To collect more than $500,000,000 from developers for failed, botched, and abandoned projects.

AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND
RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT OF 2012--Continued

Amendment No. 769

The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will now be 2 minutes of debate, equally
divided, prior to a vote in relation to the amendment, as modified, by
the Senator from Louisiana, Mr. Vitter.
Who yields time? The Senator from Louisiana.
Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, this amendment is bipartisan. I thank the
bipartisan coauthors. The amendment would allow the reimportation of
small, personal use quantities of safe FDA-approved prescription drugs
from Canada only. It is a very modest amendment. It is for personal use
only, not large quantities, no wholesalers, Canada only, no biologics,
and no controlled dangerous substances. It is essentially identical to
an amendment we passed on a bipartisan basis in the last Senate.
I urge a strong vote in favor of this.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland is recognized.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I oppose this amendment. First, it is a
budget buster. To enforce this will take enormous amounts of resources.
You cannot be sure that that drug coming from Canada is not a
counterfeit, lethal death drug. You don't have any enforcement
procedures in here, you don't have the money to enforce it, and we have
a history of phony drugs coming into rogue Web sites through
counterfeit countries.
If you want a drug that has been made in a country that we view as
predators toward the United States, when you take your Coumadin, when
you want your wife to take her breast cancer drug, when your daughter
is going to take that birth control bill, then you want the Vitter
amendment. But if you want safety, then defeat the amendment.
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, today I wish to support Senator Vitter's
amendment regarding drug importation from Canada. Senator Vitter has
been a tremendous partner and tireless advocate in supporting the
comprehensive drug importation legislation Senator Stabenow and I
introduced earlier this year--the Pharmaceutical Market Access and Drug
Safety Act--which now has 20 additional cosponsors.
The time for enactment of comprehensive drug importation legislation
is certainly long overdue--and the critical necessity for this
legislation is actually greater . . . not less, particularly for those
struggling in this economic environment. Over the past decade, among
working age adults--only those with Medicare coverage saw any
improvement in their ability to fill their prescriptions. All others
saw a rise in their inability to obtain needed medications. Among the
uninsured more than 1 in 3 individuals went without a required
prescription--and in those with chronic disease that number doubles.
At the same time, according to AARP, over the last 5 years, the
retail prices for the most popular brand-name drugs increased 41.5
percent, while the consumer price index rose 13.3 percent. So despite
manufacturer assistance programs--despite the increased use of
generics--the high and escalating cost of brand-name drugs is directly
impacting the health of millions. Americans have learned that other
countries use the very same medications which we do, made in the very
same plants, yet pay considerably less.
I look forward to working with my colleagues, as well as the FDA, on
opportunities to advance comprehensive drug importation legislation in
the months ahead. Not only does my legislation expand access to
imported drugs in countries with comparable levels of regulation and
oversight, but it also establishes a higher level of safety than exists
today for prescription drugs sold domestically--including employing
anticounterfeiting technologies and drug pedigrees to ensure the
integrity of medications. In fact, it was the first to provide FDA with
the resources to improve its inspection of foreign drug plants, many of
which today produce medications marketed here by U.S. firms which
consumers assume to be ``domestic''. CBO estimates the Federal
Government alone would save $19.4 billion, so the savings from drug
importation are undeniable and I hope that the Joint Select Committee
on Deficit Reduction strongly considers this option.
Until that time, Senator Vitter's legislation, which allows for
personal

[[Page S6802]]

use drug importation from Canada, represents a good first step. Without
question, the price discrepancies between the United States and Canada
are significant. For example, this week the average U.S. price for a
90-day supply of Nexium is $524.97 compared to $386.67 in Canada.
Another drug, Plavix, costs $565.97 in the United States versus $434.65
in Canada for a 90-day supply. Lipitor costs $463.97 in the United
States compared to $378.23 in Canada for a 90-day supply.
Today our constituents--who pay for research, who subsidize industry
advertising, marketing, and investment--deserve access to competition
and more affordable prices. Senator Vitter's amendment has achieved
strong bipartisan support in the past, and I urge my colleagues to vote
for this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment,
as modified.
Mr. VITTER. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
The result was announced--yeas 45, nays 55, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 172 Leg.]

