Amendment Text: S.Amdt.1789 — 113th Congress (2013-2014)

Shown Here:
Amendment as Proposed (07/25/2013)

This Amendment appears on page S5943 in the following article from the Congressional Record.



[Pages S5937-S5948]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  TRANSPORTATION, HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES 
                        APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2014

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of S. 1243 which the clerk will report by title.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 1243) making appropriations for the Departments 
     of Transportation, and Housing and Urban Development, and 
     related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
     2014, and for other purposes.

  Pending:

       Murray (for Cardin) amendment No. 1760, to require the 
     Secretary of Transportation to submit to Congress a report 
     relating to the condition of lane miles and highway bridge 
     deck.
       Coburn amendment No. 1750, to prohibit funds from being 
     directed to federal employees with unpaid Federal tax 
     liability.
       Coburn amendment No. 1751, to prohibit Federal funding of 
     union activities by Federal employees.
       Coburn amendment No. 1754, to prohibit Federal funds from 
     being used to meet the matching requirements of other Federal 
     programs.


                    Amendment No. 1760, as modified

  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I call for the regular order with 
respect to Amendment No. 1760 and to modify it with the changes which 
are at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is so modified.
  The amendment (No. 1760), as modified, is as follows:
       On page 38, between lines 17 and 18, insert the following:
       Sec. 127.  Funding made available under the heading 
     ``FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION LIMITATION ON ADMINISTRATION 
     EXPENSES'' shall be made available to submit to Congress a 
     report describing the percentages of lane miles and highway 
     bridge deck in each State that are in good condition, fair 
     condition, and poor condition, and the percentage of Federal 
     amounts each State expends on the repair and maintenance of 
     highway infrastructure and on new capacity construction.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I understand my colleague is here to offer an amendment. 
I yield to him at this time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. MURPHY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to call up 
amendment No. 1783.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Objection is heard.
  Mrs. MURRAY. It is my understanding the Senator from Connecticut was 
going to call up an amendment. There was an objection?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. MURPHY. 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. 1783

  Mr. MURPHY. I call up amendment No. 1783 and ask that it be pending.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Connecticut [Mr. Murphy] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1783.

  Mr. MURPHY. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment 
be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

  (Purpose: To require the Secretary of Transportation to assess the 
     impact on domestic employment of a waiver of the Buy America 
   requirement for Federal-aid highway projects prior to issuing the 
                                waiver)

       On page 34, line 23, after ``shall'' insert ``assess the 
     impact on domestic employment if such a waiver were issued 
     and''.
  Mr. MURPHY. Mr. President, there is a broad consensus among the 
people of this country that when we spend dollars through the Federal 
Treasury, when we spend taxpayer dollars, they should be used to fund 
American jobs. In fact, that has been a law on the books since the 
early part of this century. For a long time the Buy American Act has 
required that when we buy things, whether it be through the military or 
through the Department of Transportation, we buy things from American 
contractors. That makes more sense today than ever before because as we 
struggle to try to get our economy back up and running, one of the 
sectors that is hurting more than others is the construction sector. 
Every time we violate the Buy American provisions of our law, we lose 
the opportunity to try to alleviate great stress that is currently upon 
our construction industry.
  Thankfully, the DOT has been one of the best agencies, actually, when 
it comes to making sure American-made material goes into construction 
projects. The $41 billion the Highway Administration receives in this 
bill to be spent on roads and bridges is an important engine of job 
growth throughout the country. I have to say they generally do a pretty 
good job, as opposed to some other agencies--the Department of Defense 
at the top of the list--in making sure those dollars go to American 
companies.
  There are circumstances in which the Buy American provisions are 
waived. There are a number of ways you can waive those provisions, but 
it is important for us to have full transparency and disclosure when 
the Department of Transportation and FHWA are considering awarding a 
major project funded by American taxpayers to a foreign company.
  When the Buy American statute is waived, the requirement that 
American-made material be used is null and void. What this bill says is 
that when the FHWA provides public notice that they are considering 
waiving the Buy American clause for a particular project, they include 
in that public notice a consideration of the impact on American jobs. 
It is worth knowing whether a waiver is simply going to result in the 
loss of 10 American jobs or the loss of 500 American jobs.
  This amendment very simply says that when a waiver to the Buy 
American law is pending, we should know from the Department of 
Transportation and from the FHWA how many American jobs are at risk. 
That gives us the opportunity to weigh in and try to make sure that 
waiver is not granted. This, frankly, gives American companies a little 
bit better information to use when they are trying to make the case 
that they can actually do the work that may be being considered for a 
foreign company.
  We all know what is happening to jobs in the building trades. In some 
parts of the country unemployment is hitting 20 percent when it comes 
to carpenters, operating engineers, plumbers, and sheet metal workers.
  I wish to applaud the DOT for being one of the models when it comes 
to trying to make sure taxpayer dollars are kept here at home. This 
amendment would make sure that in those limited cases where the DOT is 
sending work overseas, we get a chance to understand what the real 
impact will be.
  We have a lot of work to do when it comes to tightening our Buy 
American laws. We are talking about the DOT, but the real problem is 
another agency we will hopefully have a chance to talk about later on 
the Senate floor; that is, the Department of Defense. Seventy percent 
of Federal purchasing comes through the Department of Defense. They 
have been expediting the offshoring of defense work at a rate that 
should make every single Senator on this floor shudder.
  This is an important amendment that I hope will get bipartisan 
support. I thank Senator Collins for allowing it to become pending on 
the floor. I think it is just the beginning of a lot of work we have to 
do when it comes to enforcing a very simple principle. When our 
constituents send their hard-earned tax dollars to Washington, DC, and 
they are used to buy things or build things for the U.S. Government, we 
need to hire U.S. companies and American workers to do the job.
  I ask unanimous consent that there be a period for debate only until 
2:15 p.m. today.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Heinrich). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. MURPHY. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.

[[Page S5938]]

  Mr. CHAMBLISS. 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. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to voice my 
concerns with the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development 
appropriations bill.
  I do not take issue with the bill's specific spending provisions, and 
I believe my home State of Georgia needs a strong bill that recognizes 
the importance of ongoing infrastructure and housing and development 
projects. As some of my colleagues have already noted, this bill 
includes many taxpayer protection provisions, specifically that 
extravagant conferences will be curtailed, an issue many of our 
constituents as well as Members of Congress were shocked to learn 
about. But my concern is with the overall spending level and the 
decision of the majority to write this and other appropriations bills 
to levels that exceed the Budget Control Act.
  In 2011, Congress passed the Budget Control Act which placed caps on 
what the Federal Government could spend. I voted against that bill in 
August of 2011. Over the years I have served in both the House and the 
Senate and there have been too many times when I have seen both bodies 
come together to bust spending caps. For us to have no checks and 
balances on the ability of either the House or the Senate to bust the 
spending caps that were set in 2011, I thought, was wrong because they 
were going to get busted. Well, guess what. Here we are, and this is 
not the first time since 2011 we have had a vote in the Senate that 
will ultimately bust those spending caps.
  The THUD appropriations bill the Senate is now debating completely 
disregards the 2011 Budget Control Act. THUD is the first of 12 
appropriations bills the Senate will consider on the Senate floor. So 
my question to my colleagues is, What kind of precedent are we setting 
for the remaining spending bills?
  While all Americans deserve for Congress to pass appropriations 
bills, we simply cannot afford to pass bills that spend more than our 
government can fund. This Senate bill alone costs $5 billion more than 
is allowed under the Budget Control Act. How can we demand a cure to 
our fiscal woes if we cannot take our own medicine of fiscal restraint? 
We should focus our efforts on legislation that can pass both Chambers 
of Congress and be signed into law by the President, not create another 
political nightmare that negatively affects the country as well as our 
constituencies.
  Right now, the Senate can correct this mistake and allocate spending 
in a manner that is consistent with the law we passed. Shortly, my 
colleague from Pennsylvania, Senator Pat Toomey, will come to the floor 
and offer a motion that would require the Appropriations Committee to 
change the spending levels of this bill to comply with the Budget 
Control Act or, in other words, to comply with current law. I urge my 
colleagues to follow Senator Toomey's lead and vote to recommit.
  We should work toward a bill that adheres to the budget guidelines 
set by the Budget Control Act and provides the needed appropriations 
for the Department of Transportation, Department of Housing and Urban 
Development, as well as the independent agencies. While I would like to 
see the Senate pass a Transportation, Housing and Urban Development 
appropriations bill, the bill before us now does more harm than it does 
good.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                             Sequestration

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about the very real 
effects sequestration is having. I want to speak about the people of 
Virginia, but I am sure it is equally true of folks in New Mexico and 
for that matter folks all across the country. I remind folks, 
sequestration was set up so it would be so stupid, so draconian, so 
outside the realm of possibility that no rational people would ever let 
it happen. We are actually seeing now that we did not pass that bar. 
Sequestration is happening. It is actually stupidity on steroids.
  Earlier this week a group of us heard from Dr. Francis Collins, the 
head of NIH. NIH, as we all know, is America's premier health research 
institution. Dr. Collins told us of the real world impacts of sequester 
cuts. He gave heartbreaking examples of lifesaving medical research 
that is being disrupted, perhaps irrevocably, due to budget cuts and 
employee furloughs.
  Two days ago I had the opportunity to chair a Budget Committee 
hearing about the impact of sequestration on our Nation's security. We 
heard policymakers talk about what sequestration was doing to military 
readiness. But what drove home the point to me was Virginia business 
owner Mark Klett who had actually been named as the Small Businessman 
of the Year back in 2011, who said this start-and-stop environment, 
where you did not have any predictability of whether your funding was 
coming through, was completely wrecking his business model and it 
already had caused him to bench over a third of his 60 employees.
  In the last 2 weeks alone, since sequestration has started, I have 
received over 500 letters, e-mails, phone calls from Virginians who are 
bearing the very real brunt of our failure to do our job, with real 
consequences on real people with potentially devastating impacts on a 
dedicated, experienced Federal workforce. This is no way to run a 
business. It is no way to run an enterprise as large as the Federal 
Government.
  One letter is from Virginia Beach. Hampton Roads and Virginia Beach 
are our most concentrated area of naval installations and Air Force and 
Army installations. This woman is from Virginia beach. Her husband is a 
retired Navy officer who is now furloughed once a week for the next 11 
weeks. She writes that her husband came home with a letter about the 
furlough, that he felt his moral character and the oath he had taken to 
protect his Nation would not allow him to write, so she said she was 
going to write. She says:

       It pains me to see what he has worked so hard to defend, 
     you're working so hard to tear down. This country is 
     deserving of good leadership and right now Congress is not 
     providing it.

