations and facilities in the Middle East, the 
Pacific, the Indian Ocean, and elsewhere. The military's dependence on 
oil is one of its most significant vulnerabilities; as a recent Army 
release noted, our Nation loses one soldier for every 20 convoys 
transiting through Afghanistan; fuel comprises 50 percent of the load 
carried by these convoys.
  Last year, the Department of Defense used 4.3 billion gallons of 
petroleum, and spent about $20 billion on fuel. I encourage the 
Department of Defense to continue to support efforts that will lower 
the risks and future costs to our armed forces by supporting 
technologies like solar energy at forward operating bases, the 
production and procurement of advanced biofuels and other clean 
alternative fuels, and improved energy performance of materials to 
lighten and improve the capability, load, and endurance of our troops.
  I will continue to do everything that I can to help move the Nation 
toward a safer, cleaner, and more secure energy future.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on agreeing to 
amendment No. 115, as modified.
  The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. 
Lautenberg), is necessarily absent.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Are there any other Senators in the 
Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 40, nays 59, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 41 Leg.]

                                YEAS--40

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Boozman
     Burr
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Coats
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Enzi
     Flake
     Graham
     Hatch
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johnson (WI)
     Kirk
     Lee
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moran
     Paul
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rubio
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Thune
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Wicker

                                NAYS--59

     Baldwin
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     Boxer
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Collins
     Coons
     Cowan
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Fischer
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Grassley
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Hirono
     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
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Lautenberg
       
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order requiring 
60 votes for the adoption of this amendment, the amendment is rejected.

[[Page 4116]]




                        Vote on Amendment No. 26

  Under the previous order, there will be 2 minutes of debate prior to 
a vote on the Mikulski-Shelby substitute amendment.
  The Senator from Maryland.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, before I speak and have time counted 
against me, the Senate is not in order.
  We are now coming to the last three votes.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senate will be in order.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, we have three more votes. The first vote 
is on the Mikulski-Shelby substitute amendment. This is the bill we 
have been working on now for 8 days. After that, we will have a vote on 
cloture, and then we will go to final passage. If we could just have 
the Senators' attention and if they could stay nearby, we can finish 
this expeditiously.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senate will be in order.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I now speak on the Mikulski-Shelby 
substitute amendment, which is pending.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan continuing 
resolution. It accomplishes many things. First, when we pass this, we 
will avoid a government shutdown, but we do better than that--we will 
protect our national security needs, meet compelling human needs, and 
lay the groundwork for investing in science and technology. Second, we 
complied with the Budget Control Act--costing no more than $1 
trillion--and it is bipartisan.
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. 
Lautenberg) is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brown). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 70, nays 29, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 42 Leg.]

                                YEAS--70

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

                                NAYS--29

     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Burr
     Coats
     Coburn
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Enzi
     Fischer
     Flake
     Graham
     Grassley
     Heller
     Inhofe
     Johnson (WI)
     Kirk
     Lee
     McCain
     Moran
     Paul
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rubio
     Scott
     Sessions
     Tester
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Wicker

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Lautenberg
       
  The amendment (No. 26), as modified, as amended, was agreed to.


                             Cloture Motion

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will be 2 
minutes of debate prior to a vote on the motion to invoke cloture on 
H.R. 933.
  The senior Senator from Alabama is recognized.
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, we have just voted, as everybody knows, on 
the Mikulski-Shelby substitute. Our next vote is a cloture vote. Then, 
assuming cloture is invoked, we will have final passage. It is my 
understanding that the House is waiting on this bill. I hope we can get 
it to them as quickly as we can.
  I yield back the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The senior Senator from Maryland is 
recognized.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I just want to echo the comments by my 
vice chairman, Senator Shelby. It is time to bring this bill to 
closure, and I would hope we could pass it. I really want to thank 
Senator Shelby for the bipartisan tradition in which we have been able 
to operate, and I hope we get a 60-vote majority and move this bill and 
this country forward.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
  Pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays before the Senate the pending 
cloture motion, which the clerk will state.
  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 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, Johb 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 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 clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. 
Lautenberg) is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 63, nays 36, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 43 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--36

     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coats
     Coburn
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Enzi
     Fischer
     Flake
     Graham
     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--1

       
     Lautenberg
       
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 63, the nays are 
36. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in 
the affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
  Under the previous order, all postcloture time is yielded back. Under 
the previous order, there will be 2 minutes of debate prior to a vote 
on passage of H.R. 933, as amended.
  The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Following the statements of Senator Mikulski and Senator 
Shelby, I would ask to be recognized.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, we are now coming to a vote on final 
passage of the bill. I am going to thank all of our colleagues who 
supported cloture to bring the debate to an end. This

