Amendment Text: S.Amdt.123 — 113th Congress (2013-2014)

Shown Here:
Amendment as Proposed (03/14/2013)

This Amendment appears on page S1843 in the following article from the Congressional Record.


[Pages S1837-S1850]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AND VETERANS AFFAIRS, AND 
         FULL-YEAR CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2013--Resumed

  Mr. SHELBY. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. INHOFE. Madam 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for the quorum call be rescinded.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. 29, as Modified

  Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I have a modification at the desk to 
amendment No. 29.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment will be so modified.
  The amendment, as modified, is as follows:
       At the end of title VII of division C, insert the 
     following:
       Sec. 17___.  No funds made available under this Act shall 
     be used for a 180-day period beginning on date of enactment 
     of this Act to enforce with respect to any farm (as that term 
     is defined in section 112.2 of title 40, Code of Federal 
     Regulations (or successor regulations)) the Spill, 
     Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure rule, including 
     amendments to that rule, promulgated by the Environmental 
     Protection Agency under part 112 of title 40, Code of Federal 
     Regulations.

  Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, 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. CRUZ. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, reserving the right to object, I will 
not, I just want to seek clarification from the Senator from Texas. 
About how long will the Senator seek recognition?
  Mr. CRUZ. I need only 5 minutes.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. That is more than agreeable. We know the topic and we 
are anxious to hear it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Warren). Without objection, it is so 
ordered. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CRUZ. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Maryland and I 
ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                         TRIBUTE TO JOHN McCAIN

  Mr. CRUZ. Madam President, I note that today is the 40th anniversary 
of the release of John McCain from a prisoner of war camp in Vietnam. I 
wanted to take a moment in this body to thank Senator McCain for his 
extraordinary service to our Nation.
  On October 26, 1967, John McCain, then a young man, volunteered to 
serve his country, to put himself in harm's way. He found himself very 
directly in harm's way, captured and imprisoned in the infamous Hanoi 
Hilton and subject to unspeakable torture and abuse.
  He did so for our country. He did so for every American. When midway 
through his imprisonment he was offered early release, John McCain 
showed extraordinary courage and valor, turning that down, believing it 
inconsistent with his obligations as an officer.
  That is the sort of bravery that those of us who have never endured 
imprisonment and torture can only imagine. Yet he continued to remain 
in harrowing circumstances, suffering beatings and abuse that to this 
day limit his mobility. Forty years ago, John McCain was released, able 
to come home to America and return a hero. Since that time, since being 
released from Vietnam, he has been a leader on a great many issues. He 
has been a public servant in this body and he has repeatedly 
exemplified courage and integrity. I thought it only fitting that we as 
a body, I have no doubt, would unanimously agree in commending his 
valor and integrity and sacrifice for his country and recognize this 
very important milestone, this 40th anniversary.
  I yield the remainder of my time.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, I want to tell my colleagues and 
anyone watching that just because Senators are not speaking on the 
Senate floor doesn't mean nothing is going on. I am incredibly 
impressed by the cooperation on both sides of the aisle as we try to 
get a finite list of amendments, as well as the proper sequence of 
those amendments in order to complete the business of moving to the 
continuing resolution. So there is a lot going on in other offices. 
These are not back rooms; they are not deal cutting. This is the 
workman-like way a parliamentary democratic institution does business.
  There are Senators who have ideas to improve the bill. Senator Shelby 
and I think our bill needs no improvement. We think we ought to just 
move to it, do it, send it to the House, and avoid any kind of gridlock 
of a government shutdown. However, Senators do have the right to offer 
amendments, and they have now offered their amendments. People are 
scrutinizing the amendments to make sure they understand the policy 
consequences and also that we don't have unintended consequences. 
Although it looks as though there is no debate going on here on the 
floor, there is a lot of discussion going on in Member offices. We hope 
that in a very short time we will be able to move to amendments so we 
can discuss and dispose of those amendments in a way that satisfies 
both parties.
  I just wanted people to know that. When we talk to folks back home, 
they say: I watch C-SPAN, all I hear is Senators' names called out in 
alphabetical order. They also may know that there might not be an 
official hearing going on, though we do know some are going on today. I 
just wanted to talk about some of what is going on and that this is 
part of the process. This is a big bill, and I hope that a big bill--
one that includes every aspect of the Federal

[[Page S1838]]

funding--is not done this way in fiscal 2014. I want to continue the 
cooperation that has begun between Senator Shelby and myself and the 
mutual leadership. For the funding bills, we wish to move them in a 
regular order.
  For instance, the two biggest departments are the Department of 
Defense and Labor, Education, Health and Human Services. We want to go 
through them and look at what is the appropriate funding level and is 
there any way we are going to achieve more frugality and more value.
  The Senator from Oklahoma is on the floor, and he is my red-team guy. 
He often takes a look at the bill and has pointed out some things that 
cause heartburn. This is the way a democracy should work. I want to get 
back to a regular order where we know what we are doing and the 
American public understands what we are doing.
  We are moving expeditiously. I would dearly love to be able to bring 
this bill to a closure tonight. I am not sure it is possible. That is 
why we are scrutinizing and scrubbing these amendments now. We cannot 
proceed to any other amendments until we see the whole package and look 
at the best way to organize it and sequence it.
  I wanted to share this with my colleagues who are watching from their 
offices and committee rooms.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. COBURN. I want to compliment the chairman of the Appropriations 
Committee. She has done a good job. She does want to get back to 
regular order.
  As we can see, nothing has happened. There is a reason nothing has 
happened. It is not in her control. Nothing is happening because there 
are a lot of amendments and they are not sure they want to take votes. 
Rather than the regular process of offering amendments that are germane 
and agreeing to a 60-vote level for their passage--having had that 
agreement--now we are not allowed to offer amendments because 
supposedly somebody has to agree with them.
  Well, that is not what the Senate is about. The way we decide whether 
the Senate agrees to it is to offer the amendment, vote on it, and 
stand up and defend your vote. It is not the chairman who is doing 
this, and it is not Senator Shelby who is doing this, it is the 
leadership. We were criticized because we wanted to read the bill. We 
now have amendments. We have been waiting to offer amendments. I waited 
around here an hour last night to offer amendments, and then I had 
another commitment so I could not do it. I offered to come over here at 
9:30 this morning, and could not do it. We have offered one amendment, 
and we have five other amendments. We could not get a vote. If we stay 
in a quorum call, people's business will not get done. People will 
start to be furloughed in the next 2 weeks, and it is because somebody 
wants to take away the individual right of a Senator to offer an 
amendment. We are not postcloture, so even amendments that are not 
germane are adequate to be filed against this bill.
  I have no animus at all against the chairman. I am thankful she is 
the chairman of the Appropriations Committee. I trust her implicitly to 
move on regular order. This bill is out of her committee and we need to 
bring amendments to the floor. The idea that we have to have permission 
from somebody in the Senate to offer an amendment goes totally counter 
to what the Senate is all about. We have a lot of problems to solve. We 
could finish this bill. We are sitting here. I could offer all of my 
amendments in 15 minutes, and we could stack them and vote on them--60 
votes, I don't care.
  The fact is we cannot offer an amendment. If I ask to bring up an 
amendment right now, the chairman has been instructed to object to 
that. I understand. I will not make her go through that exercise.
  I think it is important that the American people know what is going 
on. It is not out in the open; it is behind the scenes. They are 
negotiating away amendments so we won't know what could have happened 
or what might happen. Had we been in regular order, we would have been 
through with this bill. We are wasting time trying to play behind-the-
scenes, nontransparent negotiation about a bill that is vitally 
important to this country. The process is not working well. I trust the 
chairman to bring that process back, but she is handicapped by the 
instructions she has received.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. Madam President, next week the Senate will for the first 
time in over 4 years----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. The CR is on the floor. Does the Senator wish to speak 
in morning business?
  Mr. HATCH. I am sorry, I thought we were in morning business.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. How long does the Senator wish to speak?
  Mr. HATCH. Approximately 15 minutes. Is that too long?
  Ms. MIKULSKI. It could be.
  Mr. HATCH. I will withdraw.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, I note the absence of a quorum so we 
can discuss how we are going to proceed on the debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                               The Budget

  Mr. HATCH. Madam President, next week the Senate will, for the first 
time in over 4 years, debate a budget resolution on the Senate floor. 
While I have many qualms as to the substance of the budget we will be 
debating, I have to say that in terms of the process, this is a welcome 
development.
  The American people have waited too long for the Senate to fulfill 
its basic legal obligation to produce a budget every year. Yesterday, 
with the release of the Democrats' budget plan, that delay officially 
came to an end.
  Of course, now that I have had a chance to look over that budget, my 
praise for it ends there. The budget we will be debating next week is, 
to put it bluntly, a cynical political document. It is not designed to 
address our Nation's pressing fiscal challenges but, rather, it is to 
provide a Democratic base and have a fresh supply of political talking 
points.
  Rather than addressing our government's problems and runaway 
entitlements, the Democratic budget contains yet more wasteful 
spending. In order to pay for that spending, the budget contains what 
could be around $1.5 trillion in tax hikes, much of which will 
necessarily impact the middle class and small businesses. It would 
hijack the bipartisan tax reform efforts currently underway in both the 
House and Senate by instructing the Senate Finance Committee to abandon 
these efforts in order to scour the Tax Code for additional revenues to 
the tune of nearly $1 trillion.
  In addition to the reconciliation instructions, the budget includes 
potentially $\1/2\ trillion in additional tax hikes in order to replace 
the sequester and to offset more stimulus spending.
  Even with all of these new revenues in place, the Democratic budget 
does not balance--not at any point. Under this budget, the government 
would be still be spending more than it takes in at the end of the 10-
year budget window. By the end of it all, our national debt would be 
over $24 trillion, an increase of more than $7 trillion, with no relief 
in sight.
  Gross debt, relative to the size of our economy, never dips below 94 
percent in this budget. As the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office 
warns, when the debt is that high, we as a Nation have less flexibility 
to respond to unexpected challenges. CBO also warns that when the debt 
is that high, there is increased risk of a fiscal crisis and soaring 
interest rates. Make no mistake: If interest rates rise even slightly 
more than assumed in this budget, Federal spending on interest payments 
would increase substantially, moving us even closer to a fiscal crisis.
  One of the most disappointing and disheartening parts of the budget 
produced by the majority in the Budget Committee is that it makes no 
attempt whatsoever to address entitlement spending. Instead, it would 
keep programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, and