  Another Navy employee from the Fredericksburg area writes:

       Three years of pay freezes followed by a furlough seriously 
     makes me question if this is where I want to spend the rest 
     of my career.

  Think about the hours and dollars that we as a public have invested 
in getting these individuals trained to provide these services. They 
are now saying they are not sure this is where they want to work.
  A woman down at the Portsmouth Naval Hospital writes:

       Both my husband and I are DOD employees and will be taking 
     a 20 percent pay cut for 11 weeks.

  She points out they may be able to get by but a lot of her coworkers 
do not know how they are going to make ends meet.
  A Federal employee from Woodbridge, VA, down the road in Prince 
William County, says:

       I want all my elected officials to know how disappointed I 
     am that we have been abandoned and let down by our 
     representatives in Congress.
       I have three children in college, and I am paying for 
     college loans of two children who have graduated. Eleven 
     furlough days don't sound like much, but over the year a loss 
     of over $4,000 in income is crucial. If I ran my own budget 
     like this, I would have to fire myself.

  This employee I do not think is going to get a sequestration discount 
on repaying those student loans.
  A West Point graduate and Iraq war veteran says:

       The failure of Congress is having a tangible and real 
     negative impact on people's lives and livelihood. I do not 
     see leadership, I do not see accountability, and I do not see 
     selfless service that rises above partisan politics.

  Finally, a former Army officer who lives in Springfield, VA, says:

       The morale in our agency is so poor that most workers who 
     used to work 10 or 11 hours a day are planning to work their 
     exact 8 hours [only].

  So the 20 percent cut 1 day a week is actually cutting productivity 
in a much greater percentage.

[[Page S5939]]

  I could stand here the rest of the afternoon and go through letter 
after letter that has the same theme. What strikes me about these 
letters--I am sure, again, the Presiding Officer is hearing from New 
Mexicans what we are hearing from Virginians--is that none of these 
letters talk about the red team or the blue team. None of these letters 
say this is all the Democrats' fault or Republicans' fault. None of 
these letters say this is a House problem; the Senate has the solution.
  They are saying, regardless of party, regardless of whether you are 
in the House or the Senate, your job is to get this fixed. It is 
appropriately targeted at the entire Congress and, while our dismal 
performance recently may be great fodder for late night comedians, I 
think having a 90-percent-plus disapproval rating candidly undermines 
Americans' basic faith in our democratic institutions.
  Let me try to respond. Here is what I have done and will continue to 
do. I will keep fighting for the significant Federal workforce that 
lives in the Commonwealth of Virginia. In the 4\1/2\ years I have been 
in the Senate, I have come down to the floor on a regular basis to 
celebrate the great work of individual Federal employees. I will 
continue to come down to the floor and appeal to my colleagues and 
provide real examples of the real impacts that this funny name--
sequestration--is actually having on people's livelihoods.
  On a personal basis I am giving up 20 percent of my salary through 
the end of this budget year. I am donating it to the Federal Employee 
Education & Assistance Fund, which provides emergency loans as well as 
childcare assistance, scholarships, and other financial help for the 
families of Federal and postal workers.
  I will continue to work with any colleague, Democrat, Republican, 
Independent, libertarian, vegetarian--it doesn't matter--who is willing 
to try to, yes, replace sequestration in a more rational way and get 
our debt and deficit under control.
  I am proud of the fact that the 3\1/2\ years--I guess 4\1/2\ years I 
have been here, there is no issue on which I have tried to work harder. 
I am proud of the fact I was one of the founders of the so-called Gang 
of 6 that built on the very good work of the Simpson-Bowles plan. And I 
remind my colleagues, anyone who thinks there is any solution that is 
not going to involve raising additional revenues and starting to reform 
our entitlement programs either can't read a balance sheet or has not 
grasped the magnitude of this issue.
  I will continue to advocate for a balanced bipartisan blueprint that 
will work on these issues: Raise the revenues, not to grow the size of 
government but to pay our bills, make sure the promise of Medicare and 
a Medicaid and Social Security are here, not just for today's 
generation but for future generations, in a way that is responsible.
  We are soon coming up on another series of important fiscal and 
budgetary deadlines. I know many of my colleagues and the American 
public probably got to budget fatigue after the end of the fiscal 
cliffs and supercommittees and debt ceilings and thought maybe we were 
past a little bit of that.
  Well, the economy is recovering and the size of the deficit is 
decreasing but our challenge is still in front of us. We are soon set 
to come to the end of this fiscal year which will present these issues 
again at the end of September. The debt ceiling will be not far after 
that. I have heard there are only slightly more than 20 legislative 
days left before the new fiscal year starts. It is incumbent upon us to 
recognize, to reflect the voices of these Virginians who, again, don't 
call out red team, blue team or House or Senate, but say to us in 
Congress, implore us to do our jobs.
  We have been joined by my colleague, the Senator from Maryland. I 
think we could debate whether Maryland or Virginia is more ground zero 
for the negative impacts of sequestration. But whether it is NIH 
workers in Bethesda or civilian Navy employees in Woodbridge, the 
stories are the same. This is not fair. It is not right. None of these 
folks are getting a 20-percent discount on daycare, rent or, as the one 
person said, repayment on their student loans.
  It is incumbent upon us to get this problem fixed and that is going 
to require the kind of hard work on revenues and entitlement reform so 
many of us have tried to avoid; otherwise we will not see an America 
that will stay as competitive as it needs to be and we will disrespect 
the literally hundreds of thousands if not millions of workers who work 
directly or indirectly to protect our Nation and are trying to provide 
the services that are so essential to our people.
  Let's not do any more harm. Let's not waste any more time.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I have not been on the floor during the 
entire remarks of my friend from Virginia, but I did hear part of it. I 
first want to thank him for his extraordinary leadership on behalf of 
the people of Virginia and on behalf of a sensible way to resolve our 
budget problems. The Senator has been a leader in building bridges and 
recognizing how devastating sequestration is, not just to the Federal 
workers who live in his State, not just to the people who live in his 
State, but to our entire country.
  This is dangerous, sequestration. The Senator has been a leader in 
pointing that out.
  He has also made it very clear that sequestration is mindless across-
the-board cuts and that we have a responsibility to make priority 
decisions. When we use sequestration we are on automatic pilot but it 
is an automatic pilot that cannot carry out its current mission. It 
cannot safely navigate the air. That is where we are.
  I applaud my colleague for taking on this issue of saying to our 
friends on both sides of the aisle: Let's listen to each other. We know 
we are divided. We have different views. But we need to sit down, work 
together, and come up with a sensible way to balance the Federal budget 
to give the predictability that is necessary and to eliminate these 
sequestration cuts.
  It is particularly painful right now when we have so many 
Marylanders, so many Virginians, so many people in this country who are 
receiving paychecks with a 20-percent cut. Yet the work they have to do 
is the same.
  Mr. WARNER. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. CARDIN. I will be glad to yield.
  Mr. WARNER. I thank the Senator from Maryland for his comments. Let 
me say no Senator has served with more distinction, both here in the 
Senate and prior to that in the House, in being a constant advocate for 
Federal employees and being willing to step up to protect them and 
rebut what we too often hear from some of our colleagues who, across 
the board, without distinction, demean and denigrate the extraordinary 
good work that so many countless unnamed Federal employees do.
  I thank the Senator from Maryland for that work. I thank him for his 
continued willingness in conversations with me and others to talk 
about: Hey, we all have to stretch a little way to get things done. I 
know he is hearing the same thing in Maryland. People are not 
distinguishing red shirt, blue shirt. They want us to get this done. I 
thank the Senator for his good work and I look forward to working with 
him and folks on both sides of the aisle on this issue.
  Mr. CARDIN. I thank my colleague for his comments. I understand he 
already mentioned what has happened at the National Institutes of 
Health and the fact that, because of the sequestration cuts, the number 
of grants being given out this year, contracts with young scientists to 
do research, is going to be cut by the hundreds.
  We don't know which one of these researchers would have come up with 
an advancement, a major breakthrough, but there would have been some. 
And they are going to be denied. They may get discouraged, the people 
who would have received these grants, and they may go into other 
fields. We may lose them forever. They may go to other professions. 
They may go to other countries. But we know they are not doing the work 
they are trained to do and we know they had a proposal that went 
through the most difficult vetting process and was selected for funding 
and should have been funded but is not being funded because of these 
sequestration cuts. That we know. That much we know for sure.

