[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 159 (2013), Part 8]
[SENA]
[Pages 12014-12023]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




  TRANSPORTATION, HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES 
              APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2014--MOTION TO PROCEED

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I now move to proceed to Calendar No. 99, 
which is the Transportation appropriations bill.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report the bill by title.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       Motion to proceed to Calendar No. 99, S. 1243, a bill 
     making appropriations for the Departments of Transportation, 
     and Housing and Urban Development, and related agencies for 
     the fiscal year ending September 30, 2014, and for other 
     purposes.


                                Schedule

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, following my remarks and those of the 
Republican leader, the time until noon will be equally divided and 
controlled. At noon there will be a cloture vote on the motion to 
proceed to S. 1243. If cloture is invoked, all postcloture time will be 
yielded back and we will vote on adoption of the motion to proceed. I 
hope that will be a voice vote and we can begin consideration of the 
bill immediately following the vote at noon.
  The Senate will recess from 12:30 until 2:15 p.m. today for our 
weekly caucus meetings.


                           Order of Procedure

  I ask unanimous consent that Senator Chiesa be recognized at 2:15 
p.m. today for up to 15 minutes to deliver his maiden speech.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Markey). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. REID. I am so happy to see the Presiding Officer. The Senator 
might have presided before but I haven't been able to witness that. So 
I am very happy to have the Senator here. We are so fortunate to have 
him here with his wide-ranging experience as a Member of Congress. My 
time in the House was some of the most pleasant times of my career. I 
so admire and respect the House of Representatives. And for the 
Presiding Officer to have spent almost four decades there indicates the 
people of Massachusetts will have someone here who will immediately hit 
the ground running, and we are very happy to have the Senator with us. 
We have the committee the Senator wanted, and with the wide experience 
he has had in the areas of his choice, he will be a great benefit to 
Massachusetts and our country.
  Today the Senate will begin work on the Transportation, Housing and 
Urban Development bill. It is a bipartisan measure that received six 
Republican votes coming out of the full committee. This legislation 
will strengthen our economy by investing in roadways, railways, 
airports, bridges, and more. I applaud the full committee chair Barbara 
Mikulski for her good work and being so excited about bringing forth 
the appropriations bills, and long-time member of the Appropriations 
Committee chairwoman Patty Murray. She is chair of the subcommittee 
that will be working on that for the next few days. I appreciate their 
diligence and their bipartisan work on this measure.
  The Transportation, Housing appropriations bill has always been a 
bipartisan bill. As we speak, we have 70,000 bridges in this country in 
need of major repair. We have bridges in America today where 
schoolbuses unload their children before going over the bridge. We have 
bridges that are in need of extensive repair and some that need to be 
replaced completely. One of every five miles of American roads is not 
up to safety standards, so it is easy to see why this bipartisan effort 
to upgrade America's crumbling infrastructure is so important. Our 
deficient roads, bridges, railways, and runways are a drag on our 
economy.
  But this crisis is also an opportunity--an opportunity--to create 
jobs by rebuilding America, which needs replenishing, restoring, and 
rebuilding. This bill will make traveling safer and more efficient for 
American families and businesses.
  We get so upset when we are on roads and freeways that are jammed and 
we think how inconvenient it is for us. Think how inconvenient it is 
for one of those trucks that is carrying products to be delivered and 
sold, how much it is costing each of us in our individual vehicles, and 
how it is costing us more every minute that truck is stopped in a road 
because of heavy traffic. It is more expensive than virtually 
everything we do in America. We have to do a better job on our 
crumbling infrastructure. This bill will make traveling safer, as I 
indicated, and more efficient.
  The Senate bill also makes crucial investments in affordable housing 
programs that assist low-income families in need. This legislation is 
an important step toward eliminating homelessness, especially among 
America's veterans.
  By contrast, the very partisan companion bill from the House that 
they passed puts affordable housing out of reach for most everyone. 
Many who are out of reach of getting help are the elderly or disabled.
  The House bill also slashes investments on new roads and bridges, and 
makes deep cuts to the Federal aviation efforts to modernize our air 
traffic control system. The Senate bill is a bipartisan blueprint, 
investing in modern infrastructure and creating new jobs while 
maintaining a vital social safety net. House Republicans obviously have 
a totally different version. They are jamming things through there on a 
totally partisan basis.
  On Sunday, John Boehner, Speaker of the House, said Congress should 
not be judged by how many bills it passes but by how many laws it 
repeals. If that is true, House Republicans are failing even by their 
own measure. They have replaced virtually nothing. So by the Speaker's 
own admission they are not getting anything passed, and by his own 
analysis they are getting nothing repealed. So they are doing nothing. 
We have known that, but it is unusual for the Speaker to acknowledge 
that on the Sunday shows.
  If my Republican colleagues are looking for a law to repeal, I would 
suggest they take a look at the shortsighted and mean-spirited 
sequester

[[Page 12015]]

law. Democrats are happy to help them roll back these arbitrary cuts--
these meat axe cuts--which threaten national security as well as the 
economy.
  In the news today, there was a briefing by the Secretary of Defense 
talking about how senseless the cuts are to the Defense Department. 
They are done with a meat axe, as I said. So we need to roll back these 
arbitrary cuts--not only to the military but to all of government.
  Unless Democrats and Republicans work out a bipartisan solution that 
replaces the sequester, crucial investments in everything from early 
childhood to medical research to military readiness will be in 
jeopardy. They are already in jeopardy.
  It has been 122 days since the Senate passed its budget, but Senate 
Republicans still refuse to let Democrats, led by Budget Committee 
chair Patty Murray, negotiate a budget compromise with our House 
Republican colleagues. Senator Murray and others have been to the floor 
numerous times. We have had Republicans come here to the floor and say 
how foolish it is not to be able to go to conference. We have not given 
up on reversing the sequester and setting sound fiscal policy through 
regular order in the budget process. We know Democrats and Republicans 
will never find common ground if we never start negotiating. That is 
what Senator Murray has said many times.
  Sequester will cost us investments in education which helps keep 
America competitive and will cost millions of seniors, children, and 
needy families the safety net that keeps them from descending into 
poverty. Because of drastic cuts to the National Institutes of Health, 
sequester could also cost the country in humankind, in a cure for AIDS, 
Parkinson's disease, or Alzheimer's.
  Congress can stop these devastating cuts to crucial medical research 
and programs that protect low-income children. All they need to do is 
work with us. We can't do it alone. We need the Republicans' help. The 
cost of reducing the deficit with a meat axe today is missing out on 
the next polio vaccine tomorrow, and the price is simply way too high.


                   Recognition of the Minority Leader

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican leader is recognized.


                        Welcoming Senator Markey

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I too want to welcome the new Senator 
from Massachusetts to the Senate. He will find presiding over the 
Senate an enlightening experience. And if tradition is followed, he 
will get to do it a lot.