[[Page S1839]]

Social Security on autopilot, making it far more difficult to preserve 
them for future generations.
  Let's take a look at the numbers, because they are astounding. Over 
the next 10 years, we will spend $6.8 trillion on Medicare, $5.9 
trillion on Medicaid, and $11.2 trillion on Social Security, for a 
combined total of $24 trillion.
  The Democratic budget would reduce that spending by only $56 billion 
over 10 years, which amounts to a minuscule 0.2 percent reduction--that 
is right, 0.2 percent. Let's put that number in perspective.
  Despite the acknowledgment of the administration, the nonpartisan 
Congressional Budget Office, and any sane analyst on the Federal budget 
that entitlement spending is unsustainable, the Democratic budget 
proposes to do next to nothing about it. Rather, they settle for 
spending reductions over a 10-year period that amount to about 5 days' 
worth of Federal spending.
  This lack of attention to entitlements sends a clear message to 
younger generations. That message, unfortunately, is, we don't care 
that the social safety net will not be there for you. And it won't be 
for our young people, especially if we keep going this way. Federal 
entitlement spending is the biggest driver of our debts and deficits, 
and absent real structural reforms, these programs threaten to swallow 
up our government and take our economy down with it.
  This is not rhetoric or supposition. These are cold, hard facts. Yet, 
with their budget, the Democrats have apparently opted to ignore 
reality and let these programs continue on their current unsustainable 
trajectory. On that trajectory, the safety net frays. On that 
trajectory, disabled American workers face benefit cuts of over 20 
percent in 2016. And on that trajectory, trust funds associated with 
the safety net become exhausted.
  The course charted by this budget is simply irresponsible. No one 
serious about governing would choose to ignore entitlement spending for 
another 10 years. Even President Obama--hardly a picture of bravery 
when it comes to taking on entitlements--has proposed as much as $530 
billion in Medicare and Social Security reforms. This budget undercuts 
the President's proposal by nearly 90 percent.
  So once again this budget is not about dealing with reality; it is 
about politics, pure and simple. Instead of working with Republicans on 
bipartisan solutions to our Nation's problems, the Democrats have 
decided to reveal their campaign talking points for next year.
  There are some of us here in the Senate who have been looking for 
opportunities to work with those on the other side to address what are, 
in the view of many, the defining challenges of our time. For example, 
on January 1, I came to the floor to propose five bipartisan solutions 
to reform Medicare and Medicaid and asked my colleagues to work with me 
on this effort. These proposals are not my ideal solutions to the 
problems facing these programs. Instead, they are five solid ideas that 
have all had bipartisan support in the recent past.
  For example, I propose raising the Medicare eligibility age--
something President Obama and several other Democrats have at one time 
or another supported. I also suggest limiting Medigap plans from 
providing first-dollar coverage in order to prevent overutilization of 
Medicare benefits. This was supported by the Simpson-Bowles Commission 
and was also included in the Biden-Cantor fiscal negotiations in 2011.
  Another one of my proposals is to streamline cost-sharing for 
Medicare Part A and Part B. Like the Medigap proposal, this idea was 
also supported by the Simpson-Bowles Commission.
  In addition, I propose introducing competitive bidding into Medicare 
to allow for greater competition in order to reduce costs and improve 
quality of care. While some have deemed this idea controversial, 
President Clinton proposed a similar idea in 1999 as part of a major 
set of Medicare reforms--President Clinton, no less.
  Finally, I propose instituting per capita caps on Federal Medicaid 
spending. This was another Democratic Party idea. It was first proposed 
by President Clinton in 1995, and at that time all 46 Democratic 
Senators signed a letter supporting this very policy.
  I came to the floor in January in hopes that I could bring some of my 
Democratic colleagues on board with these proposals so we could at 
least start a bipartisan conversation on entitlement reform on the 
floor. My door and my mind remain open to my colleagues across the 
aisle on these ideas.
  Today, as I look at this proposed budget, it is clear I shouldn't be 
looking to anyone supporting this budget to work on anything resembling 
a bipartisan approach. Indeed, if this budget passes as is, without any 
significant changes, I may have to look outside of the Senate entirely.
  That is why earlier today I reached out to President Obama and asked 
him to seriously consider my five bipartisan entitlement reforms. The 
President talks a lot about grand bargains and balanced approaches, and 
he has a very winning personality, as was evidenced as he spoke to us 
Republican Senators today. The budget unveiled yesterday, however, is a 
step in the wrong direction. I hope he will demonstrate real leadership 
and engage in these enormous challenges in a meaningful way.
  The budget proposed by the Democrats on the Budget Committee is 
fiscally irresponsible and will be detrimental to the current and 
future generations of American workers who depend on the social safety 
net and who want to see it preserved for the future. This budget grows 
government, not the private economy. This budget taxes too much and 
spends too much. This budget doesn't balance today, tomorrow, or ever. 
This budget keeps us at the edge of a fiscal crisis, with no 
flexibility to respond to future emergencies. That being the case, this 
budget should be soundly rejected by anyone who cares about our 
Nation's future and about prosperity and opportunity for America's 
middle class.


                                  TANF

  Now I wish to take a few minutes to talk about the Temporary 
Assistance for Needy Families, or TANF, Program.
  Authority for TANF expired at the end of fiscal year 2010. Since that 
time, the program has limped along on a series of short-term 
extensions. President Obama has never submitted a TANF reauthorization 
to Congress for consideration. Senate Democrats, who have been in the 
majority since 2007, have never proposed a reauthorization of TANF. 
Instead of submitting a reauthorization proposal that can be considered 
in regular order on a bipartisan basis, the Obama administration 
instead unilaterally granted themselves the authority to waive critical 
Federal welfare work requirements. As I have said many times here on 
the Senate floor, there is no provision in the TANF statute granting 
this administration this authority.

  Aided by Democrats in Congress, the administration has resisted any 
attempt to replace their waiver scheme with an actual legislative 
proposal. Rather than trying to explain what specific policy 
improvements cannot occur under the flexibility States have under 
current law, the Obama administration and Democrats in Congress have 
opted to issue a series of platitudes about State flexibility.
  In addition, they point to a letter delivered by the Republican 
Governors Association to Majority Leader Frist in 2005 asking for more 
flexibility under TANF, ignoring the fact that the main focus of the 
letter was to urge floor consideration of welfare legislation reported 
by the Senate Finance Committee. This is hardly adequate justification 
for an unprecedented power grab by the executive branch.
  The Senate Finance Committee needs to act on welfare reform. The TANF 
Program has languished for nearly a decade without a robust debate on 
reauthorization. Programs that benefit low-income families have 
suffered as a result of Congress's inattention to TANF.
  The legislation before us contains yet another short-term extension, 
which would ensure that the program will go through the rest of this 
year without a reauthorization. This is simply unacceptable. The Senate 
Finance Committee, which has jurisdiction over TANF, needs to get to 
work on a full 5-year TANF reauthorization.
  Several times over the past few months I have come to the floor to 
argue in favor of regular order and in support of reinstituting the 
committee

[[Page S1840]]

process. For too long now major policy decisions have been made not in 
the committees of jurisdiction but in the office of the majority 
leader. As I have said, I think the results speak for themselves.
  This shouldn't be the case. If we want bipartisan solutions, we need 
to restore the deliberative decisions of the Senate and allow the 
committees to do their work. For this reason I prepared a motion to 
commit H.R. 933 to the Finance Committee in hopes that, once the bill 
was moved to the committee, we could roll up our sleeves and work on a 
bipartisan basis to strengthen the work requirement in TANF and give 
States the flexibility they claim they need while providing greater 
transparency, coordination, and accountability.
  I understand there is a bipartisan process under way with regard to 
the continuing resolution, so I won't be seeking a vote on this motion 
today. And I wish to personally praise the distinguished Senator from 
Maryland and the distinguished Senator from Alabama for the work they 
have done on the Appropriations Committee. I am really impressed. I 
think they have shown the whole Senate that things can get done if we 
just work together, and they are two of our great Senators here in the 
Senate. That doesn't mean I am relenting in my efforts to restore 
regular order here in the Senate. I hope more of my colleagues will 
join me in this cause.
  With that, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cowan). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent that the 
pending Inhofe amendment, No. 29, as modified, be agreed to; and that 
upon disposition of the Inhofe amendment, Senator Toomey or his 
designee be recognized to call up amendment No. 115.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Amendment No. 29, as modified, was agreed to.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, we note the Senator from Pennsylvania is 
coming to offer his amendment. While we are waiting for him to get 
ready to proceed, I would like to thank Senator Inhofe, Senator Boxer, 
and all who worked on a satisfactory resolution of the Inhofe 
amendment. It shows if the Senate takes a minute or two, keeps its 
powder dry and sticks to the issues, we can move this bill forward.
  We now look forward to a discussion on Toomey No. 115. I note the 
Senator from Pennsylvania is on the floor to offer his amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.


                 Amendment No. 115 to Amendment No. 26

  Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 115, which is at 
the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. Toomey] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 115 to amendment No. 26.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the 
pending amendment and call up amendment No. 83.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Landrieu and 
myself, I object to the Senator's request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The amendment (No. 115) is as follows:

   (Purpose: To increase by $60,000,000 the amount appropriated for 
 Operation and Maintenance for the Department of Defense for programs, 
   projects, and activities in the continental United States, and to 
                           provide an offset)

       At the end of title VIII of division C, insert the 
     following:
       Sec. 8131. (a) Additional Amount for O&M for Activities in 
     CONUS.--The aggregate amount appropriated by title II of this 
     division for operation and maintenance is hereby increased by 
     $60,000,000, 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 ``Procurement, Defense-Wide'' 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.
       (c) For the purposes of section, is determined by the 
     Secretary of Defense means a spend-out rate in compliance 
     with the aggregate outlay levels as set forth in the Budget 
     Control Act of 2011.