[[Page S5940]]

  We also know it is not just that researcher who has been hurt by the 
sequestration cuts. It is the businesses that depend upon the basic 
research--many of which are small companies--in order to build upon 
that research to create the products that go into the marketplace and 
create the jobs that are necessary for our economy. There is a direct 
loss to the economy of our country as a result of these sequestration 
cuts. It is time we move forward and resolve the problems of our 
country.

  I agree with my friend from Virginia that we have to find a way on 
both sides of the aisle to come together, but I must point out it has 
been extremely difficult, particularly with the climate in the other 
body. In the current issue of New York magazine, Jonathan Chait writes:

       The chaos and dysfunction have set in so deeply that 
     Washington now lurches from crisis to crisis, and once-dull, 
     keep-the-lights-on rituals of government procedures are 
     transformed into white-knuckle dramas that threaten national 
     or even global catastrophe.
       The Republican party has spent 30 years careering ever more 
     deeply into ideological extremism, but one of the novel 
     developments of the Obama years is its embrace of procedural 
     extremism. The Republican fringe has evolved from being 
     politically shrewd proponents of radical policy changes to a 
     gang of saboteurs who would rather stop government from 
     functioning at all.

  This brinkmanship is preventing the economic recovery from gaining 
steam, it is preventing us from addressing urgent problems, and it is 
punishing all Americans, not just Federal workers.
  If we come together on behalf of the American people, we can replace 
sequestration with a measured and balanced approach to deficit 
reduction. We can agree on a path forward to fiscal solvency that 
spreads the burden equitably. We can begin to solve our problems 
instead of compounding them, but I will tell you what we can cannot do. 
We cannot balance the budget on the backs of Federal workers. It isn't 
feasible, and it isn't fair.
  Increasingly, Federal workers are asked to do more with less. 
According to the Office of Management and Budget, the size of the 
civilian workforce relative to the country's population has declined 
dramatically over the last several decades, notwithstanding occasional 
upticks due to military conflicts or the taking of the census.
  In the 1950s and 1960s, there were, on average, 92 Americans for 
every Federal worker. In the 1980s and 1990s, there were 106 Americans 
for every Federal worker. By 2011, the ratio had increased to 145 
Americans for every Federal worker. Since the 1950s and 1960s, the U.S. 
population has increased by 76 percent, and the private sector 
workforce has risen by 133 percent, but the size of the Federal 
workforce has risen by just 11 percent.
  Relative to the private sector, the Federal workforce is less than 
half the size it was back in the 1950s and 1960s. The picture that 
emerges is one of a Federal civilian workforce whose size has 
significantly shrunk compared to the size of the U.S. population it 
serves, the private sector workforce, and the magnitude of Federal 
expenditures.
  I previously talked about the adverse effect of sequestration on many 
of our domestic agencies. I have talked a little bit today about the 
circumstances at NIH. I have talked about the Food and Drug 
Administration, the Social Security Administration, and other domestic 
Federal agencies.
  I will focus, if I might, for the next few minutes on the impacts of 
sequestration on a particular group of Federal workers: the Department 
of Defense civilian employees who are part of a Total Force team 
providing invaluable support to our men and women in uniform serving in 
harm's way. These proud individuals have in the past few weeks suffered 
unnecessary hardships due to sequestration.
  The primary priority of our government is the defense of our Nation 
and sequestration adversely affects the civilian men and women who help 
provide that defense. DOD civilians serve our Nation by advancing 
scientific research, providing logistical support to our servicemembers 
while forward deployed, and ensuring institutional stability within DOD 
offices as servicemembers rotate to different duty stations.
  Recently, some in the media have promoted the idea that the $85 
billion sequestration cut triggered on March 1 isn't causing drastic 
effects. CNN called the cuts ``not as bad as advertised,'' and the 
Washington Post reported that the cuts are less ``scary'' than 
predicted. Tell that to the 46,000 DOD employees in Maryland and 
another 103,000 in the Capital region who are being furloughed, losing 
up to 20 percent of their weekly pay through the rest of this fiscal 
year.
  Earlier this month, the Defense Department began furloughing 652,000 
civilian employees nationwide, forcing them to take up to 11 unpaid 
days off through September. This is in addition to the furloughs at the 
Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Environmental 
Protection Agency, and the Internal Revenue Service. These furloughs 
disrupt our national and economic security and put hundreds of 
thousands of Federal workers and their families in financial hardship. 
Our government cannot continue to provide for the defense of our Nation 
by maintaining such a harmful policy toward our civilian workers.
  I have visited installations throughout Maryland. I have heard about 
and have seen the impact of furloughs of Defense Department employees 
and other Federal employees and the impact it will have on their 
ability to carry out their mission. These cuts and furloughs are 
affecting the ability of the agency to carry out its legal mission.
  For instance, at Indian Head Naval Surface Warfare Center in Charles 
County, over 1,870 civilian employees--about 97 percent of the total 
government civilian workforce--are being forced to take leave without 
pay 1 day per week. It puts base police and fire protection, safety 
programs, air operations, air quality programs, and facilities at risk.
  At Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, furloughs will hit 
2,400 Defense Department civilians--94 percent of the civilian staff. 
Walter Reed is the country's top facility for wounded combat soldiers. 
Its Department of Orthopedics and Rehabilitation is the largest within 
the Department of Defense. Its seven specialty service clinics include 
one for traumatic brain injuries. Soldiers needing expert care might 
have to wait longer for appointments or be forced to nonmilitary 
facilities, both of which will drive up costs and compromise the 
quality of care.
  I cannot say how many of us have taken the floor to talk about our 
commitment to make sure our service people--our wounded warriors--get 
the type of treatment they deserve. Many of us have visited the Walter 
Reed National Military Medical Center, and we are proud of the services 
that are being provided. Sequestration is hurting our ability to meet 
the mission we promised to the heroes who have served our Nation and 
have now come home and expect that health care to be available to them.
  At Fort Detrick 4,900 Defense Department civilians will be 
furloughed. Those civilians support a multigovernment community that 
conducts biomedical research and development as well as medical 
material management that includes everything from advanced bandages to 
vaccines for soldiers on the battlefield and in military hospitals. 
That mission is at risk. There is no other place that can carry out the 
type of advanced lab work that is done at Fort Detrick.
  Aberdeen Proving Ground, Harford County's largest employer, home to 
11 major commands and more than 80 agencies, has approximately 11,500 
DOD civilian employees subject to furlough, which is about half of 
APG's workforce. Before sequestration, APG reported contributing more 
than $400 million in payroll and $500 million in contracts annually. I 
can assure everyone that community will be affected and many businesses 
will be affected, as well as the mission at APG itself.

  Just a few miles away at Fort Meade, Maryland's largest employer, 
sequestration is affecting the entire region. Most of its 27,000 DOD 
civilian employees face furloughs. These furloughs have all sorts of 
unintended consequences. A furloughed worker, for instance, may have 
trouble making his or her mortgage or car payments. Reduced credit 
worthiness may affect a worker's ability to maintain or obtain a 
security clearance. Is that how we

[[Page S5941]]

want to treat people who have helped defend us from terrorists?
  Budgets cuts compounded by sequestration will lead to brain drain in 
the Defense Department, with some of the best and the brightest defense 
professionals in the Federal Government deciding to seek opportunities 
elsewhere.
  The Federal workforce is better educated, older, and more 
experienced, on average, than its private sector counterparts. A 
significant number of Federal workers provide their services to the 
American people at a discount. They could command higher salaries in 
the private sector, but they choose to work for the Federal Government 
because they are patriots and they believe in public service.
  The world is still a dangerous place. In such uncertain times, we 
cannot afford to let political dysfunction get in the way of ensuring 
our national security. Sequestration is harming our national security 
readiness.
  Sequestration is not just about compromising the ability of Federal 
workers to carry out their critical missions on behalf of all 
Americans, and it isn't just hurting Federal workers and their families 
economically. Private sector businesses and communities across the 
country are being hurt by the reduced purchasing power of furloughed 
Federal workers.
  Federal workers are similar to everyone else; they support the local 
businesses in their communities: auto dealers, restaurants, dry 
cleaners, you name it. They all suffer when Federal employees suffer. 
The local economy suffers and the recovery becomes that much harder and 
slower.
  We need to stop demonizing and scapegoating and punishing Federal 
workers. We need to replace sequestration with a rational budget. One 
of the greatest attributes of the American character is pragmatism. 
Unlike what some other Federal employees are actually doing, in 
Congress, balancing a budget is not rocket science. We know the various 
options.
  Former President Lyndon Johnson was fond of quoting the prophet 
Isaiah: ``Come, let us reason together.'' That is what we need to do. 
We can acknowledge and respect our differences, but at the end of the 
day the American people have entrusted us with governing and with being 
pragmatic. Let us do our job so Federal workers can get back to doing 
their jobs.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Heitkamp). The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, it is my understanding that the Senator 
from Arizona wishes to address the Chamber about an upcoming motion to 
recommit the bill.
  I yield time to the Senator from Arizona.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. FLAKE. Madam President, this is the first appropriations bill we 
are considering for fiscal year 2014. Unfortunately, in my view, it 
gets us off on the wrong foot because of the spending level. The bill 
spends more than $54 billion, which is about $5 billion above last 
year's spending level and more than $10 billion over the House proposal 
for this coming fiscal year. Considering that our debt stands at over 
$17 trillion, we ought to be spending less, not more this year.
  This bill already takes a larger portion of the allowable spending 
compared to last year. People will point out that the budget agreement 
we agreed to in 2011 simply sets an aggregate number and that we can 
spend whatever we want in certain appropriations bills as long as the 
total doesn't go over $967 billion. That is true, but it is impossible.
  I can say that with experience in the House and now in the Senate; 
that if we overspend on the initial appropriations bills, we will 
somehow cut back in the bills that come later. Often the last bill to 
come up is the Defense bill. Nobody is going to undercut our troops or 
spend less on a defense bill, but that would be required if we were to 
stay under the budget control agreement number. When we overspend on 
the initial appropriations bills like this, it simply means one thing: 
that we are going to bust the budget.