                               The Pivot

  There are many overused expressions here in Washington. Game changer 
comes to mind. But I think the worst may be the so-called pivot. I say 
this not just because it is used too much to mean anything, but also 
because it is a troubling frame of mind.
  I mean, the idea that the White House can pivot to jobs for a day or 
two and then abandon it for a few weeks or months and then pivot back 
again for a couple of days epitomizes the attitude that turns people 
off from politics. It is the notion that job creation is somehow more 
about scoring points at convenient moments than doing what is necessary 
to get Americans back to work. This is the kind of thing that angers 
folks in Kentucky and across the country, but it seems to be the only 
thing this administration and its allies in Congress are ever 
interested in because here is the thing. Not only should we be focused 
on jobs day in and day out around here, as Senate Republicans have been 
all along, but it is also not as though we don't know what is needed to 
get our economy back on track. It is not as though we don't know how to 
get the private sector moving again and creating jobs.
  We don't need to pivot. We need to do the things that have been 
staring us in the face for the past 4\1/2\ years. If Washington 
Democrats are serious about turning the economy around, they would be 
working collaboratively with Republicans to do that instead of sitting 
on the sidelines and waiting to take cues from the endless political 
road shows the President puts up whenever he feels like changing a 
topic.
  I mean, there are some pretty obvious things we should be spending 
our time on around here--things such as implementing a revenue-neutral 
reform of our Tax Code to make it fairer, flatter, and more conducive 
to the kind of economic growth that can generate the type of stable 
middle-class jobs we desperately need, things such as reimagining a 
regulatory state that was designed in the 20th century so that American 
companies and workers can remain competitive in the 21st. The 
regulatory state we have now is entirely geared toward the past, not 
the present and the future--things such as developing and refining more 
energy right here at home, instead of importing it from overseas.
  But Washington Democrats haven't worked with us to do almost any of 
that. Instead, they have mostly given us higher taxes, an endless 
stream of regulations, and an unwillingness to pursue commonsense 
energy projects that could put more Americans to work right now.
  They have given us a stimulus that ballooned the debt, maddeningly 
complex regulations that failed to solve too big to fail, and made 
bailouts the official law of the land. And they gave us a 2,700-page 
health care law that almost no one read, with a tower of at least 
20,000 pages of accompanying regulations and redtape that almost no one 
can understand.
  It is no wonder so many Americans remain out of work, with 54 months 
of unemployment at or above 7.5 percent. In Kentucky, the rate is, 
regrettably, even higher.
  Meanwhile, Washington Democrats have been pivoting back and forth, 
back and forth. In fact, they pivot so much these days that they often 
don't seem to know what to do with themselves when there is an actual 
policy issue to be solved--an issue where you would assume many 
Republicans and Democrats would normally agree. Take the student loan 
issue. Right now the unemployment rate for 20- to 24-year-olds is about 
13.5 percent.
  For teens it is even worse--about 24 percent. The youth of our 
country are struggling. Yet, with that backdrop, Senate Democrats still 
continue to fight with each other over the student loan bill 23 days 
after the deadline they themselves warned us about.
  Congressional Republicans and President Obama have actually been more 
or less on the same page on this issue from the very start. We have 
agreed on the need to pursue permanent reform for all students, not 
just a short-term political fix for some of them. Still, Senate 
Democrats persisted with show votes on a bill that always seemed more 
about politics than policy--wasting precious time. Then, with the July 
1 deadline blowing past, they started bickering among themselves about 
the way forward and continue to do so, apparently, even now. They need 
to stop. Democrats need to finally allow the bipartisan student loan 
reform proposal to come to a vote this week so we can pass it and 
ensure there is one less Washington-created problem for young people to 
worry about in this economy because it is tough enough out there for 
them already.
  The Obama economy has not been kind to the youth of our Nation. I 
hope the White House and Senate Democrats will help us change that 
because this persistently high unemployment is simply not acceptable, 
and neither is pretending it can be changed by simply executing another 
pivot or delivering another campaign-style speech or just spending more 
taxpayer money because Washington Democrats have tried all that before, 
over and over, and, in fact, it is just not working.
  I yield the floor.


                       Reservation of Leader Time

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the leadership time 
is reserved.
  Under the previous order, the time until 12 noon will be equally 
divided between the two leaders or their designees, with Senators 
permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I suggest the absence a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.

[[Page 12016]]


  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                             Student Loans