  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, before we proceed to debate on the 
Toomey amendment, I say to my colleague from Ohio that his strong 
advocacy for working people is appreciated. From the standpoint of 
discussion, the Senator has some excellent ideas, and I hope he and the 
Senator who chairs the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 
Committee can talk about how we can reach some type of consensus to 
generate jobs, retain the integrity of a professional workforce, and 
keep our economy going. I salute him for the work he does every day in 
that area.
  Mr. BROWN. I would say to Chairwoman Mikulski that the amendment I 
would have offered along with Senator Isakson would strike the language 
on the pilot projects that expire at the end of the year with 
privatization of customs services. It is something I will work on with 
Senator Landrieu, and I appreciate Senator Mikulski's input on that. It 
is about public services and creating jobs and assisting with imports 
and exports.
  I thank the chairwoman.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, let me just briefly describe my amendment. 
This will not take very long, but I think it is an important movement 
in the right direction. It has come to my attention that the CR, 
probably for a variety of reasons, underfunds the DOD's operations and 
maintenance account relative to what the Army staff certainly has 
requested--actually to the tune of $2 billion relative to what the Army 
staff would prefer. This affects salaries, vital maintenance, and 
combat training. It affects certainly skilled defense contractors, 
employees, at our military facilities.
  Obviously, we have very significant maintenance requirements for the 
very sophisticated equipment on which our troops rely, and so this is a 
very important account. The operations and maintenance account also 
includes training exercises that help make sure our forces are the best 
in the world.
  Unfortunately, at the same time that we are underfunding this 
account, we are also spending money on alternative energy at DOD that 
is of very dubious value, in my mind. We have much more affordable 
energy than the kinds of energy we require the DOD to use, in some 
instances. And what this amendment would do is provide a modest 
transfer of $60 million from the DOD's account from the Pentagon 
biofuels program and allow that money to go over to the operations and 
maintenance account.
  Now, I know there are some people who are big fans of spending money 
to develop biofuels and build the plants and refineries that create 
these biofuels. I would point out this is a much more expensive source 
of fuel than alternatives already readily available, and so I would ask 
a more basic question: If we believe this is a good and appropriate 
activity, wouldn't it be better to handle this at the Department of 
Energy rather than take the precious resources from our Defense 
Department and have it spent on the construction of plants for biofuel 
capability?
  I think it makes more sense to move this over to the operations and 
maintenance account, and that is what my amendment does.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the amendment 
offered by the Senator from Pennsylvania, and at the appropriate moment 
I will offer a budget point of order which will require an 
extraordinary vote on the floor of the Senate, but I first want to 
address the merits of Senator Toomey's amendment.
  Senator Toomey's amendment proposes to cut $60 million from the 
Advanced Drop-In Biofuels Production

[[Page S1841]]

Program in the procurement defense fund and move these funds to the 
operations and maintenance account. The Senator has, unfortunately, an 
error in his amendment, and he cuts funding from the wrong account. He 
has rewritten it several times. Unfortunately, he is still cutting 
funding from the wrong account. That is an error which he may be able 
to resolve.

  The appropriations account that would be cut by this amendment has 
nothing to do with alternative energy or biofuels. The account provides 
for funds for Special Operations Command equipment, DOD communications 
infrastructure, and the Chemical and Biological Defense Program. This 
is a very serious mistake in the creation of this amendment.
  New language added to this version tries to correct an additional 
problem with outlays but does not. The amendment still violates the 
budget cap on outlays and is subject to a point of order, which I will 
make at a later time.
  This amendment, which is being offered by the Senator from 
Pennsylvania, is opposed not only by me but also by Senator Levin, the 
chairman of the Armed Services Committee, and of course Senator 
Mikulski, chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee.
  Let's address the substance of the amendment if it were drafted 
properly. The Senate has already made it clear it supports biofuels and 
ending our Nation's dependence on foreign oil. We look at the challenge 
of foreign oil every time we drive by a gas station and we think to 
ourselves: How high can these prices go? They were knocking on the door 
of $5 a gallon in Chicago just a couple weeks ago. They have come down 
a little bit, but they are worse in other parts of the country, and we 
think to ourselves: When is this country going to reach the point where 
we are not held captive by OPEC nations and other suppliers of oil? 
That is the frustration we feel. That is the impact we have as 
consumers in America.
  Now take this into a theater of war. Now it is a different story. We 
cannot manage and run our professional military without energy and 
fuel. The price we have paid to transfer fuel to the field of battle is 
dramatic, hundreds of dollars a gallon--not $5 a gallon, hundreds of 
dollars a gallon--because, unfortunately, if we are going to keep our 
men and women safe, we have to fuel the vehicles, the vehicles they 
rely on, whether it is the humvees or the tanks, airplanes or whatever 
they are using, and we have to move the fuel to where they need it and 
we have to move it now.
  Let me also tell you something. Moving that fuel is not without 
danger. The first National Guard unit I visited in Iraq from my State 
of Illinois was a transport unit. They were driving these tanker 
trucks. Well, you think, these are soldiers driving trucks? They risked 
their lives every time they did it. That is where the roadside bombs 
were planted.
  So when we start talking about moving energy to the military, we are 
talking about a life-and-death challenge. Unfortunately, many Americans 
have lost their lives moving that fuel to the field of battle.
  So what do the generals and secretaries in the Pentagon tell us? We 
have to take a look at our energy consumption and find ways to have 
more fuel-efficient vehicles for our troops to reduce the need to keep 
moving this fuel, and we have to find better sources for fuel--fuel 
that might work better in one theater of battle than in another. That 
is what they have asked for, and that is what the Senator from 
Pennsylvania says--no, we can't afford that. We shouldn't do that. We 
ought to cut the $60 million involved in this research.
  The Senate voted twice on Senator Toomey's proposal, and it voted 
both times in support of the Department of Defense initiative biofuels 
program. That was during the debate of the Senate Armed Services 
authorization bill. But no ideas ever go away in the Senate. This one 
is back again for the third try by Senator Toomey. I hope it reaches 
the same fate as the other two tries.
  The conference agreement that was reached after the Department's 
authorization bill said that the Departments of Energy and Agriculture 
had to provide matching funds, and due to budget constraints they are 
not going to go that this year. However, the money that is appropriated 
for this purpose is going to continue to be able to be spent in other 
years and the research can continue.
  Why would we stop this? Why would we say we are not going to do the 
research necessary to find more efficient fuels? Why are we going to 
try to stop the research in more efficient vehicles that keep our 
troops safe and reduce the likelihood that the men and women in uniform 
transporting these fuels are risking their lives to do so? Why in the 
world do we want to subject them to roadside bombs for the transport of 
fuels if we are told by the military they want to look at other 
options? Why wouldn't we do that? Sadly, the Senator from Pennsylvania 
just thinks we shouldn't do it, and that is why he has offered this 
amendment.
  The funds appropriated for this project are available until expended. 
When other agencies are able to meet their own cost shares, they will 
certainly be used. The chairman of the Armed Services Committee, 
Senator Carl Levin, agrees with me on this. There is no conflict 
between the Defense Appropriations and the Defense Authorization 
committees.
  Keeping the funds in this bill supports the Senate's clear position 
on giving to our military the authority they need to protect our troops 
and to lessen their need for using these energy sources. Reducing DOD 
energy costs and reducing the volatility of gasoline supplies is 
critical--critical to making sure the best military in the world is the 
safest military in the world.
  The Defense Department is the Federal Government's largest energy 
consumer by far. The events of the Arab Spring and Iran's continued 
threats to deny access to the Strait of Hormuz demonstrate the security 
risk of relying on foreign oil sources. That is why this is a critical 
decision--it is a life-and-death decision--to look to other energy 
sources.
  The Senator may say we can move $60 million to operations and 
maintenance. I am sure they need it. But they literally need much more 
than that. It is better we keep this research moving forward.
  A 2012 report from the Congressional Research Service noted that 
since the early 1990s, the cost of buying fuel has increased faster 
than any other major Department of Defense budget category. That 
includes health care and military personnel. Between fiscal years 2005 
and 2011, the Department's petroleum use decreased by 4 percent, but 
the Department's spending on petroleum rose 381 percent over that same 
period of time. Recall that we paid for our wars under the previous 
administration on a credit card. Part of that credit card charge 
related to the cost of fuel--a dramatic cost--which we are still paying 
off.
  The Department of Defense estimates that every 25-cent increase in 
the price of a gallon of oil means an additional $1 billion a year in 
fuel costs. The $60 million in this bill for biofuels is such a small 
investment of the Navy's annual cost for petroleum-based fuel, 
approximately $4.5 billion in fiscal year 2011, and an even smaller 
fraction of the Navy's total budget of $173 billion. Sixty million 
dollars in research against the Navy's fuel costs of $4.5 billion--
penny wise and pound foolish with this Toomey amendment.
  This modest investment is worth the potential of being able to 
provide a secure alternative to the national security risk of petroleum 
dependence.
  For the sake of reducing the cost of protecting America, for the sake 
of protecting the lives of men and women who serve our Nation and risk 
their lives every day and depend on this energy and fuel, for the sake 
of at least being thoughtful enough to put money into research to find 
ways for more fuel efficiency and better sources of fuel, please vote 
no on the Toomey amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, I know there are people who are very 
passionately interested in developing any kind of alternative energy. I 
would just suggest there are research facilities where that is probably 
appropriate. I suppose the Department of Energy might be a candidate. 
But the kind of biofuels that are generated cost far more than 
conventional fuels. We have a tremendous volume of conventional fuels, 
and it is a savings to be able to use conventional fuels.