  I can tell my colleagues, to have any credibility with the taxpayers, 
we have to stick to the agreement that was agreed to in 2011. We passed 
so far. We even went through the sequester because we couldn't come up 
with an agreement to prioritize spending. But now, to go over the 
spending limit on the first appropriations bill would not set the right 
precedent moving ahead into the appropriations bills. We simply have to 
deal with this debt and deficit. This isn't the way to go.
  That is why I support the upcoming motion to recommit that Senator 
Toomey will offer in a few minutes that will simply recommit the bill 
to the Appropriations Committee and say: Come back with something that 
fits within the Budget Control Act that is similar to what was spent 
last year, not overspending by $5 billion. I hope we will pass this 
motion to recommit. I hope it will start off the appropriations bills 
in the Senate on the right foot.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. COLLINS. I yield 5 minutes to Senator Hoeven.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. HOEVEN. Madam President, I wish to thank the Senator from Maine, 
as well as Senator Toomey from Pennsylvania. I wish to express comments 
in regard to the motion to recommit we will be voting on around 3 
o'clock.
  THUD is an important bill. It includes funding for things we consider 
absolute priorities, including, certainly, transportation, roads, 
bridges, funds for housing and for other purposes. So we very much want 
to fund the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development bill.
  The problem we have is we haven't agreed, as far as the 
appropriations bills, as to an overall total of how much we will spend. 
That is really the problem we are confronting with this legislation.
  Under the Budget Control Act, the total for all of the appropriations 
bills cannot exceed $967 billion. That is the law. That is the law. But 
the majority party is appropriating to $1.058 trillion. That is a 
problem. So as appropriators we want to go through prioritized 
spending, make sure we are funding the things that should be funded, 
and then for things that are lower priorities, not funding those so we 
can truly fund the priorities that are important to the American 
people.
  The problem is we are not going to be able to do that unless we get 
an agreement on the total funding level, and that agreement is exactly 
what the BCA--the Budget Control Act--provides, and it says 
specifically $967 billion. That is the law. That is the law.
  We have a $17 trillion debt. We have a deficit this year that CBO 
projects to be in the range of $750 billion. That is a real problem for 
our country. That is a problem we have to address. We have to get the 
deficit and the debt under control. There are two ways to do that. One 
is to raise revenue that comes from economic growth, not higher taxes. 
It comes from economic growth and getting our economy going. Of course, 
the other way to reduce our deficit is to control spending, and that is 
what a budget is all about--and sticking to that budget. We ought to 
have a balanced budget amendment, which I very much support. But what 
we have right now is the Budget Control Act. It is the law.
  So the question I ask is, Why is the majority party saying we are 
going to appropriate 12 appropriations bills that total $1.058 trillion 
rather than $967 billion? How are we going to get our deficit and our 
debt under control if we don't adhere to the budget guidelines that are 
set?
  So the simple and very clear point I wish to make is this: As 
appropriators and as Senators, I believe we all want to prioritize 
funding. We want to make sure we fund the things that are important, 
such as infrastructure, such as housing, and other priorities. For 
things that shouldn't be funded, we should say we are not going to fund 
those items. That is the difference between prioritizing and the so-
called sequester--the across-the-board cuts.
  We are headed down a trail right now, if we approve this bill as is 
and bring other appropriations bills to the floor and approve them as 
they are, the sequester automatically kicks in again. Under the law, 
the sequester comes right back in and will bring these bills down to a 
total of $967 billion. So what have we gained? We

[[Page S5942]]

haven't accomplished what we are trying to do, which is to prioritize 
the funding.
  So let's find a way across the aisle to come to an agreement to make 
sure we prioritize funding and do so within the BCA limit of $967 
billion because that is what the law says. That is what the law says we 
have to do. We need to find a way to come to an agreement.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I suggest 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 Maine.
  Ms. COLLINS. 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. COLLINS. Madam President, later this afternoon, Senator Toomey 
will be offering a motion to recommit the Transportation-HUD 
appropriations bill back to the Appropriations Committee. While I 
commend Senator Toomey's goal of ensuring that the fiscal year 2014 
spending levels comply with the Budget Control Act spending caps, I do 
not believe this is the right approach.
  Let me be clear. I voted in the Appropriations Committee, as did 
every Republican member of that committee, for a top-line level of $967 
billion. That is the amount that is in the Budget Control Act. That is 
law. But this is the very first appropriations bill that has been 
brought to the Senate floor. We have no idea where we are going to be 
at the end of the process.
  The two leaders of the Appropriations Committee have called for 
regular order, and I commend them for bringing appropriations bills to 
the floor starting with this one, one at a time, for debate, amendment, 
and full consideration. We have had many amendments filed to this bill. 
Several of them would reduce spending that is in this bill. One reduces 
spending by $50 million for the HOME program that is being offered by 
the Senator from Arizona. There is another that reduces spending by 
over $1 billion for the Community Development Block Grant Program. That 
is not a cut I happen to believe should be made, but that is a 
legitimate amendment that, if it passes, would reduce spending in this 
bill by $1 billion. There are other amendments that have been proposed 
to reduce spending in this bill.
  So this is turning the process upside down. It is recommitting to 
committee a bill before we have had the opportunity to determine what 
the final spending level in the bill is even going to be as a result of 
the many amendments that have been filed. Furthermore, we are not going 
to know if we have reached the cap until we finish all of the 
appropriations bills.
  I realize my Democratic colleagues want a far higher spending cap 
than I do and that the Budget Control Act provides, but I don't think 
we should short-circuit the process when there has been a good-faith 
effort to bring appropriations bills to the floor.
  What I would propose in lieu of the approach offered by my friend and 
colleague Senator Toomey is an amendment which I am going to file this 
afternoon that says not later than October 1, the Committee on 
Appropriations shall revise the suballocations to the subcommittees for 
fiscal year 2014 such that the suballocations comply with the 
discretionary spending limits that are in the Balanced Budget and 
Emergency Deficit Control Act--what we refer to as the Budget Control 
Act, the BCA.
  To me, this is the proper way to do it. If, at the end of the fiscal 
year, we find that the appropriations bills that have been passed 
exceed the statutory cap in the BCA, then we should reopen the process 
and reallocate the funds--the ceilings, the caps--across each of the 
subcommittees and produce bills that comply with the law.
  Frankly, since current law applies this cap anyway, if we don't do 
that, sequestration will take effect on January 1 of next year. I do 
not think that is a good approach because it treats all programs as if 
they are the same and does not allow us to set priorities.
  So I think the approach of the Senator from Pennsylvania is 
premature, a blunt instrument, and there is a reasonable alternative. I 
think it discourages a return to regular order where we bring the 
appropriations bills to the floor and where Members are free to 
eliminate whole programs, to cut billions if they wish to do so. 
Indeed, Members have worthwhile amendments that would reduce spending, 
but to send the bill back to committee before we have even had a chance 
to consider those amendments and before we have allowed the Senate to 
work its will is, to me, completely upside down of the way the process 
should work.
  Furthermore, I will make the point once again that this is the first 
appropriations bill. How can we say the cap is breached when it is the 
very first bill to be brought before the Senate? Frankly, having gone 
through this process where we did have a freestanding Transportation-
HUD bill and Senator Murray and I went to conference with our House 
counterparts, we came back with a consensus bill that became law that 
was in between the amounts in the Senate bill and the House bill. So we 
ended up at a lower level, which we knew we would, and which I will not 
feel I am going out on a limb in predicting we would in this case as 
well, since the Senate bill is higher than the House bill.
  Why can't we let the process work? Why can't we consider the 
amendments that have been offered, some of which may well pass and 
reduce spending? Why can't we go to conference with the House where I 
believe additional cuts are probably likely? And why can't we let the 
appropriations process unfold the way it should? Why should we short-
circuit it now by saying, that is enough, let's return the bill to 
committee, we don't trust what is going to happen, when there are 
safeguards we can put in to ensure that at the end of the day we will 
be at the cap of $967 billion?
  As I said, I will file my amendment this afternoon to give us an 
actual mechanism to ensure that at the beginning of the fiscal year we 
are at those levels. That is one approach, and I think it is a far 
better approach.
  Thank you, Madam President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.


           Amendments Nos. 1756, 1803, 1785, and 1789 En Bloc

  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
pending amendment be set aside and the following amendments be called 
up en bloc: Coburn No. 1756, McCain No. 1803, Boozman No. 1785, and 
Udall of Colorado No. 1789; that the amendments be agreed to, en bloc, 
and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the 
table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendments were agreed to en bloc, as follows:


                           Amendment No. 1756

       (Purpose: To require public disclosure of certain reports)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       Sec. ___. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of this 
     Act and except as provided in subsection (b), any report 
     required to be submitted by a Federal agency to the Committee 
     on Appropriations of the Senate or the Committee on 
     Appropriations of the House of Representatives under this Act 
     shall be posted on the public website of that agency upon 
     receipt by the committee.
       (b) Subsection (a) shall not apply to a report if--
       (1) the public posting of the report compromises national 
     security; or
       (2) the report contains proprietary information.