  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I rise this morning in strong opposition 
to the legislation which I assume is coming to the floor today which, 
if passed, would be a disaster for the young people of our country who 
are looking forward to going to college and for their parents who are 
helping them pay their bills. Our job is to improve the dismal 
situation in terms of college affordability and the indebtedness of 
young people in this country, to improve that situation, to make it 
better, not to make it worse, and that is exactly what this proposed 
legislation would do.
  I ask for support from my colleagues for an amendment I have filed 
that would provide a 2-year sunset to this bill, an approach that would 
prevent student interest rates from soaring and allow us the time, 
through the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act, to deal with 
this problem through a constructive long-term solution. This issue is 
too important to be rushed through this body without hearings, without 
listening to the people who will be affected by this bill--the millions 
of young people who wish to go to college, who do not want to leave 
school in deep debt, and their parents as well. We should be listening 
to them, not rushing this bill through today.
  I thank Senators Leahy, Whitehouse, Gillibrand, and Schatz for their 
cosponsorship of this amendment. I look forward to widespread support 
from my colleagues.
  Let's be honest about something we do not talk about enough; that is, 
in many ways our government is selling out the young people of our 
country. When we do that, when we ignore the needs of the young people 
of our country, in many ways we are selling out the future of the 
United States of America because the young people are the future.
  If we do not turn this around, I fear very much that we will continue 
on the downward spiral we have seen for the last several decades, a 
spiral in which the rich get richer, Wall Street and the multinational 
corporations continue to enjoy recordbreaking profits, while the middle 
class continues to disappear and poverty remains catastrophically high. 
If we pass the legislation on the floor today without improving it, we 
will simply be taking one more step in the wrong direction.
  Before I get into the gist of what this legislation is about and what 
my amendment will do, let me say a few words about where we are today 
with regard to the young people in our country.
  At this moment the United States has, by far, the highest rate of 
childhood poverty of any major country on Earth--almost 22 percent. In 
many parts of this country we are seeing a lack of social mobility, 
where people who are poor, who grow up poor, stay poor. That is not 
what this country is supposed to be about.
  At this moment the childcare situation in this country is beyond 
disgraceful. Millions of working families are unable to find affordable 
quality childcare, and many of our young people enter kindergarten and 
first grade years behind where they should be, both intellectually and 
emotionally.
  At this moment the unemployment rate for high school graduates is 
close to 20 percent. That is the official rate. The real rate, 
including those who are working part time and those who have given up 
looking for work, is actually much higher. If you can believe this--and 
this is a statistic that should frighten us all; it should make us all 
ashamed--the official unemployment rate for Black youth age 16 to 19 is 
43.6 percent.
  I share the concerns many people have recently expressed about the 
tragic death in Florida of Trayvon Martin. But let's not forget that 
there are tens of thousands of other young African-American kids all 
over this country who are worried about where they are going to go with 
their lives. As the Bureau of Justice Statistics informs us, one out of 
three African-American men can expect to go to prison during his 
lifetime. What a horrible waste of human potential.
  Our goal must be to see that these young people are ending up in 
college or in decent jobs--not in jail, not dying from drug overdoses, 
not involved in petty crime or self-destructive activities. This 
legislation will simply make it harder for those kids and for all kids 
to get the higher education they need in order to succeed in life.
  Right now, today, hundreds of thousands of young people in this 
country who have the ability to go to college are looking at the cost 
of college, the indebtedness they will incur, and they are saying: No, 
I am not going to go to college.
  What does that say about the future of this country?
  This legislation, which over a period of years will drive interest 
rates even higher than they are today, will make it harder for the 
average kid, the working-class kid to get to college. All of us know we 
live in a very competitive global economy. If we are going to succeed 
as a nation in this competitive economy, we need the best educated 
workforce in the world. Unfortunately, compared to the rest of the 
world, we are doing virtually nothing to make that happen.
  In June the OECD--the Organization for Economic Cooperation and 
Development--released its annual snapshot on the state of education in 
developed nations. The report showed that the United States is losing 
ground to other countries that have made sustained commitments in 
funding higher education opportunities. We are losing ground, and the 
legislation on the floor today--again, over a period of years raising 
interest rates extremely high--will make that bad situation even worse.
  The United States once led the world in college graduates. As a 
result, interestingly enough, older Americans--those between age 55 and 
64--still lead their peers in other nations around the world in the 
percentage with college degrees, which is 41 percent. But, according to 
a very thoughtful report from CNN, this number over the years has 
flatlined. In 2008--and this is a very sad story indeed--the same 
percentage of Americans age 25 to 34 and age 55 to 64 were college 
graduates. In other words, in that 30-year period we made no progress 
at all. During that period, as we all know, with the explosion of 
technology, what we have said to our young people is, you desperately 
need a college education. Yet, in terms of percentage of our people 
with college degrees, we are exactly where we were 30 years ago. 
Meanwhile, other countries all over the world have significantly 
surpassed us in terms of the number of people in those countries who 
are college graduates. In fact, right now, where once we were first in 
the world in terms of the percentage of our people who are college 
graduates, today we are 15th in the world.
  Many people do not understand that today the U.S. Government is 
making huge profits off of higher education and the loans we are 
providing to our young people and to their parents. In fact, the 
estimate is that we will make about $184 billion in profits over the 
next 10 years. To my mind, making huge profits off of young people and 
their families who want nothing more than to fulfill the American dream 
of being able to go to college or graduate school and get out and earn 
a decent wage and make it into the middle class is obscene. We should 
not be profiteering off working families who are trying to send their 
kids to college. Yet, with the current legislation that will be on the 
floor, over a 10-year period we will be making $184 billion in profit.
  Some people say: We have a deficit. We need to go forward with 
deficit reduction. This will help us to the tune of $184 billion in a 
10-year period.
  I say: If you want to do deficit reduction, don't take it out on 
working families, low-income families who are struggling to send their 
kids to college when one out of four major corporations in this 
country--many of which make billions of dollars a year in profit--is 
paying zero in taxes. If you want

[[Page 12017]]

to do deficit reduction, ask those multinational corporations to start 
paying their fair share of taxes, not working families who are 
struggling.
  Let's be clear about what this legislation that I expect will be on 
the floor shortly will do. It provides a variable interest rate. Let's 
look at what the CBO is telling us about where we may be going with 
interest rates in the coming years. What the CBO tells us is that in 
2013 a 10-year Treasury note, on which this formula is based, is 1.81 
percent; in 2014 it will be 2.57 percent; 2015, 3.35 percent; 2016, 
4.24 percent; 2017, 4.95 percent. Those are CBO projections.
  Based on the formula in this bill, here is what Americans will be 
paying for student loans. The good news is that because interest rates 
are low now, in 2013 it will be 3.86 percent for subsidized Stafford 
undergraduate loans; in 2014, 4.62 percent; 2015, 5.40 percent; 2016, 
6.29 percent; 2017, 7 percent, according to CBO.
  Under the graduate Stafford Loan Program, we are going to go from 5.4 
percent to 6.1 percent, to 6.9 percent. In 2016, we will be at 7.8 
percent and in 2017 we will be at 8.55 percent. By the way, all of 
those figures are below the cap in the bill.
  What about the parents who are helping their students through the 
PLUS Loan Program? In 2013 it starts at 6.3 percent; 2014, 7 percent; 
2015, 7.8 percent; 2016, 8.7 percent; 2017, 9.4 percent. In other 
words, people will get up here and say that initially interest rates 
will be low--because interest rates are low--but they are not telling 
us that in years to come interest rates are going to go up to 
unsustainable levels.
  My amendment says: OK. Interest rates are low today. Let's take 
advantage of that fact, and let's sunset this bill in 2 years, where we 
can then have interest rates that are reasonably low--not as low as I 
would like them--and will not be prohibitive. Then, through the 
reauthorization of the Higher Education Act, we can sit down and deal 
with two issues: No. 1, how are we, on a long-term basis, going to 
provide affordable loans, scholarships, and grants to the people of 
this country who need to advance their education? No. 2, how are we 
going to deal with the entire issue of college affordability? College 
in the United States costs much more than it does in virtually every 
other country on Earth.
  We have over $1 trillion in debt in terms of college loans. College 
loans have tripled since 2004. Young people are graduating from college 
with $27,000 in debt. That is average. Some students have more debt. I 
have talked to dentists who went to dental school and are now over 
$200,000 in debt from their dental school bills.
  We have a crisis right now, and it is a crisis which not only impacts 
the lives of millions of people and families in our country, it impacts 
our whole Nation economically in terms of whether we are going to have 
a well-educated workforce to compete in the global economy.
  The legislation that is on the floor only makes a bad situation 
worse. The result of it will be more student debt than we currently 
have. The result of that legislation will be more young people who say: 
I don't want to get out of college and have a $50,000 debt, so I am not 
going to go to college. I guess I will never make it to the middle 
class and never be able to contribute to the country I love in a way 
that I thought was possible. We have to do better than this 
legislation.
  The last point I wish to make is a political point: elections matter. 
The Presiding Officer recently ran for office. I ran for office in 
November. President Obama ran for office. When we run for office, we 
tell the American people what we believe and what we are going to fight 
for. The end result of those elections is that Barack Obama won a 
decisive victory. He is the President of the United States. What he 
campaigned on is: I am going to stand up for the middle-class. The 
other guys aren't going to do it, so I am going to do it. What I ran 
on--as well as many of my colleagues--was: We are going to stand up for 
the middle class.
  The results came in, and you know what. Barack Obama won. We have a 
Democratic President. As of today, the Senate has 54 Democrats. My 
question is: Why, with a Democratic President and a strong Democratic 
majority in the Senate, are we looking at legislation which is 
virtually the same as the legislation passed by an extremely 
conservative Republican House of Representatives? How does that happen?
  What are we telling our constituents who voted for us? We said we 
were going to stand for the middle class. If we are going to stand for 
the middle class, we are standing for the affordability of college. We 
need to stand up for working-class kids so they can have the 
opportunity to be the first in their family--as I was in my family--to 
be able to go to college. We are talking to African-American kids and 
saying: You know what. There are alternatives to crime and jail. You 
too can go to college. Those are the people we are supposed to be 
talking to. I fear very much that the legislation that is coming to the 
floor will not do that. In fact, it will make people say: What is the 
difference? What is the difference between the House and the Senate?
  I ask that my colleagues support my amendment. It will give us the 
time to come up with a long-term solution to a very serious problem.
  I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SANDERS. 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. SANDERS. I ask unanimous consent that the time be equally 
divided.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SANDERS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coons). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise as the chair of the full 
Appropriations Committee in support of the fiscal year 2014 
Transportation, Housing and Urban Development appropriations bill. At 
noon we will be voting on the motion to proceed. I am here in the 
strongest, most affirmative way to urge my colleagues to please vote 
yes so we can get on with this very important bill that was fashioned 
with bipartisan participation to literally get America moving again.
  The Transportation-HUD appropriations bill for 2014, under the 
leadership of Senator Murray and the ranking member Senator Collins, is 
an outstanding effort. It shows what bipartisan consensus is and 
focuses on two things: America's infrastructure and transportation and 
meeting compelling human needs in housing and urban development, both 
of which contribute to creating jobs in the United States of America.
  This is not a bill where jobs will be on a slow boat to China or a 
fast track to Mexico. It puts America on the right track to meet these 
needs in transportation.
  There is a very good reason we need this bill. The American Society 
of Civil Engineers says the need for physical infrastructure in our 
country is piling up. Steel rusts, asphalt wears out, and buildings 
need to be repaired, to be maintained.
  It is not politics; it is physics. We have to make investments today 
so our Nation can grow. We still have an unemployment rate of over 7 
percent.
  So how do we get America moving? Public investment that creates 
private sector jobs.
  That is what we like about transportation. This bill, under the 
leadership of Senators Murray and Collins, includes Federal aviation--
that is a word for airports--the Federal Highway Administration, in 
which we need to build and repair, Amtrak, and also the National 
Transportation Safety Board. When there is an accident, they are on the 
job find out what the problems are.