[[Page S1842]]

  In this case, my suggestion is that this money goes to where it is 
vitally needed, in the operations and maintenance accounts. But I would 
like to discuss with the Senator from Illinois the concern he has about 
a budget point of order, so I will suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. 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. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. President, I would like to speak today 
on the Toomey amendment, No. 115. I rise to argue against the Toomey 
amendment.
  This is an amendment about energy. As we all know, energy is a 
strategic resource for us. Every member of our Armed Forces understands 
this, and they understand it well. Energy is essential to our national 
security mission. Everybody knows you do not go out there and move in 
an aggressive way without good, solid energy supplies behind you. 
Having access to reliable energy supplies to protect our men and women 
in uniform is absolutely essential. No matter where they may be in the 
world, it is critical to our Nation that we have these good energy 
supplies.
  Each branch of the Armed Forces recognizes the importance of biofuels 
as a critical part of its energy needs. Our military faces numerous 
logistical challenges with its dependence on fossil fuels. Increasing 
diversification through investment in alternative fuels will help the 
military carry out its mission safely and without the need to rely 
exclusively on foreign sources of fuel from countries that do not share 
our interests overseas.
  The amendment offered by Senator Toomey, the Senator from 
Pennsylvania, trades some short-term benefits at the cost of our long-
term needs. Reducing the Department of Defense's ability to procure 
biofuels by $60 million is a step in the wrong direction. Biofuels are 
an American industry, growing energy right here in our own backyard--
energy at home, made in America.
  In my own State, the Los Alamos National Lab is growing the next 
generation of algae feedstocks for future biofuels. We are doing some 
great research in this area of biofuels. We also have a biorefinery 
facility operated by Sapphire Energy near Columbus, NM. This facility 
is up and running and can produce 1.5 million gallons per year of fuel. 
That is fuel derived from these advanced-generation algae. This story 
is not unique to New Mexico. Texas, California, Missouri, and Iowa lead 
the United States in the number of biorefineries per State.
  This amendment limits opportunities for bioenergy companies across 
the United States. Biofuels are a significant source of energy for the 
Department of Defense. We should provide as many opportunities as 
possible to grow this industry. We should maximize the long-term 
economic and national security benefits of U.S. biofuels.
  It is for those reasons that I urge a ``no'' vote on the Toomey 
amendment.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise to speak on the Toomey amendment.
  I want to reiterate what my colleague from Illinois said about this 
amendment. Senator Durbin chairs the Subcommittee on Defense. He 
recently took this over with the passing of Senator Dan Inouye. Senator 
Dick Durbin has now assumed the Chair. It is a committee we are now 
looking at funding.
  I too have met with the Department of Defense--whether it was 
Secretary Hagel, Deputy Secretary Ash Carter. I have talked things over 
with General Dempsey. When they talk about what are the big-buck 
expenditures in defense--is it guns? Is it bullets? Is it body armor? 
Is it tanks or planes? The exploding costs are in the area of military 
personnel. We have to pay our people, so we agree with that. Then there 
is the issue of providing health care. Wow, after a 10-year war where 
we have asked too much from too few for too long, people are coming 
back with the permanent wounds of war. All are coming back with the 
permanent impact of war. Health care problems are showing up among 
them. But to my surprise--I was not surprised about that--I was 
surprised that one of the largest expenditures in DOD is energy. I 
already knew that DOD is the Federal Government's largest energy 
consumer and that the Congressional Research Service notes that since 
early 1990, the cost of buying fuel has increased faster than any other 
DOD budget category. Isn't that a surprise, that it is increasing 
faster than health care? I actually believed health care would be the 
fastest because of what our troops and their families have endured. But 
it is the fastest growing category.
  Some numbers. I know a lot of our colleagues are numbers people. 
Between fiscal years 2005 and 2011, the Department's petroleum use 
actually went down. Their use of petroleum went down by 4 percent. You 
would think their costs went down. But guess what. Their spending on 
petroleum rose 381 percent in that same period. What an amazing number. 
When your use goes down but your cost goes up 381 percent, it is time 
to take a new look and begin to find new ways to deal with this 
challenge. Our Department of Defense went right to work.
  DOD tells us that for every 25-cent increase in the price of a gallon 
of oil, the Federal Government and DOD incur over $1 billion in 
additional fuel costs. Every time a gallon of oil goes up 25 cents, the 
Federal Government ends up spending $1 billion more at only DOD. That 
is $1 billion that could go a long way in either making sure we have 
modern weapons or for our returning troops--and they are returning--to 
have the health care they need.
  We need to modernize the military. Senator McCain has challenged us. 
We need to make sure we don't hollow out the military.
  We need to make sure we address the new emerging threats not only in 
geographic areas but in cyber space. I am on the Select Committee on 
Intelligence. Those cyber threats are eye-popping when you study the 
issue.

  We need to do something about our cost of fuel. The Navy had planned 
to spend close to $200 million on advanced biofuels between fiscal year 
2009 and 2012. The $60 million we are talking about is a small fraction 
of the Navy's annual cost for petroleum-based fuel--approximately $4.5 
billion in fiscal year 2011.
  Secretary of the Navy Mabus has talked about how energy security is a 
growing national security issue not only for our country but also 
specifically for the DOD. What is the answer to that? We have to be 
able to look at funding for the advanced biofuel program. As Senator 
Durbin said, the Senate has already voted twice in support of DOD's 
biofuels programs. The Department continues to spend money in fiscal 
2012 for biofuels. The fiscal 2013 year will maintain funding to pursue 
the program in future years.
  I hope we understand what are the real costs facing the Department of 
Defense. Just because you do not like a program--let's look at these 
programs in terms of the challenges facing our military. We think the 
challenge facing our military is terrorism, and it is al-Qaida. Gosh, 
when one thinks about those marines up there, as we speak, in the 
mountains of Afghanistan, it just gives you chills. When they are up 
there fighting for us, they need to have resources. They need to have 
the weapons, they need to have the armor to protect themselves, but 
they also need to have the fuel to get around. As Senator Durbin said, 
they are often incredibly at risk because they are riding over roads 
loaded with these mines. We have come a long way in learning how to 
deal with IEDs, but the hurt locker continues to exist. We have to do 
something to protect our military, protect those in the military who 
support the frontline troops. That means they need to have the fuel on 
which the DOD will continue to run.
  We need to look for alternative sources. The policy is a good one. I 
think the amendment of Senator

[[Page S1843]]

Toomey is well intentioned, to fund operations and maintenance, but 
operations and maintenance is really also having the right fuel, which 
means we have to develop alternatives to what we have now.
  I wanted to comment on this. As I have taken over the chair of the 
full committee, I have learned a lot more about the funding of the 
Department of Defense and the challenges they face. The more we 
scrutinize it, some of the really big-buck expenditures that support 
the troops are not visible in the public eye, but they are visible as 
we look at our expenditures.
  We need to support our military, and we need to do it not only in the 
way we are supporting them today, but to have the new technologies for 
the kind of support they will need in the future.
  I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, that also takes me to the fact that 
there are these growing issues in the area of health care that we need 
to take a look at. There are a variety of challenges facing the 
Department of Defense that we need to look at and address, but let's do 
it through the regular order, through our appropriate authorizing 
committee, and through our appropriate Appropriations Committee.
  I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                 Amendment No. 123 to Amendment No. 115

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I send an amendment in the nature of a 
second-degree to the desk and ask that it be reported.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no objection, the clerk will 
report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Illinois [Mr. Durbin] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 123 to amendment No. 115.

  The amendment is as follows:

       At the end, add the following:
       (d) This section shall become effective 1 day after the 
     date of enactment.

  Mr. DURBIN. This is a second-degree amendment to the Toomey amendment 
numbered 115.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. 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. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I rise today in the midst of a 
profoundly important conversation on the floor of this body about the 
future of our financial situation with the Federal Government, and I 
want to thank the Senator from Maryland for her extraordinarily 
impressive work. I thank her on behalf of myself, Connecticut, and the 
Nation for her very diligent and dedicated labors to bring us to this 
conclusion, which all of us hope will take place in the next few hours.


                               DREAM Act

  I want to deal with a separate issue of equal importance that will be 
enabled on the floor of the Senate if we are able to overcome our 
differences on this fiscal issue. The issue I am referring to is 
comprehensive and accountable immigration reform, which this Nation 
desperately needs. I am working to achieve it, as I know my colleagues 
are.
  The President of the United States has advanced that agenda very 
compellingly in his proposals that include a path to earned citizenship 
for the 11 million or more undocumented people in this country, 
stronger enforcement at the borders against illegal immigration into 
this country, and stronger enforcement within our borders against 
illegal employment of undocumented people already here. Of course, we 
also need a streamlined and fairer immigration process so we can 
provide a process that comports not only with our due process 
obligations, but also with the fundamental concept of fairness.
  This is not the first time I have come to the floor to deal with one 
area of immigration reform that ought to be expedited as part of that 
agenda. I am here to talk about Connecticut DREAMers and their 
invaluable contributions to their communities and DREAMers across the 
United States who make those same kind of contributions to our 
communities and my colleagues on the Senate floor.
  Over the last couple of months a tremendous momentum has developed in 
favor of comprehensive and accountable immigration reform. I am 
thrilled by these developments. They are tremendously heartening, and I 
commend my colleagues for their profoundly significant work. Most 
importantly, I look forward to seizing this unique and historic moment 
and the opportunity to reform our broken immigration system.
  The DREAM Act would give young immigrants who have been brought to 
this country as children a chance to earn their citizenship through 
education or military service. The idea about immigration reform is to 
achieve earned citizenship. These young people--or DREAMers, as they 
are often called--are undocumented immigrants who were brought to this 
country at a young age, as infants, or young children through no fault 
or choice of their own. America is the only home they have ever known. 
English is the only language many of them know. Their friends are here, 
their life is in this country, and they make invaluable contributions 
to this great Nation.
  I thank one of my colleagues and friend, Senator Durbin, for his 
championing this cause over many years, and in fact, he introduced the 
DREAM Act 11 years ago and has tirelessly and relentlessly fought for 
its passage. He has come close to success, and my hope is that 
immigration reform will include this vitally important measure.
  The immigrants who would benefit from the DREAM Act identify as 
American. But our immigration system affords them no direct path to 
achieving legal immigration status, let alone citizenship.
  The DREAM Act would give them a chance to earn legal status if they 
meet several requirements such as having come to America as children, 
having good moral character, having graduated from high school, and 
completed 2 years of college or military service.
  A DREAMer who meets these requirements can apply for legal permanent 
residency and pursue a path to citizenship.
  DREAMers who live in our communities but fear deportation have been 
given some relief by the President of the United States, in effect, a 
temporary reprieve. But they still lack the security and permanency, 
and they should be given it, even after the President's program. 
Because just as they were given that reprieve administratively, they 
can also lose it in the same way at the end of 2 years, which is the 
limit currently of the reprieve from deportation they have been 
granted.
  Two million immigrants nationwide would benefit from the DREAM Act. 
There are between 11,000 and 20,000 DREAMers living in Connecticut, and 
one of them is Vanessa Bautista. I am going to place her photograph on 
this stand and say to the people of Connecticut, we should be proud of 
Vanessa. I am proud of Vanessa. She was born in Ecuador and came to 
America at the age of 10, raised by her grandmother and reunited with 
her parents here in America. Soon after joining her parents in 
Connecticut, Vanessa learned English and she began school. She had a 
dream to go to college and become a nurse. As a teenager, she worked 
cleaning houses. She babysat. She saved money as much as she could for 
college because it was part of her dream of becoming a U.S. citizen and 
giving back to the greatest Nation in the history of the world.
  She was accepted to Southern Connecticut State University, having to