                           Amendment No. 1803

   (Purpose: To prohibit the obligation or expenditure of funds made 
available to the Department of Transportation for cyber security until 
  the Secretary of Transportation submits to Congress a detailed plan 
  describing how the funding will be allocated and for what purposes)

       On page 12, between lines 12 and 13, insert the following:
       Sec. 1__.  None of the funds made available under this Act 
     to the Department of Transportation for cyber security may be 
     obligated or expended until the Secretary of Transportation 
     submits to the appropriate committees of Congress a detailed 
     plan describing how the funding will be allocated and for 
     what purposes, including a detailed description of--
       (1) how the cyber security funding will be obligated or 
     expended;
       (2) the programs and activities that will receive cyber 
     security funding;
       (3) if and how the use of the funding complies with the 
     Federal Information Security Management Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 
     101 et seq.) and any other applicable Federal law;

[[Page S5943]]

       (4) the performance metrics that will be used to measure 
     and determine the effectiveness of cyber security plans and 
     programs; and
       (5) the strategy that will be employed to procure goods and 
     services associated with the cyber security objectives of the 
     Department of Transportation.


                           Amendment No. 1785

 (Purpose: To establish the Sense of the Congress that any vacancy in 
the position of Inspector General of the Federal Housing Finance Agency 
should be filled in compliance with the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 
                                 1998)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       Sec. ____. (a) Congress finds the following:
       (1) The Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 
     established an Office of Inspector General within the Federal 
     Housing Finance Agency (in this section referred to as the 
     ``FHFA'').
       (2) The President has nominated Steve A. Linick, the 
     current FHFA Inspector General, to be the next Inspector 
     General of the Department of State.
       (3) The nomination of Steve A. Linick to be Inspector 
     General of the Department of State occurred on June 27, 2013, 
     following a 1,989 day vacancy that began on January 16, 2008.
       (4) The Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998 (5 U.S.C. 3345 
     et seq.) prescribes requirements for filling, both 
     permanently and temporarily, vacancies that are required to 
     be filled by Presidential appointment with Senate 
     confirmation, and generally provides a limit of 210 days for 
     persons serving in an ``acting'' capacity.
       (b) It is the Sense of Congress that should a vacancy occur 
     in the position of Inspector General of the Federal Housing 
     Finance Agency, the President should act expeditiously to 
     nominate a person to fill the position on a permanent basis 
     and should wait no more than 210 days to nominate a person to 
     serve in this position in the event of a vacancy.


                           Amendment No. 1789

 (Purpose: To require the Federal Railroad Administration to evaluate 
  regulations that govern the use of locomotive horns at highway-rail 
                            grade crossings)

       On page 52, after line 24, add the following:
       Sec. 155.  Not later than 180 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the Federal 
     Railroad Administration, in consultation with appropriate 
     local government representatives, shall--
       (1) evaluate existing regulations governing the use of 
     locomotive horns at highway-rail grade crossings to determine 
     whether such regulations should be revised; and
       (2) submit a report to Congress that contains the results 
     of the evaluation conducted pursuant to paragraph (1).

  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, it is my understanding we have a 
Republican Senator who is coming to the floor shortly to make a motion 
to recommit. For the information of all Members, at some point to be 
agreed upon, we will dispense with that motion this afternoon. We are 
hoping to do that. I know a number of Members have asked the timing on 
that. I will work with the Senators and our staffs to try and do that 
as soon as possible. I know many Members are waiting.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                            Tax Code Reform

  Mr. BAUCUS. Just outside this Chamber are the likenesses of 
Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, and dozens of statesmen cast in bronze 
and marble. I often look to these individuals for inspiration and 
quotes when writing a speech.
  On a recent walk across the Capitol to meet my colleague, Congressman 
Dave Camp, I passed a giant statue of Andrew Jackson, our Nation's 
seventh President.
  It was Jackson who famously said--and I quote him

       The wisdom of man never yet contrived a system of taxation 
     that would operate with perfect equality.

  Those words were spoken by Jackson in 1832. More than 180 years 
later, our Nation still struggles with a broken tax system.
  Our Tax Code today is inequitable, inefficient, and incomprehensible 
to the overwhelming majority of Americans. It contains nearly 4 million 
words--4 million. If someone were to try to read the entire code out 
loud, it would take them more than 18 uninterrupted days.
  Not only is the code long; it is maddeningly complex. There are 42 
different definitions of a small business in the code--42. There are 15 
different tax incentives for higher education--so many that the IRS had 
to publish a booklet to explain and simplify the higher education tax 
incentives. And that book--I have it with me--is 90 pages long--just on 
the education tax incentives. Here it is. I defy anybody to read it, 
let alone somebody trying to go to college or a parent trying to help 
his or her child go to college.
  The code is such a labyrinth that 90 percent of American taxpayers 
have to use an accountant or some kind of computer software to file 
their tax returns. Even with all this assistance, it still takes the 
average taxpayer 13 hours to gather and compile the receipts and forms 
to comply with the code.
  The Tax Code today is also inefficient and unfair. It is riddled with 
loopholes and deductions that result in more than $1 trillion in lost 
revenue each year.
  This complexity in the code is eroding confidence in our economy and 
creating uncertainty for America's families and businesses. Many 
Americans think of the other guy, the fancy lawyer who can take 
advantage of the code and pay lower taxes, which means more tax burden 
on to me. It is not fair. Confidence is eroding.
  It is also threatening to undermine the competitiveness of the United 
States in the global marketplace.
  Harvard Business School did a survey last year asking 10,000 of its 
graduates who live and conduct business around the world about the 
challenges of doing business in America. These individuals--these 
10,000--are leaders on the frontlines of the global economy, and they 
are pessimistic about America's economic future.
  The vast majority of those surveyed--71 percent--expected U.S. 
competitiveness to deteriorate over the next several years.
  And what did they identify as the root of America's competitiveness 
problem? Respondents pointed to America's Tax Code--to the code--as one 
of the greatest weaknesses in the U.S. business environment.
  Dig deeper and you learn respondents were deterred from investing in 
the United States not simply by a higher statutory corporate tax rate, 
but also by the sheer complexity and uncertain future of the Tax Code. 
I might say, when I mention that report to people, to businesses, to 
Americans, they nod their heads in agreement. That is what they have 
found themselves too.
  The survey concludes with a dire warning--and I quote the survey:

       For the first time in decades, the business environment in 
     the United States is in danger of falling behind the rest of 
     the world.
       That's bad news for everyone. A fundamentally weakened U.S. 
     economy is not only an American problem but also a global 
     risk.

  Chairman Camp and I have been working together for more than 2 years 
on comprehensive tax reform. Here in the Senate I have been working on 
tax reform for the past 3 years with my good friend Senator Hatch, the 
ranking member of the Finance Committee. We have held more than 30 
hearings and heard from hundreds of experts about how tax reform can 
simplify the system for families, help businesses innovate, and make 
the United States more competitive.
  A lot of people talk about more jobs. There is a lot of talk about 
more jobs. This is one way to get more jobs. If we reform the Tax Code, 
it will unleash so much positive energy in this country. It would 
create a lot more jobs than any other plan I have recently heard of.
  We held more than 30 hearings, heard from hundreds of experts on how 
reform can simplify the system, help businesses innovate, and make the 
United States more competitive. Last month Senator Hatch and I 
completed work with the Finance Committee on an extensive, 3-month, 
top-to-bottom review of the Tax Code. We met as a full committee every 
week to collect feedback on different topics in tax reform and issued a 
series of 10 discussion papers to kick off that conversation.
  In an effort to include the entire Senate in our efforts, we recently 
called on all Senators to partner with us and provide their input and 
ideas for reforming the code. Starting with a blank slate, we called on 
every Senator to submit their proposals for what they want to see in a 
reformed code. This is

[[Page S5944]]

an important exercise. Everyone needs to be involved. We need every 
Senator to weigh in on tax reform. I might say, the deadline is this 
Friday, tomorrow. I encourage all of my colleagues to submit their 
ideas and make their voices heard.
  I might say, your constituents are certainly making their voices 
heard. We have received more than 10,000 comments and ideas so far 
through the Web site that Chairman Camp and I created called 
taxreform.gov--actually, 10,258 responses, to be exact.
  Overwhelmingly, Americans, from every corner of our country, are 
calling for a simplified Tax Code. People think they should not have to 
spend hours upon hours and hundreds of dollars to prepare their taxes, 
and I for one agree.
  Let me share a couple of submissions we have received on our Web 
site.
  Jennifer, from Hollywood, MD, writes:

       I've been doing my family's taxes for 22 years. This year 
     my husband suggested we use a tax service. Why? The tax code 
     is too complicated and he was concerned we were missing 
     deductions.

  Mike, from Fort Collins, CO, provides an example of the complexity in 
the code, writing:

       I have been a tax assistance volunteer for 19 years. It is 
     difficult to tell someone who knows what a child is that 
     there are actually four different definitions for ``a child'' 
     in the tax law. Make the same definition apply across the 
     entire tax code. The best way is the simplest way.