[[Page 12018]]

  This bill keeps America moving on land, sea, and in the air. But, 
most of all, it is about bread-and-butter issues. It meets real needs 
in real time in our communities, building roads and building community.
  This is also why I am a strong supporter of the housing and urban 
development aspects in this bill. The Presiding Officer knows of my 
social work background; I know of his as a county executive--working 
hand in hand on the needs of the people in the Delmarva Peninsula. We 
know there is prosperity and pockets of poverty. This bill, through the 
community development block grants, helps meet these compelling needs--
again, local needs decided by local leaders in real time. It also meets 
needs for the elderly and for the disabled.
  The Senate bill provides an allocation, under my leadership, of $54 
billion in discretionary spending. This is in sharp contrast to the 
House bill, which provides $10 billion less than the Senate. The House 
allocation fails to provide those resources in transportation. Senators 
Murray and Collins will go into that in more detail.
  But what I want to be able to say is, under my leadership as the full 
committee chair, my subcommittees have marked up--with the budget bill 
passed under Senator Murray's leadership chairing the Budget 
Committee--a top line of $1.058 trillion. Oh, my God, $1 trillion. 
Well, remember, $600 billion goes to defense, and $400 billion comes to 
domestic needs. If ever there were domestic needs, it is in our 
physical infrastructure in meeting the tattered, worn aspects of our 
communities.
  There is a much greater debate going on in our country now because of 
the Trayvon Martin-George Zimmerman situation. A debate has begun, 
really under our President's encouragement, on race, ethnicity, and 
other aspects.
  Well, what we need to do is be able to take stock of ourselves--take 
stock of ourselves: how we treat one another, how we view one another. 
Do we view one another as enemies consistently, do we view them on 
street corners or in communities, or do we begin to look at how we 
build community in our neighborhoods, starting with housing for the 
elderly, making sure the disabled are taken care of, having respect for 
one another, passing an education bill dealing with the student loans.
  This bill will put Americans to work and also meet our compelling 
needs, and we can do it in a way that shows we can do smart spending to 
accomplish national goals.
  I too want to reduce the public debt of the United States, but I am 
going to lower our unemployment rate. I am going to lower the rate of 
danger in our physical infrastructure. I also really want the motion to 
proceed to pass.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I thank the very able committee 
chairwoman of the Senate Appropriations Committee for her direction to 
our full committee to move forward on our appropriations bills. I am 
very proud that the transportation and housing bill will be the first 
of, hopefully, many bills to move through here, but I really thank her 
for her tremendous leadership, encouraging myself and my ranking member 
Senator Collins to move forward with our bill to the floor today. We 
will both be giving our opening statements. I know the ranking member 
on the full Appropriations Committee will be here as well.
  The chairman of the Finance Committee has asked for some time to 
speak before Senator Collins and I move forward on our discussion of 
this bill today. So I will yield to him, and we will speak after he 
does.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator very much. I also 
thank my friend from Maine for her indulgence. Believe me, I will be as 
short as I possibly can. I deeply appreciate their indulgence.