[[Page S1844]]

pay the entire tuition. During her first year at Southern, she worked 
full time and went to school full time. She did both full time--had a 
job and sought an education. She doesn't remember having any rest 
during that year, not surprisingly. She went to school in the morning 
and then worked and babysat every night until midnight. Even with this 
challenge, she achieved a 3.9 GPA that year. She dreams of graduating 
from college and one day working as a registered nurse. She wants to 
give back, which she will do, and she will give back to the country she 
calls home. But she understands these dreams will be out of reach 
unless this body, this Congress, this Nation, approves the DREAM Act 
and the rights she is seeking.
  I say in conclusion, I urge my colleagues to work hard on the issues 
at hand, which are fiscal in nature. They are key to our future in this 
country. But equally important to this great Nation of immigrants is 
providing a path to earned citizenship for young men and women such as 
Vanessa, their parents, and the 11 million people in this country who 
now live in the shadows. Let us enable them to come out of the shadows, 
pay fines and pay back taxes, show they have no criminal record, and 
otherwise meet the strong criteria we should establish as part of that 
pathway to earned citizenship, and truly achieve for Vanessa and the 
DREAMers what is certainly the American dream: Work hard, play by the 
rules, and you will be recognized for what you achieve, what you earn, 
what you give back and contribute to the greatest Nation in the history 
of the world.
  Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor and I suggest the absence 
of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, I rise today in strong opposition to 
amendment No. 115, the Toomey amendment. This amendment would reduce 
funding for advanced drop in biofuels production.
  I strongly oppose this amendment for several reasons. First, this 
amendment undermines our long-term national security. The 2010 
Quadrennial Defense Review outlines several areas where reforms are 
imperative to improving our national security. Implementing reforms to 
strengthen our energy security was one of these areas.
  Right now, our military is almost totally dependent on fossil fuels. 
These resources are finite, priced on a global marketplace, and 
produced by nations with whom we don't always see eye to eye. There are 
also new powers rising and new challenges evolving. So to preserve a 
21st century force, we need to invest in 21st century priorities. This 
means we must diversify how we power our military.
  The project this amendment seeks to cut is fairly modest in the 
scheme of the military budget, but the overall benefits to our forces 
will be well worth it. Our Nation has always invested in technologies 
that produce long-term benefits and address changing circumstances--
from more advanced tanks and aircraft to faster communications and 
lighter armor. We have to innovate now in order for our military to 
have the capabilities to protect our Nation. We need to make the same 
kinds of investments now in our military's long-term energy needs.
  Already the research and deployment of alternative energy is 
benefiting our long-term capabilities, improving troop safety, and 
making security operations more affordable. In fact, just last summer, 
at the Rim of the Pacific Exercise--RIMPAC--the U.S. Navy demonstrated 
its ``Great Green Fleet'' with surface combatants and aircraft using 
advanced biofuels for the first time. This exercise--the largest 
international exercise in the world--proved that our military platforms 
can use these fuels.
  Prior to this exercise, Navy Secretary Ray Mabus said of the biofuels 
demonstration:

       The Navy has always led the nation in transforming the way 
     we use energy, not because it is popular, but because it 
     makes us better war fighters.

  Clearly, continuing to support this type of investment will pay 
additional dividends that will help ensure the United States remains 
the world's preeminent military and technological power in the 21st 
century.
  However, there is another reason to oppose this amendment and support 
the military's ongoing efforts to improve its energy security. That 
reason is that it makes good long-run budgetary sense. Fossil fuels are 
a finite resource that are priced on a global market. Increasingly, as 
I mentioned, this fuel is produced by nations with whom we don't see 
eye to eye. As global competition for fuel resources intensifies, it is 
vital that we reduce the amount necessary to power our military.
  Not only does our reliance on fossil fuels constrain our assets and 
resources from an operational perspective, it also puts significant 
strains on already stretched budgets. For example, between fiscal year 
2005 and fiscal year 2011, the Department of Defense spending on 
petroleum rose from $4.5 billion to $17.3 billion. That is a 381-
percent increase. While that number is shocking, another shocking fact 
is that during this time the Department of Defense was actually using 4 
percent less petroleum. In other words, we are paying nearly four times 
more money for less fuel.

  In addition, global price spikes make budgeting for our current 
energy costs extremely challenging. According to the Navy, every time 
oil prices rise by $1, their fuel budget inflates by $30 million. In 
fiscal year 2012, the U.S. Pacific Command, which is based in Hawaii, 
faced a $200 million shortfall in operation and maintenance funds. This 
is directly related to spiking fuel costs. These unforeseen 
circumstances reduce our military's capabilities and readiness. It is 
also unsustainable in today's budget environment.
  So while the Senator from Pennsylvania argues that biofuels are too 
expensive now, new technologies are always more expensive at first. 
That is exactly why we need to invest in scaling up instead of scaling 
back. The first fighter jets off the assembly line are always more 
expensive than the 100th fighter off that line. The fact is that it is 
the height of irresponsibility for us to rely on fuel sources with such 
unstable costs.
  That is why the military is already working to reduce its fossil fuel 
usage and to develop and deploy alternatives wherever possible. At the 
U.S. Pacific Command, investments in renewable energy, energy-efficient 
buildings, and fuel cell or hybrid vehicles are making installations 
more cost-effective. In fact, PACOM expects to reduce its reliance on 
fossil fuels for electricity by 80 percent. That would reduce the total 
DOD electricity demand in Hawaii by 34 percent and save the DOD $42 
million per year in electricity costs. This $42 million could be put to 
better uses.
  These are savings that can be replicated on a servicewide scale and 
will save far more money that could be used to support O&M than the 
Toomey amendment will. The military recognizes this. This is why GEN 
James Mattis has stated:

       I remain committed to unleash the burden of fuel from our 
     operational and tactical commanders to the greatest extent 
     possible.

  These investments are about improving our national security by 
changing the way we power our military. Advanced biofuels is an 
investment in that goal and one we should continue.
  As U.S. Marine Corps Gen. John Allen has said:

       Operational energy equates exactly to operational 
     capability. Let's all work this hard, together!

  So I urge my colleagues to vote against the Toomey amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, I too rise, as my colleague 
from Hawaii just did, to speak in support of the Department of Defense 
and in opposition to the amendment offered by the Senator from 
Pennsylvania. As has been outlined, this amendment would strike funding 
for a very important and effective Navy program which now works with 
private industry along with the Department of Energy and the Department 
of Agriculture to produce alternative fuels. As we work together to 
overcome the harm that has been done by sequestration, it is essential 
we provide the military with the flexibility to

[[Page S1845]]

overcome current and future threats. That includes allowing the DOD to 
invest in energy sources and fuel technologies that reduce our 
dependence on foreign oil.
  Unfortunately, the Toomey amendment does the opposite. So accepting 
it would do real harm to our military. It would cost more money than it 
would save and it would damage the military's strong and necessary 
efforts to reduce its dependence on foreign oil.
  In carrying out the work of our Nation, the Department of Defense 
consumes approximately 330,000 barrels of oil every single day. That 
works out to be 120 million barrels per year. What does that cost us? 
Last year, the military spent over $16 billion on fuel. Because of 
rising global oil prices, that was about $2.5 billion more than they 
forecasted. Those rising costs--in dollars and in operational 
capability--are staggering. I think that is the only word that applies.
  If we think about it, we realize that for every 25-percent increase 
in the price per gallon of oil, the military's fuel costs increase by 
$1 billion. In order to make up for that shortfall, the DOD has to pull 
money from operations and maintenance, which means that rising fuel 
costs result in less training, deferred maintenance, and reduced 
operational capability. That is a terrible triad if there ever was one. 
That means our troops, then, are also less prepared when they go into 
harm's way. They are less ready to fight when it matters most.