  Wendy from Irving, CA, writes:

       I do not mind paying taxes--we need education, 
     infrastructure, and a defense. What I do mind is that it is a 
     complete mystery and a complete game to find every allowable 
     deduction and that it is a significant burden as well as a 
     significant expense to pay a qualified preparer. How has this 
     come to be? My returns are 20-50 pages long. Why is it more 
     than two? There must be a way to simplify the process.

  You know what. Wendy is right. There must be a way to simplify the 
process.
  That is the same message Chairman Camp and I heard earlier this month 
in St. Paul, MN. We were in the Twin Cities for the first in a series 
of trips we are taking across the country to speak with people about 
tax reform.
  We want to get out of Washington. We are doing it this summer. We are 
going to Philadelphia next Monday to get input and feedback from people 
on dealing with America's tax system.
  St. Paul was a great trip. We met with leaders of two distinctly 
different types of American businesses--one a U.S.-based multinational 
corporation with more than 85,000 employees, the other a family-run 
bakery with 85 employees. While dramatically different in size and in 
industry, they face similar challenges when it comes to dealing with 
America's Tax Code. In conversation after conversation we heard the 
same thing: We need a simpler Tax Code.
  St. Paul was just the first stop. As I mentioned, the next trip is 
Philadelphia. Then we plan to go to the west coast. We have other trips 
planned over the next couple of months. We are going to talk to groups 
about how we can make the tax system fairer and easier to deal with, 
and we want to learn how we can restore some confidence in the code.
  Our efforts on reform have been ramping up. We are continuing to 
build momentum. Reform provides a historic opportunity to give families 
certainty, spark growth, create jobs, and make businesses more 
competitive to provide America a real shot in the arm.
  I will conclude my remarks as I began them--with a quote. These words 
are from our Nation's sixth President, John Quincy Adams. President 
Adams:

       Patience and perseverance have a magical effect before 
     which difficulties disappear and obstacles vanish.

  That is where we are. We are patient. We are persevering. We have a 
lot to do. The difficulties will disappear, obstacles will vanish, and 
the best result will be that the American people have a simpler, fairer 
code to provide more jobs.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.


                           Motion to Recommit

  Mr. TOOMEY. Madam President, I rise to describe a motion to recommit 
that I am going to offer. Let me start by providing a little bit of 
context to why I am offering this motion to recommit. That has to start 
by reminding my colleagues about the Budget Control Act that was signed 
into law in 2011, about 2 years ago.
  The Budget Control Act--which, again, is an act, not a bill--has been 
signed into law. It is the existing law of the land. It established 
spending caps--limits on discretionary spending--in a modest effort to 
try to bring out-of-control spending somewhat under control. So we have 
a statutory limit on how much the Federal Government is permitted to 
spend. It is a limit on both the defense side and the nondefense side, 
but it is a limit. It is an attempt to control that which has been so 
difficult to control in this town, which is Federal spending.
  I should point out that even if we abide by the spending caps that 
are in the existing law, if we follow the law, we are still going to 
run a huge deficit. Next year the deficit will be about $560 billion. 
That means that next year, if we have the spending discipline of living 
within the law, we will still increase our total outstanding debt by 
more than $\1/2\ trillion and our debt as a percentage of our economy 
will rise to 76 percent--76 percent debt-to-GDP ratio. Our debt-to-GDP 
ratio is already higher than it should be. It is already costing us 
economic growth and jobs. It is going to rise further. That is assuming 
we stick to the spending cap.
  I should point out that the way we got to this point is just spending 
on autopilot, just growing spending every year. I will give one 
example. Since 2000, total Federal spending has doubled. That is the 
scale of the increases in spending we have been experiencing. That is 
why we have been running huge deficits. We now have a massive debt. The 
accumulated debt is causing this big drag on our economy and preventing 
us from having the kind of job growth we ought to have.
  Here is my big concern. The bill we are considering right now, the 
Transportation-HUD bill, puts us on a direct path to bust the caps, to 
break the law, to spend even more than the statutory limits we put in 
place just 2 years ago. Let me walk through how we get there.
  The fact is that under the Budget Control Act the cap that is set on 
discretionary spending for the fiscal year we are currently debating, 
2014, is $967 billion. That is the number. If you add up the spending 
sums for all of the appropriations bills my Democratic friends want to 
pass, it adds up to $1.058 trillion. It is $91 billion more spending 
than is permitted under current law.
  It busts the caps by almost $100 billion. We cannot afford this kind 
of spending. We cannot afford the spending we are currently 
contemplating, much less nearly another $100 billion.
  Now, I should be clear. Any single bill does not bust the caps all by 
itself. It is what they do in combination. But this bill is one of a 
series that in combination is designed to bust the caps. All you have 
to do is add up the total spending in each bill, and you get a number 
that is much greater than the cap. So it is very clear.
  This particular bill, by the way, is a huge increase. The 
Transportation-HUD bill spends over $54 billion in its current form, as 
currently contemplated. That is $5 billion more than in 2013. That is a 
10-percent increase in just 1 year. It is almost $10 billion more than 
what the House proposed. It is even more money than what the President 
of the United States asked for in his own budget request. He did not 
ask for this much money. Yet here it is on the Senate floor, a bill 
that busts the cap, increases spending dramatically, and spends more 
money than the President even asked for, at a time when we are running 
huge deficits that are costing us economic growth.
  I think this is a very bad idea, so I have a motion. I am grateful to 
have the support of many of my colleagues, including Senator Shelby and 
Senator Hoeven, both who are appropriators. I think Senator Hoeven is 
intending to speak in support of this motion. Let me explain clearly 
what it will do. What my motion will do is send the bill back to 
committee with instructions to lower the spending in the bill to 
$45.455 billion. That is the number that would be consistent with the 
spending caps. It would allocate an amount of money to this 
appropriations bill, the Transportation-HUD bill, in proportion to what 
the Transportation-HUD bill spends under the current fiscal year. It 
would do that for the next fiscal year.
  I am not suggesting that I would go through and line by line make all 
of

[[Page S5945]]

the individual adjustments within the bill. I would leave that to the 
committee that has the most expertise, the Appropriations Committee. 
Let them do their work, but let them do it in a way that ends with a 
product that is consistent with the law, consistent with the spending 
caps.
  One point I should make about the spending caps in the Budget Control 
Act--I think there are some folks in this town who mistakenly think 
that since deficits have gotten a little smaller in recent years than 
they were in the past few years, somehow we do not have a deficit 
problem anymore and we can just crank up spending. I have to say I 
think that is a profoundly mistaken view. We still have a huge problem 
with the spending path. A $\1/2\ trillion deficit is a devastatingly 
large deficit. As bad as that is, several years in the future, under 
current projections--again, this assumes that we live within the law--
within a few years these deficits start to explode again even beyond 
the current levels, which are already unacceptable.
  So I think this is very important. This is the first appropriations 
bill the Senate is considering this year. This is the one that is going 
to determine whether we are going to go down a path of disregarding the 
bipartisan, Presidentially signed law of the land which is in existence 
right now. This bill is designed to be part of a process to bust that 
wide open so that we spend more money that we can't afford. That would 
be a huge mistake.
  This is a motion to recommit back to the committee, report out a bill 
where they can establish the priorities and the allocation within the 
limit but set the limit at a level that is consistent with the caps.
  I move to commit S. 1243 to the Committee on Appropriations with 
instructions to report back with such changes as may be necessary such 
that total budget authority for fiscal year 2014 is not greater than 
$45.455 billion.
  I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I rise to strongly oppose this motion 
that is now before the Senate. I urge all of my colleagues to vote 
against it as well. Senator Collins and I have worked very closely 
together to write a bipartisan transportation and housing bill that 
works for our families and our communities. We have been working here 
together on the floor to have an open debate and accept amendments from 
both sides of the aisle. We just accepted a number of them a few 
minutes ago.
  In addition to six Republicans who explicitly supported this bill in 
committee, along with all of the Democrats, a total of 73 Senators 
voted to start debate on this bill. But now this motion that is now 
before us would take all of that bipartisan work we did on this bill in 
committee and it would take the strong bipartisan support coming out of 
committee and just throw it all away and ask us to simply now adopt the 
House Republican budget and start all over again. There is absolutely 
no reason for us to go back to the drawing board, especially not under 
the conditions that are laid out in this motion.
  Back in March we had a very vigorous debate here in the Senate about 
our values and our priorities when it came to the Federal budget. We 
debated about the future of Medicare. We talked about how the 
wealthiest Americans should contribute their fair share. We debated 
what should be done with overall spending levels and the automatic cuts 
from sequestration that were put in place in the bipartisan Budget 
Control Act in order to bring both sides to the table to replace them 
with more responsible deficit reduction.
  Everyone will remember that we spent dozens of hours debating the 
budget on the Senate floor. Then my colleagues had a choice. We ran an 
open process. Any Senator could bring an amendment to the floor. We 
considered over 100 of them from Democrats and Republicans. One of my 
Republican colleagues even offered the House budget as an amendment, 
which locks in that overall sequestration level but actually ignores 
the Budget Control Act by simply pushing the entire burden onto seniors 
and families in our communities. But, as we all know, the House budget 
was rejected by the Senate. It got only 40 votes here, and 5 
Republicans actually voted against it. The Senate budget we ended up 
passing replaces sequestration with an equal mix of responsible 
spending cuts and new revenue by closing tax loopholes that benefit the 
wealthiest Americans.
  The House passed their budget that locks in sequestration on 
steroids. The Senate passed our budget that replaces sequestration with 
more responsible deficit reduction. I absolutely agree with my 
colleagues that we cannot finish that budget process until we find a 
way to bridge that divide between the House and Senate. But I want to 
be clear here. A motion to recommit on an appropriations bill is not 
the place to have the debate on the overall spending levels. That is 
what a budget conference is for. That is where the two sides need to go 
to work out a deal. But, as my colleagues all know, despite the efforts 
of many Republicans and Democrats alike, a few Senators--very few 
Senators--continue blocking a bipartisan budget conference. So far we 
have been unable to even get in a room to talk about that.
  We are going to keep trying to start a budget conference and work 
toward a bipartisan deal. Until we do, the bipartisan work that is 
being done in the Appropriations Committee now, led by the chairwoman 
Senator Mikulski has to continue.
  Now that my colleague has brought this motion to the floor that 
attempts to lock in sequestration and force the House budget onto our 
transportation and housing bill, let's talk about it for a few minutes.
  The bill we are debating right now, the transportation and housing 
bill, could not exist at the worse-than-sequestration levels that are 
being pushed in this House. My partner on this bill, Senator Collins, 
has been clear, as I have, that the differences between the House and 
Senate transportation bills could not be more stark.
  Our bipartisan bill here in the Senate continues to invest in our 
communities through the Community Development Block Grant Program, 
CDBG, while the partisan House bill cut that in half to the lowest 
level ever, which would mean 40,000 fewer jobs in this country. 
Communities across the country would have to halt projects they are 
planning to help get their communities moving again.
  Our bipartisan bill in the Senate invests in Essential Air Service 
and makes sure there is enough in the program to cover all the 
communities that currently participate in it.
  The House partisan bill that this motion would recommit and put us 
back into the position of considering would shortchange the entire 
program and cut it more than one-third. It includes additional language 
that would kick out communities in States such as Montana and New 
Mexico that absolutely depend on this.
  The bipartisan bill the Senate has invests in our families to make 
sure they have a roof over their heads when they need it most, to help 
them if they are disabled or seniors who need to stay off the streets. 
The partisan House bill would serve 132,000 fewer people, many of whom 
would end up homeless without this support.
  Those are only a few examples. I could name many that are in this 
bill. If sequestration numbers were to be blocked in the way this 
motion that is before us envisions, we will continue seeing the impact 
across our entire Federal Government.
  As Secretary Hagel has made very clear, the defense worker furloughs 
would continue and get worse. In my home State of Washington--I talked 
about it on the Senate floor this morning--we have seen the 
consequences of those cuts. Do you know where we are seeing them? In 
places such as Madigan Hospital where a young woman came and told me 
about being furloughed on Fridays and what it translated into in terms 
of people having their brain surgeries delayed because of the shutdowns 
on Friday. This is what we are talking about, doctors and nurses being 
furloughed in our Army hospitals as we have injured soldiers who need 
care.
  This sequestration is going to impact funding for our firefighters 
who are protecting our homes and lands, civilian employees, and it will 
hit the law enforcement officials who are protecting our cities from 
the threat of terrorism. It will strip funds from cancer research at 
NIH. Our roads, bridges,