                            Tax Code Reform

  I am here to basically say I believe we must very aggressively reform 
our Tax Code. It has not been updated since 1986. Since that date, it 
has built up barnacles, loopholes, deductions, credits. There have been 
15,000 changes to the Tax Code since 1986, and there have been 
additions. There have not been subtractions.
  Our code is out of date. Other countries have kept their tax codes up 
to date. They have ensured that their companies are more competitive 
with changes in their tax codes. We have not done so. Our American 
companies are losing out. They are losing out to other companies 
worldwide because our code has not kept up to date.
  In fact, there is a recent survey by Harvard Business School. Harvard 
Business School surveyed over 10,000 of its graduates over a short 
period of time.
  The conclusion of that survey, from those who responded, is America 
is starting to lose its competitiveness. We are losing out. Why? Many 
reasons. But the one that bubbles up the most, the one that was most 
telling, is our Tax Code. Two reasons: One, they said, is the high 
rates. Our Tax Code's top rate, 35 percent for corporations, is much 
higher than is the rate for other countries worldwide. Other countries 
have lowered their top corporate rate. We have not lowered ours. As a 
consequence, when there is a merger, the consequence is that the 
headquarters ends up in another country, very simply because the tax 
rate in that country is lower than it is in the United States. The 
Anheuser InBev merger is one of many examples.
  The second reason they give to the Code, why the U.S. Tax Code is 
causing the United States to be less competitive, is not only because 
our rates are higher but because our Code is so more complex. It is 
very difficult for people doing business in the United States or 
Americans doing business in the United States or people in other 
countries who work with the U.S. Tax Code to deal with our Tax Code 
because it is so complex.
  In addition, our Code needs to be updated because it is so complex, 
not only from an international perspective but from a domestic 
perspective. Americans as individuals do not trust the Code. It is too 
complex. They cannot figure out their own returns. I might say, myself, 
it was not too many years ago I was sitting down at the kitchen table 
trying to figure out my own tax returns. I am not a wealthy man. 
Frankly, I had to give up. I could not figure it out. I felt un-
American that I could not figure out my own taxes, especially as 
somebody who went to college, went to law school, is in the Senate. I 
still cannot do my own taxes. Something is not quite right there. Many 
Americans believe, as a consequence, that somebody else is getting some 
deductions and credits when they hire a fancy lawyer. They are getting 
credits and deductions that they are not getting.
  Then small businesses. Small business has a devil of a time keeping 
up with rules and regulations, let alone tax provisions. They spend 
much more of their dollars on regulations, including tax returns, 
hiring CPAs to figure out the returns than big business does. It is 
usually the big business that can deal with the complexity of the Code. 
It is much more difficult for small businesses. The complexity of the 
Code is hurting our country because it is also hurting small business 
in America.
  I might say too, as a couple of examples of the complexity, there are 
42 definitions of a small business--42 different definitions in the 
Code of small business. There are either three or four definitions of a 
child. My Lord, you would think we all know what a child is. But there 
are three or four different definitions of what constitutes a child. 
There are many--I forgot the exact number--many different provisions in 
the Code with respect to the education deduction--education credit.
  In my hand is a 90-page document explaining the education deductions 
alone--90-page document. You think the American family, American 
students have the patience to go through a 90-page document that 
explains which deductions are available and which are not? No way. That 
has got to be simplified. So we must simplify the Code, get rid of a 
lot of the junk, frankly.
  I believe the approach we are taking in the Finance Committee is the 
correct approach. We have had over 50

[[Page 12019]]

hearings in the Finance Committee. We have had many sessions in the 
committee about what is next, as the occupant of the chair knows. The 
approach we are taking is very simple: We are starting with a clean 
slate. We are getting rid of all of the deductions, all of the credits. 
They total about $1.2 trillion annually. We are getting rid of them 
all--$12 trillion over 10 years. Get rid of them all, then start to 
build up which ones seem to make the most sense.
  Senator Hatch and I are working together. This is a bipartisan bill. 
The ranking member of the Finance Committee and I are together in this 
approach. We have asked our colleagues on the committee, off the 
committee, all Senators both sides of the aisle: Give us your 
submissions. What do you want added back to the clean slate? Do you 
want anything added back? If you want something added back, how do you 
want to change it, how to tailor it? We are not going to stand here and 
mention lots of different ways it can be changed. Senators know what 
they are.
  I think by working through Senators, it is more likely to be a 
better, a more solid, productive product. I urge all of my colleagues, 
send us your submissions. Send your submissions. There are a couple of 
Senators on the floor. I hope they have submitted their suggestions. 
They indicated they have. Good. I urge my colleagues to do so, because 
we are hearing directly from constituents.
  We have a Web site. It is taxreform.org. There were 10,000 
submissions from around the country of people telling us what they 
want. I submit, if our constituents are telling us how they want the 
Tax Code changed, at the very least we as Senators should also indicate 
how we would like to see the Tax Code changed and be in on the ground 
floor starting out, rather than having to come out on the floor and 
offer amendments, adding something back in that has to be paid for. If 
it is added back in, I do not think that is something Senators want to 
do.
  We will mark up the tax bill this fall. There is going to be a 
markup. There is going to be a markup this fall. I am guessing--I do 
not like to predict dates because sometimes they change, but sometime 
this fall, September, October, November, in there, we are going to mark 
up a tax bill.
  I urge Senators to be ready. This is bipartisan. I have worked 
overboard. I have had meetings personally with every single Senator 
about the Tax Code. At lunch today, for example, Chairman Camp and I--
we meet weekly. At lunch today, we are meeting with 10 House Members, 
10 Senators--a total of 10. We call it ``burgers and beer'' every 2 
weeks over at the Irish Times. That is symbolic, because that is where 
the last Tax Code in 1986 was in many respects put together. The more 
we get to know each other, get to know House Members--I must confess 
there are a couple of House Members whom I did not know and they did 
not know who I was.
  We talk about kids, we talk about tax reform. It is a bonding process 
to get to know each other better. Dave Camp and I are going around the 
country. We went to the Twin Cities a couple of weeks ago, met with 3M, 
with management, with their employees, and met with a small bakery. It 
is called Bald Eagle Bakery. We are going to Philadelphia a week from 
next Monday. I think we are going over to Delaware; I am not sure. We 
will be up in New Jersey. I apologize to the Presiding Officer. It is 
New Jersey. We are going to Philadelphia and New Jersey for another 
session. There will be others. We are traveling around the country. We 
want to talk to people to see what they have to say.
  I think this is the way to crack some of this partisan gridlock 
around here, this partisan deadlock around here. How? We are working 
together, low key, building from the bottom to the top with these 
sessions, these meetings, discussions, keep talking. Because we all 
know the Tax Code needs to be reformed. It is way dated. It is out of 
date.
  A small example is all of the exempt provisions, the 501(c)(4)s and 
(3)s, and so forth. This has not been addressed for over 50 years. All 
of the money since Citizens United is tax exempt, trying to find a safe 
home; that is, where there is no disclosure of either donors or amount. 
That has got to be maybe addressed as well. That is just one example.
  My main point is to first indicate there is going to be a markup. It 
is an opportunity for Senators to send in their submissions. The 
deadline is the end of this week. I urge all of my colleagues to do so.
  Finally, I am very grateful for my friends from Maine and Washington 
for allowing me to take time. I thank them very much.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I ask unanimous consent to speak for 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, we spend far too much time here in the 
Senate scrambling to address short-term crises and far too little time 
working to tackle the serious long-term challenges facing our Nation. 
That is why I am very pleased the Senate will soon be considering the 
fiscal year 2014 Transportation, Housing and Urban Development 
appropriations bill. This transportation and housing bill received 
strong bipartisan support as it moved through the Appropriations 
Committee. It was reported out of subcommittee unanimously.
  On June 27, the members of the full committee voted 22 to 8 to report 
this bill here to the Senate. This bill received this strong bipartisan 
support because it helps families and communities, it gets workers back 
on the job, it is fiscally responsible, and it lays down a strong 
foundation for long-term and broad-based economic growth.
  Our transportation and housing bill is very different from the one 
that is moving through the House of Representatives right now, which 
passed out of their committee on a strict party-line vote. The Senate 
bill funds the highly successful TIGER Program to ensure support for 
transportation projects of national or regional significance. The House 
bill zeros out that funding and even takes away TIGER funding provided 
for this current year.
  The Senate bill provides $500 million to make necessary repairs to 
our Nation's bridges, when one in four bridges today across the country 
is classified as deficient. The House bill does not provide that 
critical funding. Our bipartisan Senate bill fully funds the Essential 
Air Service Program. The House bill kicks communities out of the 
program and then shortchanges the program.
  On this side, our bill protects investments in our aviation 
infrastructure, while the House bill cuts spending we need to maintain 
and modernize the air traffic system by more than $\1/2\ billion, to 
the lowest level since fiscal year 2000, more than a decade ago now.
  The Senate bill maintains funding for the CDBG and HOME Programs, 
while the House bill proposes to cut both to their lowest levels ever. 
It preserves the Federal commitment to the mostly elderly and disabled 
tenants of public housing and section 8 project-based housing, while 
the intentional short funding of both programs in the House bill would 
ultimately lead to their demise.
  The House bill falls short in these and many other areas because its 
investment level is simply unsustainable. It is even lower than 
sequester levels. Without adequate resources to fund core and housing 
programs, it cuts deeply and broadly and very few programs escape the 
axe.
  The approach taken by the House should concern all of us, because 
this is not about politics, it is about our country. Investing in our 
infrastructure is something that brings together the U.S. Chamber of 
Commerce, major labor groups such as the AFL-CIO, economists, and 
policy experts across the entire political spectrum because, as any 
business owner will tell you, no matter how challenging the current 
environment, you never want to cut the investments that allow you to 
compete and prosper once that crisis ends.
  There are plenty of independent assessments showing that right now as 
a country we are not investing enough in