  The Toomey amendment would undercut efforts to end that cycle. It 
would delay the development of technologies that would clearly bring 
lower costs, more domestic production, and more American jobs. That is 
why the DOD is investing in these domestic alternatives to foreign oil.
  It should tell us something that in an era of reduced Department of 
Defense budgets our senior leaders remain fully committed to this 
effort. Even when we have to tighten our belts, they think this is an 
investment that makes sense.
  What are we doing? We are investing in research and development that 
will develop new fuels that can be made from biologic feedstocks. These 
are fuels that can be grown and then refined here at home.
  I want to be clear, these are not programs that are being forced on 
the DOD through earmarks or by environmentalists or other groups that 
some like to demonize. These are DOD initiatives, undertaken to protect 
the military from rising fuel costs and an increasingly volatile 
international marketplace.
  So even under the threat of sequestration, investments in new energy 
technologies and alternative fuels remain a priority.
  I would say to my friends who say we cannot afford to spend money on 
alternative fuels, our uniformed senior leaders tell us we cannot 
afford not to.
  Think about it another way. We send $300 billion overseas every year 
for oil. If we could keep about one-twentieth of a percent of that 
money at home, we would pay for this program.
  For about half of what we spend on military bands each year, we could 
be establishing a domestic energy industry.
  For about one-sixth of the cost of this year's funding for the MEADS 
missile system--a system that the DOD has no intention of putting into 
operational use--we could diversify our energy portfolio and drive down 
costs.
  We would be taking billions out of the hands of terrorists and 
reducing the risk, at the same time, to our military personnel.
  The proponents for cutting off these investments in alternative fuels 
would argue that the Defense Department should not be involved in the 
development of new energy sources. I could not disagree more. Let me 
tell you why.
  These biofuels could not be used as leverage against us. The 
refineries could not be taken over by al-Qaida-backed extremists or 
blockaded by Iranian gunboats.
  Energy security is national security, and this is exactly the right 
kind of investment that our military should be making.
  Just think historically: Military research and development has 
sustained the enormous technological advantage we maintain over our 
adversaries. Our willingness to invest in the future has helped keep us 
safe.
  It has also been said that the DOD should not be spending money on 
energy development. If that were the case, we would not have a nuclear-
powered Navy. Without military investment in emerging technologies, we 
would not have jet engines, microchips, microwave ovens, radar, or GPS 
navigation.
  Ensuring our energy security ought to be a national priority. Our 
reliance on foreign oil is a threat to our security and our economy, 
and I suggest even our very way of life.
  We need a whole-of-America solution to this national problem, and the 
Department of Defense absolutely has a critical role to play in that 
effort.
  If you believe that the DOD has a vested interest in having reliable 
sources of fuel and energy, then you should agree that they have a role 
to play in ensuring that new fuels meet their needs.
  As I mentioned, we are all concerned about the effect of 
sequestration on our troops, but we cannot solve our problems with the 
same kind of shortsighted thinking that got us here in the first place.
  Killing the Navy's biofuels program--and make no mistake, that is 
exactly what this amendment would do--will cost more money than it 
saves. It will set back an industry that is poised to provide our 
country with enormous and important benefits. And it will make sure--it 
will ensure--that we keep pouring money into foreign coffers.
  So I urge my colleagues to continue to support smart investments in 
our future, like the Navy's biofuels initiative. Therefore, I urge my 
colleagues to oppose the Toomey amendment.
  Mr. President, thank you for your attention.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, I am here to speak to an amendment that I 
previously filed, amendment No. 41.
  The purpose of this amendment is to help provide the White House with 
the opportunity to reopen its doors to the American people. It 
certainly has received a lot of attention, which demonstrates to me--
and I am sure to my colleagues--how important a visit to the White 
House is to so many Americans.
  In my view, we can be much smarter, and we must be much smarter, with 
our spending decisions and make cuts in ways that do not intentionally 
or unnecessarily inflict hardship or aggravation upon the citizens of 
our country.
  Canceling White House tours is one of those unnecessary and unfair 
ways for the Department of Homeland Security to meet its budget-cutting 
obligations--particularly if the necessary savings can be found 
someplace else within their budget.
  The self-guided White House tours were canceled either by the Secret 
Service or the White House--I have not been able to get a clear answer 
to actually who made that decision. But, regardless, they were canceled 
in order to save a minimum of $2.14 million, according to the Secret 
Service.
  This amendment proposes to transfer $2.5 million from TSA to the U.S. 
Secret Service to pay for the security staff necessary for the White 
House tours to continue for the remainder of fiscal year 2013.
  Why go after TSA? In my view, TSA can absorb these costs. Just last 
week, TSA signed a contract--just last week TSA signed a contract--that 
would allow it to spend up to $50 million on uniform-related expenses 
over the course of the next 2 years. So last week, TSA spends $50 
million for new uniforms, and now we have no money for tours at the 
White House.

  Prior to signing that $50 million uniform contract, the TSA uniform 
allowance for security officers had already doubled last November as 
part of a new TSA collective bargaining agreement to an estimated $9.57 
million annually. This works out to $443 per TSA employee per year. By 
comparison, officers in the U.S. Armed Forces receive either no uniform 
allowance or a one-time $400 allowance over the lifetime of their 
service.
  There is no reason why American taxpayers should spend more on TSA 
uniforms every year than a U.S. Marine Corps lieutenant spends in a 
lifetime. And the same taxpayers who are

[[Page S1846]]

funding the TSA officers' uniforms are being denied the opportunity to 
tour the White House--the people's house.
  This amendment has been scored by CBO, which found it would result in 
no net change in budget authority and would result in an estimated 
decrease in fiscal year 2013 outlays of $1 million. So it is an 
amendment that saves money.
  These White House tour closings are actually falling on the burden of 
Members of Congress because it is our responsibility to organize the 
tours, get the permission, and we are the ones who are now telling our 
constituents that tours that were previously approved--we have to call 
and give them the bad news.
  In fact, today I had a couple of Kansans and their three young boys 
on the Capitol steps for a photograph and conversation, and these 
constituents with their family from Kansas were indicating how sad it 
was to tell their boys, even though they were here in Washington, DC, 
they could not see the White House. In fact, they said: We played by 
the rules. We signed up. We went through the security. For months we 
were planning to come to Washington, DC, but now that we have arrived, 
the White House is something that is not available to us and our boys.
  It is often that we are the ones now providing that news to families 
in Kansas and across the country. My office has received lots of e-
mails from concerned constituents, including some whose tours are not 
even scheduled until next May or June, sometime in the summer, asking 
whether we believe the White House will be reopened to them by that 
time.
  Between March 9 and March 21--just in that short period of time--we 
have already canceled 16 previously approved White House tours. 
Multiply that--assuming we are normal or average--by 100 Senate offices 
and 435 House Members, and that is a lot of Americans who had hoped or 
thought they were going to see the White House on their visit to our 
Nation's Capitol.
  I read today that the White House has indicated they are going to try 
to find ways. I think the President said he is going to try to find 
ways to get young people, children, into the White House. I certainly 
express my desire to see that happen. But I was thinking, if we make 
that the case, then what happens to the Kansan who is the 91-year-old 
World War II veteran who is back here to see the World War II Memorial 
and while here wants to see the White House?
  Again, the White House should be available to all Americans--in fact, 
people from around the globe--to see the home of our President.
  Shaking up our entire tour scheduling process at a time in which the 
tourists are soon coming--or coming now with spring break and cherry 
blossoms--is something, in my view, we can avoid. This amendment would 
take money that we believe is less wisely spent and reopen the White 
House to the American people.
  So I appreciate the opportunity to explain my amendment and would 
hope we can find a way, in working with the White House and working 
with the Secret Service, to make sure that noble building at 1600 
Pennsylvania Avenue is something that is available for Americans to 
see, to view, and to be inspired.
  One of those kids, one of those folks who walks through that White 
House, someday might be the President of the United States. And we do 
not want to do anything that hinders the opportunity for that 
inspiration to occur and for Americans to continue to be proud in their 
Executive Officer--the President--and to be proud of the system of 
government we have. Let's not lose the inspiration. Let's not deny the 
American taxpayer, the American family the opportunity to see the White 
House at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.


                           Amendment No. 115

  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I chair the Energy and Natural Resources 
Committee, and in that capacity, I want to take a couple of minutes to 
speak against the Toomey amendment. That is amendment No. 115 that 
would slash, in effect, the biofuels program at the Department of 
Defense.
  Of course, we are going to hear that this will save money, that with 
the sequester and a very tough set of financial circumstances, which 
the Presiding Officer knows all too well, the argument will be we 
cannot afford to have this biofuels program in the Department of 
Defense.
  My argument would be, we cannot afford not to have this program, and 
I am going to take a couple minutes to try to describe why that is the 
case.
  Right now, the Department of Defense is the single largest user of 
energy in our country, with annual fuel expenditures in excess of $16 
billion. So you have this massive need for energy at the Pentagon--
really a thirst for energy at the Pentagon--and fluctuations in global 
energy prices have, in effect, enormous effects on defense spending. 
Every $10 increase in a barrel of oil costs the American military 
annually an extra $1.3 billion.
  For some time there has been a recognition among military experts--
and some are in the Presiding Officer's home State of Massachusetts, 
where they have spent a lot of time looking at these issues--there has 
been a recognition that the military, particularly the Pentagon, is 
exactly the place where we ought to be looking for fresh innovative 
approaches in order to cut energy use and find alternative sources.
  For the life of me, I cannot figure out how somehow this effort by 
the Pentagon--let me repeat: by our country's military--has somehow 
been conflated into some kind of green plot, some kind of plot by those 
who are obsessed with green energy and are simply interested in 
promoting programs to satisfy their ideological interests.
  I can tell you the reason this is being pursued at the Pentagon is 
not because this is somehow some sort of green plot, some sort of 
subversive green plot. This is being pursued at the Pentagon because 
they have made the judgment that these kinds of alternative fuels and 
supporting them is a vital national security matter. This is not about 
some kind of ideological green agenda. This is about national security. 
Their judgment is we need exactly this kind of effort.
  DOD contracts are particularly crucial because they help promote 
research and development efforts. What we have seen repeatedly is a lot 
of the most exciting alternative fuels. The biofuels have enormous 
potential. The challenge is to keep driving down the costs and do it in 
a cost-effective kind of way. That is exactly what goes on now at the 
Department of Defense as relates to biofuels. It is exactly what would 
be undermined if the Toomey amendment, amendment No. 115, was passed 
and signed into law.
  The last point I would make is that Bloomberg, which has a new energy 
finance unit, a special unit that looks at these issues, their analysts 
predict that some aviation biofuels are going to be cost competitive 
with standard jet fuel in just a few years. That will happen if we do 
not undermine current development rates in this area of biofuels at the 
Department of Defense.
  That is why, colleagues, I feel so strongly about opposing the Toomey 
amendment on biofuels at the Pentagon. I hope my colleagues will agree.
  I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Udall of Colorado). The clerk will call 
the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I come to the floor this evening to 
address Senator Toomey's amendment, which would remove the provisions 
around biofuels, amendment No. 115. I think it is important to point 
out that this is really more than a budget issue. The Presiding Officer 
understands, as he and I worked together to address this when we passed 
the Defense authorization bill. This is really a national security 
issue.
  I had the opportunity, as chair of the Water and Power Subcommittee 
in Energy, to go down to Norfolk to have a hearing aboard the USS 
Kearsarge to talk about exactly what the Navy--and they are reflective 
of the military--is doing to address energy use. I saw some very 
amazing progress in terms of their