[[Page S5946]]

and rails will continue to crumble, and small businesses will pay the 
price.
  This would be happening while a lot of other countries that are our 
competitors in the global marketplace are doing the opposite. They are 
investing in themselves. They are setting themselves up to compete in 
the 21st century economy.
  This is the reality of sequestration. It may not make the news every 
single day in every paper. We may not see all the impacts right away, 
but it is very real, and it will truly be devastating. It will be 
devastating for our families. It will be devastating for our national 
security and our long-term economic growth if we don't replace it. By 
the way, it is not just Democrats who are saying this. Economists such 
as Ben Bernanke have said it is hurting the economy. Many of my 
Republican colleagues have spent a lot of time going around the country 
talking about how devastating it is on the defense side.
  I am happy to have this debate. I don't think this bill, the 
appropriations bill, the transportation and housing bill, is the place 
to do it.
  If the Senator from Pennsylvania and others wish to start a debate 
and a negotiation between the Senate budget and the House budget, they 
should stop objecting to us going to conference. That is where this 
should occur.
  Until then, I urge my colleagues to reject this motion and allow us 
to continue working on the bipartisan bill we have worked so hard to 
bring to the Senate. Let's work in creating jobs, investing in 
communities, and lay down a foundation for long-term and broad-based 
growth.
  I move to table the motion, and I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Warren). Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I ask that I be allowed to speak for 5 minutes.
  Mr. MURPHY. I would ask the Senator if the Senator from Maryland 
could speak for 5 minutes. I would notify all of my colleagues that we 
intend to go to the motion to table once that debate occurs.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I wish to thank my colleague Senator Toomey for raising 
this matter and asking to recommit the legislation so the Senate 
committee, the appropriate committee, would produce a THUD plan for 
spending that complies with the Budget Control Act, which is a law of 
the land.
  Senator Toomey is one of our most knowledgeable Members on finance in 
the Senate. He is a member of the Budget Committee. He fully 
understands the significance of this matter.
  If this legislation passes at the level it is moving forward today, 
then we are eviscerating the promises we made to the American public in 
August of 2011. In August of 2011, everyone should remember quite well, 
that we said we would raise the debt ceiling by $2.1 trillion. We will 
reach that by the end of this year. We will have used up and borrowed 
another $2.1 trillion before the end of the year, but we said that we 
would reduce spending by $2.1 trillion over 10 years to make it easy on 
ourselves and to spread out the spending cuts.
  This was passed into law with bipartisan support and signed by 
President Obama. This is not some law that was made up out of thin air. 
It was a law that was debated and passed in both Houses of Congress. 
Republicans and Democrats agreed to it, and it improved our spending a 
little bit.
  We were then spending at the rate of $37 trillion over 10 years. We 
were projected to increase spending to $47 trillion over 10 years. This 
bill reduced it to $45 trillion.
  Under the current spending limits we now have, as Senator Toomey has 
so ably pointed out, we are going to increase spending over next 10 
years. We are going to increase it from $37 trillion to $45 trillion at 
a time when we have been running the largest deficits the Nation has 
ever seen, bar none. An absolutely irresponsible level of debt has been 
added to our country.
  Even this modest proposal agreed to by the President, voted on by the 
majority party in the Senate, supported in a bipartisan way--is set to 
be demolished before 2 years is up: Oh, it is too tough. We can't 
reduce the growth of spending from $47 trillion to $45 trillion. Oh, 
this is going to destroy America.
  Well, why don't we look for ways to spread out the cuts and 
distribute some to the departments and agencies that got zero 
reductions in spending, such as Medicaid and food stamps zero 
reduction. No, we can't touch those. They are sacrosanct, and other 
programs too.
  We have some reductions in spending on the discretionary accounts 
that we can sustain, and it will be tough. That is what we are paid to 
do.
  The bill should properly go back to the committee, and a vote in 
favor of the Toomey motion would instruct the committee to produce a 
bill that is consistent with the Budget Control Act.
  May I inquire how much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Essentially, the majority leader has already said that 
he intends to bring up the defense bill last, national security last. 
Why is he going to do that? He is going to do that because he is going 
to let all these other bills go over the budget limit, and then he is 
going to produce the defense bill and say: Oh, colleagues, we have to 
add more money to the defense bill, putting us over the BCA limits that 
were agreed to and passed into law. We have to waive that and spend 
more.
  This is how a Nation goes broke. This is how we lose credibility with 
the American people.
  We looked them in the eye in August 2 years ago and we said we were 
going to reduce the growth of spending a little bit, $2.1 trillion, in 
exchange for raising the debt ceiling $2.1 trillion.
  The majority party here is blithely walking in, pretending that never 
happened and saying: Oh, we didn't intend to pass a limit.
  Why did you vote for it then, if you didn't intend to pass it? We did 
intend to pass it. We promised the American people $2.1 trillion in 
reducing the growth of spending not a reduction in spending, just a 
reduction in the growth of spending.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. SESSIONS. We need to honor that promise.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING Officer. The Senator from Maryland.
  Mr. CARDIN. I wish to thank Senator Murray and Senator Collins 
returning us to regular order and bringing an appropriations bill to 
the floor that is consistent with the budget resolution passed by this 
body. I also wish to compliment my colleague from Maryland, the 
chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee Senator Mikulski.
  We are returning to regular order in the Senate. I find it amazing. 
It was only a week ago my colleagues on the Republican side were saying 
we don't want to turn the Senate into the House. Now we have a motion 
to recommit that would take the House numbers. We didn't do that.
  Should we only have a unicameral legislature? I thought we thought 
this body was important. Yet this motion to recommit will have the 
effect of saying that what we do in this body doesn't make any 
difference; let's just take the House's bill. I don't think that is 
what we want.
  The House bill that has been reported I don't think it has yet been 
voted on was a partisan bill. What we did in this body is have 
Democrats and Republicans working together. That should be the model we 
use in this institution. The motion to recommit would destroy that, 
would take that away. That doesn't seem to make a lot of sense.
  Let me talk on the merits, if I might, for one moment, and that is 
what this motion would mean as far as jobs in this country and 
responsible investments. Remember that we are operating under a budget 
resolution that will reduce the deficit. It gets us to actually 
stronger efforts to reduce the deficit.