[[Page 12020]]

our aging infrastructure, and no one--no one--is suggesting we invest 
too much. The fact is, if we slash our investments in infrastructure, 
we are not saving any money at all; we are making things worse. We are 
weakening our basis for private investment and economic growth. We are 
putting public safety at risk. We are allowing congestion to continue 
taxing families with painfully long commutes, long waits at airports, 
and health-threatening pollution.
  Roads are going to need to be fixed eventually. Bridges are going to 
need to be strengthened at some point before they collapse. The air 
traffic control system will have to be modernized before air travel 
becomes too unreliable. Waiting will only make the work more expensive 
when we eventually do it. It is shortsighted and does not make any 
sense. That is why the bipartisan Senate bill supports critical 
investments in our Nation's infrastructure that are necessary to 
support and grow our economy. The investments included in our bill make 
it possible for people to get to work and products to get to market. 
Because other countries are investing in their infrastructure as 
quickly as they can, investments here in America are a key factor in 
making sure our country can compete and win in the 21st century global 
economy.
  Our bipartisan bill also supports our local communities' efforts to 
promote economic development, supports small businesses, and creates 
affordable housing. These investments help create jobs and are 
necessary to ensure our Nation's economic competitiveness into the 
future. Our bill funds a critical piece of the safety net, housing 
assistance and homeless shelters for millions of families who are one 
step from the street. It moves us closer to finally eliminating 
homelessness among our Nation's veterans.
  The need for these investments far exceeds the resources in this 
bill. But here in the Senate we have been able to keep our commitment 
to our States and our communities and ensure the agencies in the bill 
can meet their statutory responsibility. The House bill's untenable 
investment level and commitment to sequestration makes those 
commitments impossible to keep.
  The Senate bill also works to improve the programs funded, including 
reforms that address concerns Members raised the last time the 
transportation and housing bill came to the Senate floor. Our 
bipartisan bill includes important section 8 reforms to reduce costs 
and create efficiencies. It contains reforms to improve the oversight 
of public housing agencies and boards, ensures accountability for 
property owners who don't maintain the quality of their HUD-assisted 
housing, and increases accountability in the CDBG Program. The House 
bill doesn't include any of those reforms. Our bill also continues to 
require oversight by the offices of the inspectors general and GAO and 
incorporates their findings into the bill's guidance to agencies.
  In short, our bill is a good bill, and, along with Senator Collins, I 
encourage Members to bring their amendments to the floor and to work 
with us to make this bill even better. This bill has broad bipartisan 
support because it takes a practical approach to addressing the real 
needs we find in the transportation and housing sectors. The 
investments it makes would create jobs and help the middle class right 
now, it would help lay down a strong foundation for long-term and 
broad-based economic growth, and it helps position our country and our 
economy to compete and win in the 21st-century global economy.
  The approach taken by our House colleagues on their transportation 
and housing bill would cut investments in a way that may make our 
short-term budget deficit look better on paper but that would hurt our 
families, cost us far more in the long run, and hollow out our long-
term investments and potential for economic growth. So I urge all our 
colleagues to help support our bipartisan bill and move us rapidly to 
final passage.
  Again, before I yield, I wish to thank Chairwoman Mikulski, who was 
here a few moments ago, for her tremendous support and leadership. She 
was, as she stated, the former chair of the VA HUD subcommittee, and 
she really appreciates the importance of the investments this bill 
makes.
  This bill does include the priorities of Members on both sides of the 
aisle, reflecting the bipartisan tradition in the Appropriations 
Committee. So I especially thank my entire subcommittee for their work, 
and I would like to take a moment to especially express my appreciation 
and thanks to my ranking member Senator Collins for all her hard work 
and cooperation throughout this process. I am very proud that together 
we have written a bill that works for families and communities.
  Investing in our families and communities and long-term economic 
growth shouldn't be a partisan issue, and I think the bipartisan work 
that went into this bill and the strong support it received in 
committee proves it doesn't have to be.
  I look forward to moving to this vote at noon today to allow us to 
get on the bill, and I encourage all our Members to bring their 
amendments to us. My ranking member Senator Collins and I will work our 
way through those as efficiently as we can so we can bring this bill to 
a conclusion.
  Again, I thank Senator Collins for her tremendous work and her in-
depth understanding of the tremendous issues within this bill, I thank 
her for working with us, and I yield to her at this time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I am pleased to join Chairman Murray as 
we begin floor consideration of the fiscal year 2014 appropriations 
bill for the Department of Transportation, Housing and Urban 
Development, and related agencies. This return to regular order in 
which appropriations bills are considered individually, with the 
opportunity for full debate and for Members to come to the floor and 
offer their amendments, is welcome indeed.
  Like Senator Murray, I wish to commend the two leaders of our 
Appropriations Committee--Senator Mikulski, the chair, and Senator 
Shelby, the ranking member--for their commitment to returning to 
regular order. We simply must stop the irresponsible practice of 
waiting until the eleventh hour and then producing a bundled bill 
totaling thousands of pages with little or no opportunity for truly 
careful deliberation and debate.
  I wish to thank our subcommittee chairman for working very closely 
with me to craft this bipartisan bill. She has been a tremendous leader 
of our subcommittee and has operated in a way that has been completely 
bipartisan.
  This bill makes responsible investments in transportation and 
economic development and includes input and priorities from Members 
from both sides of the aisle. We listened to the concerns of our 
Members, and the bill was approved by a bipartisan vote of 22 to 8 in 
committee.
  The fact is that the transportation and housing appropriations bill 
has a long tradition of bipartisan support. Every Senator has unmet 
transportation and housing needs in his or her home State, from 
crumbling roads and bridges, to economic development needs, to a 
growing population of low-income families, elderly, and disabled 
individuals who need our help.
  According to the American Society of Civil Engineers, the condition 
of our Nation's infrastructure remains poor. Our roads, airports, and 
transit systems received a grade of D, while our bridges, ports, and 
rail systems received only a C. In fact, in my State of Maine the roads 
and bridges are among the worst in the Nation's rural transportation 
network. This matters because we need efficient and safe transportation 
networks to move our people around the country and to move our products 
to market.
  The bill before us does not begin to solve all of our Nation's 
transportation and housing woes. We simply do not have the money to do 
that. After all, we cannot ignore the size of our unsustainable $17 
trillion national debt. We also cannot ignore the need for investments 
that will help the private sector create jobs and allow our