[[Page 4117]]

is indeed a very important moment, because as we moved the bill, we 
have shown that we have done something pretty terrific in that we have 
continued a bipartisan tradition of the Appropriations Committee.
  I cannot thank my vice chairman, Senator Shelby, and his staff enough 
for their cooperation, as well as the Republican leader and the 
Democratic leader, often giving very wise counsel. We had three 
principles in this Senate continuing resolution: The House sent us a 
bill which we felt was skimpy and spartan. We wanted to not only avoid 
a government shutdown--remember, the full funding of the U.S. 
Government expires on March 27; we did not want brinkmanship politics; 
we did not want ultimatum politics. We wanted to be able to move our 
bill forward protecting national security needs and meeting compelling 
human needs and complying with the Budget Control Act. This bill will 
cost no more than 1.3 trillion, the same as the House continuing 
resolution. It does meet the needs of our constituents.
  This bill is co-sponsored by my Vice Chairman, Senator Shelby, and I 
am so glad he is my partner. We have worked across the aisle and across 
the dome to improve the House bill, while at the same time we have kept 
poison pills out of the bill, in order to prevent a government 
shutdown.
  When we began this process, I had three principles for the Senate CR. 
First, avoid a government shutdown, while protecting national security 
needs and also meeting compelling human needs, such as investing in 
human infrastructure like early childhood education and in research and 
innovation, so that we can create jobs today and jobs tomorrow. Not 
shutting down the government allows us to protect the middle class and 
our fragile economic recovery. Second, comply with the Budget Control 
Act. The Senate CR provides $1.043 trillion, the same as the House CR. 
Third, establish a path to return to regular order for our fiscal year 
2014 bills.
  This bill meets all three of these principles. We will avoid a 
shutdown. We are at $1.043 trillion in total budget authority, as 
required by the Budget Control Act. We have shown that we can work in a 
bipartisan manner, to move this bill to final passage.
  The bill we will vote on today is five full appropriations bills: 
Agriculture; Commerce, Justice, Science; Homeland Security; Defense; 
and Military Construction and Veterans Affairs.
  The remaining seven bills are in the CR: Energy and Water; Financial 
Services; Interior and Environment; Labor-HHS; State-Foreign 
Operations; Transportation-HUD; and the Legislative Branch. This means 
they are provided current funding levels and policies, with some 
limited changes to fix pressing problems.
  This bill has been on the Senate floor for a week. The Senate has 
debated and voted on amendments to eliminate funding for the Affordable 
Care Act, cut defense funding for projects in Guam, and cut funding for 
defense biofuels programs, among others. This afternoon, we accepted a 
number of amendments by voice vote, again, in a very bipartisan 
fashion.
  I will be the first to admit that this bill is not perfect, but it is 
the bill that we need right now. I wanted an omnibus to provide 
complete bills for all the departments and agencies of the government, 
and not just some. I regret that the bill could not include a \1/2\ 
percent pay raise for Federal workers, who now face a third year 
without a pay increase.
  This bipartisan bill keeps Americans safe in their communities. The 
Senate bill provides more than the House CR for State and local first 
responder grants, providing a $208 million increase above the House CR, 
and for fire grants, providing a $33 million increase above the House 
CR. The Senate provides more for COPS grants, an $18 million increase 
above the House CR, to put a total of 1,400 new police officers on the 
beat.
  When it comes to infrastructure, this bipartisan bill fully funds 
highways, transit, and road safety programs at the authorized levels, a 
difference of almost $700 million above the House CR.
  This bipartisan bill also supports the innovation needed to grow the 
economy and to create jobs today and tomorrow. The Senate bill includes 
$174 million more than the House CR for National Science Foundation 
basic research. That means 400 more grants supporting 5,000 scientists, 
teachers, students, all of them focused on making new discoveries 
leading to new products, new companies, and new jobs. For the National 
Institutes of Health, the Senate contains $75 million more than the 
House CR for research on cancer, Alzheimer's, diabetes, and other 
devastating diseases
  The Senate bill meets compelling human needs. It includes $33.5 
million more than the House CR for Head Start, to help them to 
implement reforms and improve quality. The Senate bill includes $250 
million more than the House CR for the Women, Infants and Children, a 
program that provides basic nutrition support for low-income mothers 
and their children. For homeless assistance grants, the Senate bill 
contains $147 million more than the House CR for shelter and housing 
support for 28,000 more homeless people.
  This legislation will put us on the road to a return to regular order 
for our appropriations bills. I am so proud that we have reached across 
the aisle and across the dome to come to a bipartisan solution to 
funding the government for the next 6 months. I thank my Vice Chairman, 
Senator Shelby, for his support, in making this possible.
  As we start our work on fiscal year 2014 bills, this process should 
serve as a model, showing that the Congress can get its work done, and 
can exercise the power of the purse in a bipartisan way.
  My vice chairman and I have worked very hard to get to this point to 
provide a bill that Democrats and Republicans can support. I hope they 
will join with us to vote for final passage of the Senate CR, and 
return it to the House, so it can be considered and sent to the 
President for his signature.
  I urge adoption of this bill and thank everyone for their 
cooperation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SHELBY. We know we are ready to vote. I urge everyone to support 
this bill. It needs to go to the House. The House, I think, is ready to 
act on it. This will fund the government through September 30. It is 
the first big step toward regular order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, the week before last, the House of 
Representatives sent us this important bill to prevent a government 
shutdown, to fund the government for the next 6 months. I have said it 
before, I say it again: I commend Speaker Boehner for giving this bill 
to us at a time where we could do some constructive work on it. The 
House did their work on time. We are going to do our work on time.
  I applaud and commend my counterpart, Senator McConnell. When that 
bill came from the House, he sat down with me and the two managers of 
this bill. He said: The House did their work, now we need to do ours. 
We could not do all the remaining 10 appropriations bills, but we added 
three. That was good. It would not have happened but for Senator 
McConnell acknowledging that we needed to get some of this work done. 
It could not have happened even though Senator McConnell and I thought 
it was a good idea but for the work of Senator Mikulski and Senator 
Shelby. They are veteran legislators. They are people who believe in 
this institution. They know this institution needs to get back where we 
are doing things the way we used to. The way we used to do things was 
fund the government in a timely fashion. We have the opportunity to do 
that now. We are taking care of the next 6 months.
  During this 6 months, the government will be functioning because of 
what we have done here. They will work on having 12 appropriations 
bills that we will bring to the floor. Everyone should know we are not 
going to be able to spend a week on every appropriations bill, but we 
need to do all 12 appropriations bills. That is our goal. It is the 
goal of the two managers of this bill, it is the goal of the Republican 
leader, and it is my goal. We need to do this.