[[Page S1847]]

reduction in energy use, their energy efficiency. I saw some of the 
things they are doing, such as using solar blankets and small, compact 
batteries out in the field. This allows them to do their mission much 
better.
  They pointed out that our access to energy is complicated by 
political unrest and by threats to our supply lines around the globe. 
We spend billions to protect these fragile supply lines.
  Oil prices are set on a global market, often driven by speculation 
and rumor. Our military is too often exposed to price shocks. The 
military consumes about 300,000 barrels of oil a day, which is about 
$30 million a day.
  The Federal Government is the largest consumer of energy in the 
United States, with 93 percent consumed by the military. For every 
dollar rise in a barrel of oil, the Navy incurs a cost of $30 million 
at current prices. Last year the Navy incurred a $1.1 billion budget 
shortfall because the cost of a barrel of oil increased by $38. The 
commander of the Pacific Fleet was forced to cut $200 million from its 
flying and steaming costs because of those cost increases.
  In fiscal years 2011 and 2012, the Department of Defense came up $5.6 
billion short for military operations and maintenance because it needed 
to spend more on fuel than anticipated.
  As I saw in Norfolk on the Kearsarge, each of our services is making 
real progress on energy efficiency and moving to alternative fuels. 
This is not the time to hinder those efforts.
  The per-gallon cost of test quantities of advanced biofuels under 
Navy contracts has declined more than 90 percent over the past 2 years, 
and it is going to continue to decline. The Navy and the Department of 
Defense have been on the leading edge of innovation and technological 
achievements over the last 200 years. This is another example of 
innovation and technological advancement.
  Last year the Chief of Naval Operations, ADM Jonathan Greenert, sent 
a letter to my office advocating his strong support for the Navy's 
efforts on biofuels and urging Congress to provide him with the 
flexibility to continue this effort. He states:

       I support the Secretary of the Navy's efforts . . . to 
     accelerate the establishment of a domestic alternative fuels 
     industry through DPA, Title III. This effort will enhance our 
     energy security by diversifying the supply of fuels.
       Restricting this biofuel effort will ``impede America's 
     energy security.''

  I applaud my colleague Senator Toomey for the efforts he made to look 
at what we are spending in government to attempt to reduce those costs. 
He and I are working very closely in an attempt to reduce the cost of 
sugar subsidies in this country. This is a situation where, for short-
term gain, they would risk the long-term benefit.
  I would urge my colleagues to oppose the Toomey amendment and ensure 
our military continues to be on the leading edge of energy security for 
the world.
  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.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                        In Memory of Andy Athens

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I want to take a moment to remember a 
friend of mine who passed away last night. Andy Athens was a civic 
institution in Chicago. He was a brilliant business leader. He was also 
``the Dean'' of the Greek American community--a founder and former 
president and the cofounder of the National Coordinated Effort of 
Hellenes.
  We are so grateful that when Andy's father left Greece in 1904 he 
came to Chicago. With his brother Tom, Andy built a business that 
provided steel to the world and good jobs and dignity for generations 
of Chicago's American families. But Andy's contributions went far 
beyond Chicago. Growing up, Andy attended school at St. Constantine and 
Helen Greek Orthodox Church in Chicago, where he learned the importance 
of Greek culture and the Greek Orthodox Church.
  When World War II came, Andy served as a captain in the U.S. Army in 
Europe and Africa and was awarded the Bronze Star. But he brought more 
than a Bronze Star home from that experience. He stayed on in Belgium 
after the war ended to run a liberated Ford Motor Company plant that 
was rebuilding American-made cars and trucks for sale to European 
governments. Landing that job was the second best thing that happened 
to him in Belgium. By far, his greatest source of luck was when he met 
his beautiful wife Louise.
  Before Andy retired from the steel business, he used to have to carry 
two briefcases to keep all his activities straight. In one briefcase 
were the things he needed for his business. The other briefcase held 
his blueprints and details for all the extraordinary works of 
philanthropy and diplomacy by the American Council of Hellenics.
  During the tragic invasion of Cyprus by Turkey in 1974, Andy founded 
the United Hellenic American Congress in Chicago to organize the Greek-
American community and press for peace and justice in Cyprus. He served 
as president or chairman or both over the years, and every Greek-
American organization wanted Andy to be part of it.
  In 1995, leaders of organizations representing the 7 million Hellenes 
living outside of Greece met in Greece to create an organization 
uniting all Greeks around the world. The result was the World Council 
of Hellenes. Who did the new council choose as its first president? The 
Dean, Andy Athens.
  If it is discovered there are Hellenes living on other planets, I am 
sure Andy would have organized them and would have been elected first 
president of their group as well.
  Andy Athens was a global ambassador for the shared values on which 
Hellenism in America is based: freedom, democracy, human rights, human 
dignity, and service to others. He and the organizations he helped to 
establish brought hope, opportunity and justice, and the priceless gift 
of health to millions around the world.
  Last year, I traveled to Eastern Europe and met with leaders in 
several nations who not so long ago were part of the Soviet Union. As 
so often happens when I visit other lands, I found myself following in 
Andy's footsteps. I traveled to the Nation of Georgia, where 
Helennicare, the medical philanthropy Andy founded, supports a number 
of health care centers.
  I visited the Ukraine, home to Hellenicare's visiting nurses' 
program. I went to Armenia, where thousands of people each month 
receive care at a health clinic established by Hellenicare. This was a 
man whose good works are known throughout the world. As our friend 
Senator Mikulski says, ``Andy Athens was a one-man foreign aid 
program.''
  Other than faith and family, no cause was dearer to Andy than the 
cause of freedom and justice for Cyprus. Andy Athens did more than any 
other American to end the division and occupation of Cyprus and to keep 
the cause of justice for Cyprus on our Nation's agenda. For his 
efforts, he received countless honors, including the Grand Cross of the 
Order of Merit of the Republic of Cyprus and the Hellenic Republic's 
highest honor, the Gold Cross of the Order of the Phoenix.
  Andy was 91 years old when he passed away. Loretta and I want to 
offer our condolences to Andy's wife Louise, their children and 
grandchildren, and to Andy's legions of friends. Andy Athens was a hero 
not only of this Nation but of Greece, Cyprus, and so many other 
nations. I am proud to say he was my friend, and I will miss him.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, to my colleague and friend from 
Illinois, through you, I also express my condolences to the Athens 
family. Andy was a good friend to me. We had such a warm, cordial, 
affectionate relationship. But he made that easy because of the kind of 
man he was--a real entrepreneur in that immigrant sense, starting with 
very little and really creating a business. But along the way, he not 
only built a business, he raised a family and he built a community. And 
I enjoyed so much working with him on the issues.
  Yes, we did work on Cyprus, the fact that Cyprus is yet to be unified 
and is still occupied in northern Cyprus. But was the Senator from 
Illinois aware of his work in creating health services in Russia and in 
the Orthodox community there--he was like a one-man NGO in

[[Page S1848]]