[[Page 12021]]

people and products to travel safely and efficiently and our most 
vulnerable citizens to receive decent housing.
  I understand that some Members are very concerned about supporting 
any funding bill that has an allocation that is higher than the House 
counterpart. I certainly agree it is important that we adhere to 
current law, which limits spending to $967 billion. But it is our 
responsibility to consider the merits of each of the Senate funding 
bills and produce bills based on our best judgments. Then we negotiate 
with our House counterparts in conference. That is the way the process 
is supposed to work. That is how we produce compromises. That is how we 
produce appropriations bills. The Senate should not be a rubberstamp 
for the House, nor should the House be a rubberstamp for the Senate. 
Each body should come forth with its individual appropriations bills, 
and then we should meet in conference, negotiate, and produce bills 
that can have the support of both bodies.
  The fact is that the fiscal year 2014 House transportation and HUD 
allocation of $44.1 billion is, in my judgment, insufficient to meet 
the true needs of both transportation and housing. In fact, the House 
allocation was $51.6 billion just last fiscal year, so this year's 
House allocation reflects a dramatic cut. Could there be further cuts 
in our bill? Absolutely. I am sure there will be some worthwhile 
amendments offered on the Senate floor, and, more importantly, I 
believe that when we negotiate with our House counterparts we will 
produce a bill that is most likely somewhere in between the two 
allocations.
  Our bill is by no means a perfect bill, but the House bill includes 
policy choices I believe most Senators will find problematic if they 
take a close look at the House provisions. Let me cite one example.
  Our bill provides nearly $3.2 billion for the Community Development 
Block Grant Program. The CDBG Program supports economic development 
leading to job creation across the country. I want to point out that 
the President's budget cut that program. It proposed $2.8 billion, 
which is the lowest funding level since 1976, when President Gerald 
Ford was in office. The CDBG Program is one of the most popular Federal 
programs because of the flexibility it gives communities and States to 
tailor their economic development projects. Yet the House bill would 
cut the program even beyond the President's budget by reducing this 
important program by more than $1.1 billion below the 1976 levels. That 
is when the program was first created in a Republican administration 
that recognized that States and communities are best able to use the 
flexibility of the Community Development Block Grant Program to meet 
the needs of their citizens, to spur downtown development, to create 
incentives for businesses to locate, and to produce good jobs.
  Our bill also continues funding for the TIGER grant program, which 
supports transportation infrastructure projects that have a significant 
impact on the Nation, a region or metropolitan area. The House bill not 
only eliminates this program but also rescinds funding for the current 
fiscal year by 50 percent. That means a round of grants that are just 
about to be funded could not go through.
  For aviation programs our bill provides sufficient funding to ensure 
that the NextGen modernization efforts will continue to improve the 
efficiency, safety, and capacity of our aviation system.
  With the lower funding levels as proposed by the House, here is the 
irony: We would simply end up paying more in the long term than we 
would now by providing the funding when it is needed.
  So this program isn't a matter of whether we need it; it is when are 
we going to fund it. Funding it now, as we have been doing year after 
year in an incremental way, allows the NextGen Program for aviation to 
stay on track, and it will end up costing less than if we cut the 
funding and stretch it out over many more years.
  Our bill also includes $1.4 billion for Amtrak while the House bill 
provides only $950 million. But in no way is the Senate funding 
extravagant. In fact, it is nearly $1.2 billion less than the 
administration's request for Amtrak, and it avoids gimmicks that the 
Obama administration used in this account.
  While the needs for Amtrak infrastructure far exceed what we were 
able to provide, our bill is a step in the right direction. Under the 
House proposal, Amtrak would be forced to consider cutting service, 
which could affect millions of passengers, diverting them to our 
already congested highways and busy airports.
  In reality, the overall resources provided in this bill are well 
below the level of investment that our Nation's infrastructure 
requires, as the subcommittee chairman so correctly pointed out. 
Nevertheless, it would spur creation by the private sector of good jobs 
now, when they are needed most, and it would establish the foundations 
for future economic growth.
  Just as important to our economic future, however, is reining in 
Federal spending. Getting our national debt under control must be a 
priority governmentwide. In setting priorities for the coming year, 
this bill strikes the right balance between thoughtful investment and 
fiscal restraint.
  I appreciate the opportunity to present this important bill to our 
Chamber, to our colleagues. As we debate this bill, I urge our 
colleagues to support the motion to proceed to the compromises our 
committee worked so hard to achieve and, most of all, to come forward 
with suggestions for improvements through amendments.
  Let me end by emphasizing that point. I have the assurance of the 
subcommittee chairman that Republicans will be allowed to offer 
amendments. So I would say to my colleagues: Even if you don't like 
this bill, there is no reason to oppose the motion to proceed on the 
bill. You will be given an opportunity to offer amendments, to change 
the numbers in this bill, to cut programs if you wish. But let's get on 
this bill so we can return to the normal process of full and fair 
debate on individual appropriations bills, rather than waiting to the 
eleventh hour, bundling them together with little review, with 
insufficient care, deliberation, and debate or relying on continuing 
resolutions, stop-gap measures, which wreak havoc on the ability of 
programs to be carried out in a cost-effective manner.
  I see our ranking member of the full committee is on the floor and I 
yield to him.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Heinrich). The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I thank the chairwoman of the 
Appropriations Committee Senator Mikulski for moving ahead to complete 
action on this, the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development 
appropriations bill. This is the first bill reported by the 
Appropriations Committee to be considered by the Senate on the floor.
  I believe it is important that Congress exercises constitutional 
authority over the funding of government. If we do not pass 
appropriations bills, the undesirable outcome is a government shutdown, 
which none of us wants. I believe, however, that the Senate is still on 
a precarious path.
  The majority is pursuing a top-line discretionary spending level of 
$1.058 trillion for the fiscal year 2014. This exceeds the Budget 
Control Act level by over $90 billion. The Budget Control Act is the 
law that establishes and enforces, through sequestration, limits on 
discretionary spending.
  In fiscal year 2013, most discretionary programs were forced to take 
arbitrary across-the-board cuts. We did not have to go in that 
direction for 2014. Over 1 month ago, all Republican members of the 
Appropriations Committee signed a letter to Chairwoman Mikulski calling 
for a top-line number of $967 billion that complies with the law.
  There could have been an alternative to sequestration. The 
Appropriations Committee could have written spending bills that adhered 
to the budget constraints of the law. This would have allowed Congress, 
not an indiscriminate formula, to make spending cuts of its choosing 
and to establish priorities, which we ultimately will have to do.
  This level would have also given Senate and House appropriators a 
better