[[Page S5947]]

  I can't speak to every category of spending, but I do know something 
about transportation. I serve on the Environment and Public Works 
Committee. There is bipartisan support on our committee to do more than 
what is in this budget. We have trillions of dollars' worth of roads 
and bridges that are falling down. We have to invest, to create jobs. 
We understand transportation creates jobs. The motion to recommit would 
take us to numbers that are lower than the sequestration numbers.

  I was just on the floor a few minutes ago talking about how the 
sequestration is hurting this country--it is hurting job growth, 
hurting our economy, hurting Federal workers, and hurting ordinary 
Americans. Well, this motion makes it worse. It goes below the 
sequestration numbers. We need to invest in job growth, we need to do 
it in a balanced, responsible way, and that is exactly what Senator 
Murray did in wearing her hat as chairman of the Senate Budget 
Committee. She has now brought out an appropriations bill totally 
consistent with the action there.
  Here is the real hypocrisy. What we have said on our side of the 
aisle is we understand there is a difference. Let's go to conference 
and resolve the differences. And the same people who are supporting 
this motion will not let us go to conference to resolve the 
differences. We should return to regular order. Reject this motion to 
recommit.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise today in strong opposition to the 
Toomey motion to recommit. This motion to recommit would send the 
transportation-housing bill back to the committee with a new allocation 
of $45.5 billion, a cut of $8.5 billion from the Senate bill's current 
level of $54 billion. The THUD subcommittee would then have to rewrite 
its bill to the new, lower allocation.
  This motion is simply a backdoor approach to make sequester the new 
normal by slashing the THUD bill. This is a cut of the magnitude 
proposed in the Ryan budget. I remind my colleagues the Ryan budget 
puts a moat around defense spending, and cuts $91 billion from domestic 
programs. I will not accept sequester, I will not accept the Ryan 
budget, as the new normal.
  The allocation for the THUD bill is based on a topline of $1.058 
trillion. This is the presequester topline contained in the American 
Taxpayer Relief Act, a law that passed the Senate by a vote of 89 to 8 
in January. The allocation for THUD proposed by the Toomey amendment is 
based on a topline of $967 billion, the postsequester level.
  Those who support $967 billion want to make sequester the ``new 
normal.'' They say: We must follow the law, and sequester is the law. 
First of all, the House is not following the law. The House ignores the 
law by taking all $91 billion of cuts out of domestic discretionary 
programs.
  This committee's spending allocations assert that sequester will be 
replaced with a balanced solution to the deficit problem that will be 
decided in a conference on the budget resolution. But guess what. Six 
Senators have objected to a conference on the budget resolution. And 
now this motion to recommit is further sand in the gears of the 
appropriations process. But I am determined that this committee will 
not be undermined by this obstructionism. While we wait for the Budget 
Committee to be able to do its job, we will continue to do our job.
  Colleagues, this isn't a disagreement about whether we should have 
across-the-board cuts. Nobody thinks across-the-board cuts are smart. 
This is a disagreement about how much we will invest in America, in our 
infrastructure, our people, and our national security.
  The Toomey motion to recommit would require huge cuts--in this case, 
$8.5 billion in cuts--but it provides no specifics. The THUD bill keeps 
America moving on land, at sea, and in the air. This motion to recommit 
stops America in its tracks. If this motion passes, roads will not be 
resurfaced, bridges will not be replaced or repaired, air traffic 
controllers will not be hired, and airports will not be upgraded. And 
all these cuts mean one thing--fewer jobs--fewer good American jobs.
  The FAA modernization program will be delayed--again. This delay will 
cause more congestion at our airports and leave America further behind 
in the global economy. And these cuts mean safety will be put at risk, 
with fewer resources for the agencies charged with keeping us safe on 
the roads and in the air. These cuts today have consequences for years 
to come. This is true for our physical infrastructure, and it is true 
for our human infrastructure.
  This motion is irresponsible and should be rejected. It demands $8.5 
billion in unspecified cuts, which would have terrible impacts on 
America's infrastructure, and on our efforts to create good jobs right 
here at home.
  I believe our government should meet compelling human needs. It 
should provide for the national defense. And our government should make 
smart investments today so our Nation will grow stronger tomorrow.
  This motion to recommit puts all of these essential functions at risk 
and would have terrible near-term and long-term impacts. I strongly 
oppose the Toomey motion to recommit.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I yield back the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
table the motion to recommit, offered by the Senator from Pennsylvania.
  The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Ms. Hirono) is 
necessarily absent.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Kansas (Mr. Moran).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Manchin). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 56, nays 42, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 187 Leg.]

                                YEAS--56

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

                                NAYS--42

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

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Hirono
     Moran
       
  The motion was agreed to.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and I move 
to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I want to let all Senators know that we 
have made tremendous progress on the transportation and housing bill. 
We intend to make more progress next week. We are going to stay in 
morning business this afternoon. We have a few issues we are working 
out through the weekend. We will be back at this next week.
  I wish to thank all of the Members who have worked very hard with us 
this week, and I look forward to working with them again next week.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I too wish to comment on the progress we 
have made this week. We have been considering this appropriations bill 
under regular order. We have actually cleared several amendments today. 
We have had some votes. We have defeated a motion to recommit the bill 
to committee so that we can proceed to go forward.
  Senator Murray and I will be here on Monday, ready and open for 
business. We will start sequencing amendments.

[[Page S5948]]

I hope Members on both sides of the aisle will approach this bill in a 
cooperative spirit with respect to further rights of Senators to offer 
their amendments and get votes, and that we will not see Members 
drawing lines in the sand or deciding that they are going to block 
action going forward because I think this bill could be a model of how 
we should operate.
  Thank you, Mr. President.


                           Amendment No. 1744

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, on Tuesday, the Senate adopted an amendment 
offered by the junior Senator from Louisiana, which effectively imposes 
a lifetime ban on individuals who have been convicted of certain 
serious crimes from obtaining Federal housing assistance. Today is a 
new legislative day, and many of us in this body may have already moved 
on to the next meeting, the next issue, the next vote. But as I have 
reflected on that amendment, I am concerned the direction these types 
of amendments are taking us.
  I had significant concerns with the lack of notice given to Senators 
about the amendment offered by Senator Vitter, and the speed with which 
a vote was scheduled. In the span of roughly 90 minutes, the amendment 
was filed, made pending, and set for a rollcall vote. This amendment 
was never considered by the relevant subcommittee in the markup of the 
bill, nor vetted for unintended consequences.
  I am deeply concerned about what the sort of amendment offered by the 
junior Senator from Louisiana says about us as a Senate, and as a 
Nation. Following on the heels of a similar amendment offered by 
Senator Vitter on the farm bill, I expect that similar amendments will 
be filed and offered on virtually every future bill. This has to stop.
  In our system of justice, when someone is convicted of a crime and 
serves a sentence, I believe that person deserves a second chance and 
an opportunity to reintegrate as a productive member of society. That 
is a principle of fairness and justice that I know not only from my 
days as a prosecutor, but through my time as chairman of the Judiciary 
Committee. It is a basic notion instilled in me from an early age, and 
reinforced by my faith. As I have long heard from the faith community, 
it is our moral obligation to rehabilitate and restore people who have 
committed crimes. We all have made mistakes, and I challenge any Member 
to come to the floor and say that they haven't themselves sought 
forgiveness or a second chance.
  We have to get past the point where we are scoring political points 
on the backs of those who have committed crimes but have served their 
sentence. We must find a way to reintegrate them into society. That is 
how we make our communities safer.
  No one in this body should want a convicted felon to become a repeat 
offender. And I assume no Senator wants to punish the family members of 
an offender for crimes they did not commit. Yet that would be the 
effect of the Vitter amendments. Such measures have the effect of 
extending punishment beyond the original term; they would act as a 
lifetime ban and make it harder for ex-offenders and their families to 
get back on their feet. I reluctantly supported the amendment this week 
because Federal regulations already give housing officials the ability 
to keep dangerous criminals, sex offenders, and domestic abusers out of 
public housing. While this diminishes somewhat the overall impact of 
that amendment, the mandatory draconian nature of the Vitter amendment 
remains deeply troubling. As the senior Senator from Louisiana stated 
when Senator Vitter offered a similar amendment a few years ago, such 
an approach is simply ``mean-spirited and counterproductive.''
  I am concerned that this is just the first of a series of similarly 
mean-spirited and counterproductive amendments. Now that the Senate has 
moved to impose a lifetime ban on food and housing assistance for some 
who have served their criminal sentences, what will be next? Will we 
next decide to take away education or employment assistance? Should we 
ban ex-offenders from libraries or public parks? The aggregate effect 
of such efforts will be to relegate an ex-offender and perhaps his or 
her family to a lifetime of poverty, homelessness, and isolation. That 
does not make us safer. It just makes us meaner and less compassionate. 
I hope we will stop using this political tactic and work together to 
help give people a second chance.
  I know many Senators here share this goal. This is a complicated 
issue that demands thoughtful solutions, and we must work together if 
we have any hope of achieving real change. Public safety is about more 
than lengthy prison sentences. It also requires efforts to reintegrate 
into our communities those who have served their time. We know that 
reentry efforts reduce recidivism and we must be thoughtful when we 
take options off the table like we did this week.
  I praise groups like the Conference of Catholic Bishops, Prison 
Fellowship, and the Sentencing Project who have worked tirelessly to 
help provide opportunities for individuals who have committed crimes, 
and to work toward the rehabilitation and restoration of their 
families. At the core of their work are fundamental notions of justice 
and compassion--the same principles that I hope will guide the work of 
the Senate as we go forward.

                          ____________________