Amendment Text: S.Amdt.69 — 113th Congress (2013-2014)

Shown Here:
Amendment as Proposed (03/20/2013)

This Amendment appears on page S1976 in the following article from the Congressional Record.



[Pages S1975-S1990]
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AND VETERANS AFFAIRS, AND 
             FULL-YEAR CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2013

  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 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.

[[Page S1976]]

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 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

[[Page S1977]]

      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 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 porkbarrel 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

[[Page S1978]]

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. 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.

[[Page S1979]]

       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 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

[[Page S1980]]

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 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

[[Page S1981]]

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 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

[[Page S1982]]

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, 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

[[Page S1983]]

     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 bob.nations@shelbycountytn.gov.
           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.''
  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.

[[Page S1984]]

  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 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.

[[Page S1985]]

  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) 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 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.

[[Page S1986]]

  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.
  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 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,

[[Page S1987]]

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.


                        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

[[Page S1988]]

     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 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.

[[Page S1989]]

  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.
  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.

[[Page S1990]]

  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.

                          ____________________