[[Page 12022]]

chance to conference individual bills. Instead, several of the 
appropriations bills between the two Chambers are so far apart that 
aligning them would be difficult, if not impossible.
  Regrettably, because of this disagreement, the endgame will probably 
be a continuing resolution. Every year that we have a continuing 
resolution or a series of them is another year that we drift further 
away from the regular order. In addition, even a continuing resolution 
for 2014 based on this year's discretionary spending would require 
another sequester under the Budget Control Act.
  Given the direction we are headed, I wish to vote against all 
appropriations bills that adhere to a total of $1.058 trillion. It is 
not because the bills are entirely unworthy of support. That is not 
true. It is because they will ultimately lead us to a statutory dead 
end and erode the ability of Congress to control how the government is 
funded, as we have done before.
  Therefore, I intend to oppose the motion to proceed, not because I 
don't think the bill has merit, as I said, but because in many ways it 
does. I will oppose the motion to proceed because it will inevitably 
lead us, once again, to an impasse that will result in further 
continuing resolutions and take us further away from any semblance of 
regular order.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Heitkamp). The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, shortly the Senate will move to a vote 
on the motion to proceed to the transportation-housing bill.
  This is the first appropriations bill to come before the Senate. We 
have worked very hard, in a bipartisan way, to have a bill that invests 
in the projects that are important to this country, to move us forward, 
and help secure a strong future for this country.
  It is a bill that was tough to write. Our allocation is much lower 
than those of us who are working on these issues would like to see it, 
but we have tried to be pragmatic and practical and move forward.
  I know there are those Members of the Senate who make the argument 
that our allocation is higher than the House and would vote against 
these bills. I would remind all of our colleagues, I have been out on 
this floor innumerable times urging our colleagues to let us go to 
conference on the budget so we can work out this disagreement and be 
able to have allocations be the same from the House and the Senate. But 
we have been unable to do that because a small group of Senators on the 
other side have objected to us going to that conference. So we are at 
the place now where we have to move these appropriations bills forward. 
It does mean eventually we will have to get to a conference and, as my 
ranking member pointed out, we will have to work out an agreement. But 
until we can go to conference and work out the overall number, we have 
to move forward on these bills; otherwise, we are going to face a 
crisis come the end of September in terms of funding our government and 
giving certainty to people across this country about whether we will be 
allocating funds for them to be able to move forward on their budgets 
at the local and State levels.
  I urge our colleagues to vote yes, allow us to move to this bill. As 
my ranking member has said, bring your amendments to the floor. If you 
have an objection to something in the bill or you want to change 
something or you want a discussion about something, we will be here, 
ready to take amendments, look at them, and have the will of the Senate 
move forward.
  In a few short minutes, we will move to that vote and I urge our 
colleagues to vote yes.
  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. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                             Cloture Motion

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the cloture motion 
having been presented under rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to 
read the motion.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to 
     proceed to Calendar No. 99, S. 1243, a bill making 
     appropriations for the Department of Transportation, and 
     Housing and Urban Development and related agencies for the 
     fiscal year ending September 30, 2014, and for other 
     purposes.
         Mark Begich, Barbara A. Mikulski, Patty Murray, Mark R. 
           Warner, Tom Udall, Martin Heinrich, Angus S. King, Jr., 
           Sheldon Whitehouse, Elizabeth Warren, Dianne Feinstein, 
           Patrick J. Leahy, Tom Harkin, Jack Reed, Richard J. 
           Durbin, Richard Blumenthal, Mary L. Landrieu, Jeff 
           Merkley, Harry Reid.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum 
call has been waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the 
motion to proceed to S. 1243, an original bill making appropriations 
for the Department of Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, 
and Related Agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2014, 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 bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Kansas (Mr. Moran).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 73, nays 26, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 181 Leg.]

                                YEAS--73

     Baldwin
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Chiesa
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coons
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Flake
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Heller
     Hirono
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson (WI)
     Kaine
     King
     Kirk
     Klobuchar
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Manchin
     Markey
     McCain
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Portman
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Thune
     Toomey
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden

                                NAYS--26

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Burr
     Coats
     Coburn
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Enzi
     Fischer
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hoeven
     Johanns
     Lee
     McConnell
     Paul
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rubio
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Vitter

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Moran
       
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the ayes are 73 and the nays are 
26. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in 
the affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
  Under the previous order, cloture having been invoked, all 
postcloture time is yielded back.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion to proceed.
  The motion was agreed to.
  The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, the Senate has now agreed on a 
bipartisan basis to move forward on the transportation and housing 
bill. I wish to thank all of our colleagues.
  As we move forward on this appropriations bill, we will be open for 
amendments. I know there are Members who have a number of issues they 
would like for us to consider. I urge them to bring their amendments to 
Senator Collins and me, the managers of this bill, as soon as possible 
so we can begin to work our way through them.
  So as we go to recess for caucus lunches, I ask Members to please 
work with both of us so we can manage this

[[Page 12023]]

bill in a responsible way and then move to final passage.
  I appreciate all of the work of my ranking member Senator Collins as 
well as the members of the committee and all of the Senators who are 
working with us to move this bill forward.
  Thank you, Madam President. I yield the floor.

                          ____________________