[[Page 4118]]

  I so appreciate--I say it again--the work done by the two managers of 
this bill. They worked in good faith. They both gave up things they 
believed in for the greater good. They produced a substitute amendment. 
We had added a few things to it. I know people are disappointed because 
they wanted to rearrange things differently. I would like to have 
rearranged things differently. There are things that are happening in 
Nevada because of the sequester that I would like to have taken out of 
this bill. They are not good things that are happening either.
  I hope this practical, commonsense leadership will be a good sign for 
our regular appropriations bills and other work in the future. The work 
done by these two managers should be and is exemplary for what needs to 
follow. And what is going to follow immediately is our budget. We are 
going to have a budget debate. It is going to be a good debate.
  We have two differently opposed views as to what should happen to 
this country economically. But that is what the Senate is all about, to 
allow us to do that. So I say to Senator Murray--everyone has heard me 
talk about how good she is, and I really do believe that--I hope she 
and Senator Sessions are looking at what was done by these two 
Senators. Senator Mikulski and Senator Shelby have totally different 
views about how government should operate, but they also have views as 
to how the legislative process should operate. Legislation is the art 
of compromise. Everybody here has to understand, you are not going to 
get everything you want. You cannot throw a monkey wrench into 
everything just because you do not get what you want on one issue.
  We are going to move to the budget. There will be no votes tonight. 
We have a lot of debate time on this bill, and the two managers are 
going to determine when the votes will start.
  Again, this is a very good day for the Senate. I am very happy we 
reached this point.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading and was read 
the third time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the bill having been 
read the third time, the question is, Shall the bill pass?
  Mr. REID. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. 
Lautenberg) is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 73, nays 26, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 44 Leg.]

                                YEAS--73

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

                                NAYS--26

     Ayotte
     Burr
     Coburn
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Enzi
     Fischer
     Flake
     Graham
     Grassley
     Heller
     Inhofe
     Johnson (WI)
     Kirk
     Lee
     McCain
     Moran
     Paul
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rubio
     Scott
     Tester
     Toomey
     Vitter

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Lautenberg
       
  The bill (H.R. 933), as amended, was passed.
  (The bill will be printed in a future edition of the Record).
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. SHELBY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, this is an enormous victory--that we 
just passed this bill and are now sending it to the House. Again, I 
wish to thank everyone.
  I also wish to say that today is exactly 90 days since I took over 
the full Committee on Appropriations. During these 90 days, with 
Senator Shelby and his staff and the help and support of many people on 
both sides of the aisle, we were able to pass the Sandy urgent 
supplemental and we were able to pass the continuing funding 
resolution. This is pretty good. It shows we can work on a bipartisan 
basis; that we can actually govern and that we can conduct ourselves 
with decorum.
  I think for all, as they watched the debate that occurred during this 
last week, they saw civility, they saw sensibility, they saw, yes, 
differing ideas, but at the end of the day, I think we all agreed on 
our goal--we want to keep America moving. So I am glad we have moved 
this bill to the House and we are going to keep our government 
functioning and keep America moving forward.
  Again, I wish to thank everyone for what they have done, and I look 
forward to moving the other 12 appropriations bills on a regular basis, 
working, again, on a bipartisan basis across the aisle and across the 
dome.
  I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________