what he did. Was the Senator aware of that?
  Mr. DURBIN. I tried to read some of them, but I couldn't read the 
entire list. And I actually quoted the Senator from Maryland, who once 
referred to him as a one-man foreign aid program.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I am going to put that in neon here this evening, yes.
  Mr. DURBIN. He was an extraordinary man. What a legacy he leaves 
around the world, not just in Chicago and in Washington.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. What did he pass away from?
  Mr. DURBIN. I was told he passed away peacefully in the night. The 
last time I saw him was in the Capitol Building about a year ago, and 
you could tell he was struggling a little bit. But it was a day when he 
was honored and everyone cheered him on and was happy to be there.
  He was such an extraordinarily good man. And when the Senator and I 
value our own heritage and the fact that so many people from different 
parts of the world come here, proud to be American but also proud of 
their roots and try to do something for the country they came from or 
their family came from--Andy was one of those people.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Absolutely. I am so pleased, if I may comment, that the 
Senator brought this to the attention of the full Senate. I will submit 
my own statement. We would welcome to know how to get in touch with the 
Athens family. But let me say it to the Senator.
  Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Senator from Maryland. I might also add that 
her former colleague Senator Paul Sarbanes was a dear close friend to 
Andy Athens. Whenever we would have a meeting of the Hellenic group 
here in the Capitol, you always knew Paul Sarbanes and Andy Athens were 
going to be right there in front with the Manatos families and others--
a wonderful group, both in Chicago and here.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, at the end of a long, hard few days, people 
probably aren't expecting me to say some positive things about 
Republicans, but I think it is appropriate to do so.
  First of all, the Speaker sent us this bill in a time where we had an 
opportunity to look at it and work on it. He should be commended, as I 
do commend him for doing that rather than trying to jam us with 
something right before the CR expires.
  We valiantly tried to make this a better bill, and that has been done 
because of the outstanding work of Senator Mikulski and Senator Shelby. 
The product we have is a good product. It funds the government for 6 
months, that is all. But it is good because not only does it fund the 
government for 6 months, it allows us to get back to regular order 
here, which we have all been talking about doing. Not only is this 
legislation important but what we are going to do to follow up, to do 
regular appropriations bills, to fund the government for the fiscal 
year 2014.
  So we have made progress on this bill. We voted on some important 
matters. But I have to say that I am disappointed in a number of my 
Democrats and a number of Republicans because we have to compromise and 
work together to get this done.
  As an example, we have five different amendments that have been 
offered on Egypt. This is a CR for 6 months. We have a functioning 
Foreign Relations Committee. That is where this should take place. I 
have spoken with Chairman Menendez. There are people on his committee 
who are offering various versions of what should happen on Egypt. We 
all have concerns about Egypt, our funding of Egypt, maintaining 
stability in the region, supporting Israel. As I have indicated, we 
have five Senators who have filed five separate, distinct amendments, 
and, literally, staffs, with Senators, have worked all day coming up 
with amendments that Democrats and Republicans could agree on. It 
hasn't been done. That doesn't mean it can't be done, but it hasn't 
been done.
  I would again remind Senators that this is a continuing resolution. A 
long-term solution to the situation in the Middle East is not a short-
term CR. Whatever we do on this bill would expire in 6 months anyway. 
The issue should be brought up in committee and worked on there and 
brought to us. That is what my Republican friends have said they 
wanted, and that is what my Democratic friends have said they wanted. 
They want to get back to where we do that kind of work.
  I thank very much Senators Menendez, Rubio, Leahy, McCain--remember, 
two and two: two Democrats and two Republicans. I appreciate the work 
they have done. But we haven't been able to merge these different 
approaches to get something done.
  We are behind the scenes around here. Just because you don't see a 
lot of talking going on here doesn't mean there isn't a lot of work 
going on. There have been numerous discussions about how to get the 
amendments into shape so they can be voted on. We can't even get 
Senators to agree that we should have votes on amendments, unless, ``I 
want mine.'' ``If he gets his, I want mine.'' So we have had difficulty 
on both sides to agree on a path forward.
  Now, the Speaker has been pretty clear. He has said that unless we 
get a bill that doesn't have a lot of junk in it--I am paraphrasing 
what he said to make the point--he is going to strike everything and 
send us back a straight CR. He said that publicly, not privately. So we 
need to move forward, cautiously but quickly.
  Next week we have something on which we have had speeches on both 
sides of the Senate--we need to do a budget. As we speak, the Budget 
Committee is in session working to get a budget so that we can work on 
it next week.
  Now, the budget is defined, how we do it. There is a statute that 
says there are no filibusters. There are certain ways you can slow it 
down a little bit, but there is 50 hours. That is how much time we have 
on it, plus the vote-athon afterward.
  So yesterday I filed a motion on the pending substitute and the 
underlying bill. What I would request--and I have spoken to the 
managers of this bill--is that they and their staffs make themselves 
available to Senators and Senators' staff to try to come up with a 
finite list of amendments--not hundreds but a finite, small list of 
amendments that we think would improve this bill and not further 
develop the ire of the Speaker, who is kind of in charge of a lot of 
what we do around here even though we are on the other side of the 
Capitol than he is.
  The managers have already agreed to be available and their staffs 
will be available to work on a finite list of amendments. Staffs need 
to be reasonable, and Senators need to be reasonable.
  It is doable. We can do this. If we have a finite list of amendments, 
we will complete work on this matter Monday. If we don't, then there is 
not much choice we have except to vote on cloture on Monday. One way or 
the other, we are going to move forward with this bill on Monday. I 
hope the Senate will be able to come to a resolution on this important 
appropriations matter on Monday. We need to do that. I hope this Senate 
can turn immediately after that to the budget resolution.
  I can't say enough how much I appreciate the efforts of Senators 
Mikulski and Shelby. They have had a very difficult time trying to 
manage people who at times are unmanageable.
  So that is it for tonight. Again, we will go out tonight and have 
people work to try to come up with a list of amendments that will allow 
us to move forward on this bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I know we are going to go out. I thank 
the majority leader for his kind words. I assure the leader and the 
Republican leader that the staffs on the Appropriations Committee will 
be working once again through another weekend to scrutinize these 
amendments.
  We now have 99 amendments pending. In order to properly advise the 
Senate and to ensure that they would get good scrutiny from both a 
budgetary standpoint and policy, to be able to consult with one 
another, it requires us working through the weekend. We are ready to do 
it. We worked last weekend. Senator Shelby and I were in frequent 
contact. We were in frequent contact with our House counterparts, 
Congressman Rogers and Congresswoman Nita, who graciously made 
themselves available to get their view on their lay of the land. So we 
will do it again.

[[Page S1849]]

  Every Senator has a right to offer amendments. Every Senator has a 
right to have his or her day. But I would hope they wouldn't do it all 
on this amendment or all on this bill.
  This is the continuing funding resolution. We have worked with such 
diligence and such a sense of cooperation and bipartisanship. Our goal 
is to get the Federal Government funded through the fiscal year October 
1 to avoid a government shutdown. This isn't a Barbara Mikulski threat. 
We have a due date on March 27, when it expires. Congress leaves for 
the Easter-Passover break next Friday, March 22.
  So I would say to my colleagues, now that we have the amendments, we 
will do our due diligence, and Senators will know our analysis and 
their own respective staff's analysis.
  So on Monday, once again, on the floor will be Shelby-Mikulski, 
Mikulski-Shelby. We will be ready to move amendments. We need our 
colleagues ready to move on their own amendments and to cooperate with 
us on offering them, debating them, and putting them in the sequence 
that has the greatest leverage to get the job done.
  I really can't say enough about the help I have gotten from Senator 
Shelby, my vice chairman, the distinguished Senator from Alabama, his 
staff, and the cooperation we have received from the minority. This is 
not the usual slamdown party politics. This is a big bill. It is the 
funding for the government of the United States. There is a lot of 
pent-up desire to participate in policymaking. Let's keep it not to 
what we would like to do, but let's keep it to what we must do. What we 
would like to do can come on the budget next week and can come as we 
bring up individual bills, where we can really dive deep into the 
issues and policies and the funding. So let's do what we can.
  I would hope that on Monday Senators come ready to really wrap it up 
because we would have liked to have sent our bill to the House at noon 
today. Well, it didn't work out that way. So we are ready to do 
business. We are ready to get the job done. We would love to get this 
job done Monday night, if we could.
  Mr. President, I again thank everyone. I also thank our staffs on 
both sides of the aisle who have been working so assiduously for the 
last several weeks to get this bill ready to present to the Senate on 
the floor and for what they will continue to do to help us do our jobs.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I wish to take a few minutes this evening 
to thank the majority leader, Senator Reid, and also the Republican 
leader, Senator McConnell, for helping us come together, being where we 
are thus far. I also wish to thank Senator Mikulski, the chairperson of 
the full Committee on Appropriations. We have been working and we have 
made some progress. We would have liked to have finished this bill 
tonight. There are a lot of amendments--I think 90-something that 
Senator Mikulski said. I hope people will try to work this weekend and 
try to get through this.
  We need to pass this bill. This is one of the cleanest appropriations 
bills I have seen since I have been up here. We said no to the 
Democrats, Senator Mikulski has, and I have said no to the Republicans 
on some things. We have a continuing resolution--I call it a hybrid--
with five appropriations bills. We can do this. This would take care of 
the government--in other words, not go from crisis to crisis--until the 
end of this fiscal year, September 30, where we can get on the budget 
and other things.
  America is watching us. We are trying to respond in a bipartisan way. 
I hope we can make a lot of progress this weekend. Our staffs are going 
to be here working. We are going to be here working. Come Monday, we 
need to move this bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, before he leaves the floor, I apologize for 
not mentioning Senator McConnell. Senator McConnell, when the bill came 
from the House, stood up for the prerogatives of the Senate.
  Mr. SHELBY. Absolutely.
  Mr. REID. He said they have done subcommittees. We are going to do 
our own. I failed to mention my friend Senator McConnell. I am glad you 
did. Because we are here today, making as much progress as we have, 
because of Senator McConnell standing up for the Senate.
  Mr. SHELBY. Because of both of them. I thank the Senator.
 Mr. COWAN. Mr. President, Senator Elizabeth Warren, the 
distinguished Senior Senator from Massachusetts and I are cosponsors of 
the Murkowski amendment to the Continuing Appropriations bill. This 
amendment would provide $150 million in disaster assistance for the 
fishermen and the fishing communities which received a Department of 
Commerce disaster declaration last year. This amendment is offset by an 
across-the-board cut to the Department of Commerce budget in Fiscal 
Year 2013.
  While Senator Warren and I are cosponsors of this bipartisan 
amendment, we would strongly prefer that this amendment use an 
emergency funding designation instead of the offset included in this 
amendment.
  In recent years, Massachusetts fishermen and fishing communities have 
been struggling to survive amid Federal regulations and environmental 
changes that have limited fishing opportunities. Last year, the 
Department of Commerce declared a fishery failure for the Northeast 
multispecies fishery for the 2013 season.
  Last year, the Senate included a $150 million fund in the Senate 
Hurricane Sandy Supplemental Appropriations bill to assist fisheries 
disasters, like those in the Northeast using an emergency designation. 
Unfortunately, this provision was not included in the final Hurricane 
Sandy Supplemental Appropriations bill due to opposition from 
Republicans in the House of Representatives.
  Senator Warren and I will continue to do all that we can to provide 
disaster assistance funding for Massachusetts fishermen and fishing 
communities.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am pleased to be a cosponsor of the 
amendment sponsored by my friend from Alaska, Senator Murkowski, which 
would provide $150 million in disaster funding for officially declared 
fisheries disasters.
  The funding for declared fisheries disasters is necessary to address 
the devastating economic consequences of significant projected 
reductions in the total allowable catch for critical groundfish stocks. 
In September of last year, the acting Secretary of Commerce, 
recognizing the economic difficulty fishing communities have faced and 
will continue to face, declared a federal fisheries disaster for Maine, 
Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, and Connecticut 
for the 2013 fishing year. This authority is provided under the 
Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries Conservation and Management Act and the 
Interjurisdictional Fisheries Act.
  Fishing is more than just a profession in New England. Fishing is a 
way of life and a significant part of Maine's heritage. There are 45 
vessels based in Maine which are actively fishing with Federal 
groundfish permits. Last year, more than five million pounds of 
groundfish, with a dockside value approaching $5.8 million, were landed 
in Maine. Despite strict adherence to rigorous management practices by 
fishermen, the projected reductions, which may be as high as 73 
percent, could devastate groundfishing communities.
  The requested funding would be used to provide economic relief to the 
region's struggling groundfish industry and to make targeted 
investments which will allow the fleet to survive and become more 
sustainable in the years ahead. These funds could also be used to fully 
cover the costs of at-sea monitoring and to address long-term 
overcapacity in the fishing industry. This is critical to rebuilding 
fish stocks and preserving a thriving fishing industry well into the 
future.
  Slow recovery and declining fish stocks continue to have a negative 
impact on commercial fishing, which harms local communities and 
economies. This federal disaster assistance is vital to the long-term 
success and short-term survival of fishing communities throughout the 
region.
  I urge adoption of the amendment.

[[Page S1850]]



                          ____________________