YEAS--45

Begich
Bingaman
Blumenthal
Boozman
Boxer
Brown (OH)
Cardin
Casey
Coburn
Collins
Conrad
Corker
DeMint
Feinstein
Franken
Grassley
Heller
Johnson (SD)
Klobuchar
Kohl
Leahy
Lee
Levin
McCain
McCaskill
Merkley
Murkowski
Nelson (NE)
Nelson (FL)
Paul
Pryor
Reed
Rockefeller
Sanders
Sessions
Shaheen
Shelby
Snowe
Stabenow
Tester
Thune
Udall (NM)
Vitter
Whitehouse
Wyden

NAYS--55

Akaka
Alexander
Ayotte
Barrasso
Baucus
Bennet
Blunt
Brown (MA)
Burr
Cantwell
Carper
Chambliss
Coats
Cochran
Coons
Cornyn
Crapo
Durbin
Enzi
Gillibrand
Graham
Hagan
Harkin
Hatch
Hoeven
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Isakson
Johanns
Johnson (WI)
Kerry
Kirk
Kyl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Lieberman
Lugar
Manchin
McConnell
Menendez
Mikulski
Moran
Murray
Portman
Reid
Risch
Roberts
Rubio
Schumer
Toomey
Udall (CO)
Warner
Webb
Wicker
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 45, the nays are
55. Under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the adoption of
this amendment, the amendment is rejected.

Amendment No. 750

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there is now 2
minutes equally divided prior to a vote in relation to amendment No.
750, as modified, offered by the Senator from Virginia, Mr. Webb.
Who yields time?
The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. WEBB. Mr. President, this bill is the result of 4\1/2\ years of
work and outreach and listening to the other side, incorporating
recommendations from across the political spectrum. It is paid for. It
is sunsetted at 18 months. It is balanced philosophically and
politically. Contrary to some of the comments that were made, this does
provide for equal participation from both parties.
It has been endorsed by more than 70 national organizations,
including almost all of the law enforcement organizations in America:
International Association of Chiefs of Police, National Sheriffs
Association, Fraternal Order of Police, National Association of
Counties, National League of Cities, U.S. Conference of Mayors.
It is time for us is to move forward to get the comprehensive advice
from the best minds in America in terms of how to fix our broken
criminal justice system.
I urge a ``yes'' vote, and I reserve the balance of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I have talked with Senator Webb. Some of
what he wants to do is probably fine, but we are absolutely ignoring
the U.S. Constitution if we do this. We have no role, unless we are
violating human rights or the U.S. Constitution, to involve ourselves
in the criminal court justice system or penal system in my State or any
other State.
The Association of District Attorneys is against this. There are a
lot of times interest groups are for something, but we have no business
deciding from a central committee in Washington whether Oklahoma is
meeting the requirements of its constitution rather than the U.S.
Constitution.
I would urge a ``no'' vote against this, and that we honor our
Constitution.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Is there time remaining on our side?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 9 seconds.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, this is the most massive encroachment
on States rights I have seen in this body. It is $5 million on a
priority we should not have.
I will work with the Senator from Virginia to pare it down so a
Federal commission will look at the Federal system.
Mr. WEBB. Mr. President, I ask the time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 7 seconds.
Mr. WEBB. This is not an encroachment. I wouldn't support an
encroachment. It actually convenes the best minds to give
recommendations.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
The question is on agreeing to the amendment, as modified.
Mr. WICKER. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
The result was announced--yeas 57, nays 43, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 173 Leg.]

YEAS--57

Akaka
Baucus
Begich
Bennet
Bingaman
Blumenthal
Boxer
Brown (MA)
Brown (OH)
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Conrad
Coons
Durbin
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Graham
Hagan
Harkin
Hatch
Inouye
Johnson (SD)
Kerry
Klobuchar
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Manchin
McCaskill
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (NE)
Nelson (FL)
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sanders
Schumer
Shaheen
Snowe
Stabenow
Tester
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Warner
Webb
Whitehouse
Wyden

NAYS--43

Alexander
Ayotte
Barrasso
Blunt
Boozman
Burr
Chambliss
Coats
Coburn
Cochran
Collins
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
DeMint
Enzi
Grassley
Heller
Hoeven
Hutchison
Inhofe
Isakson
Johanns
Johnson (WI)
Kirk
Kyl
Lee
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Moran
Murkowski
Paul
Portman
Risch
Roberts
Rubio
Sessions
Shelby
Thune
Toomey
Vitter
Wicker
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Manchin). On this vote, the yeas are 57,
the nays are 43. Under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the
adoption of this amendment, the amendment is rejected.
The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, would it be in order for me to speak as in
morning business for up to 5 minutes at this point?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The remarks of Mr. Kyl are printed in today's Record under ``Morning
Business.'')
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask the Chair to please inform me when
I have spoken 10 minutes. For other people who want to speak, I don't
think I will speak that long.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will do so.

Amendment No. 860

Mr. GRASSLEY. My amendment No. 860 is a good government amendment for
which I hope we can get broad support. There are special interests in
Washington making the rounds opposing this amendment. These groups have
argued this amendment will unduly burden the Justice Department, take
away grant money for worthy causes or erroneously ban grantees from
future funds. These special interests are trying to protect their
income streams of

[[Page S6803]]

Federal grants and don't want somebody looking over their shoulder to
make sure they are spending taxpayer dollars wisely.
This amendment is a response to the lack of oversight,
accountability, and responsibility for how American taxpayer dollars
are spent by grant recipients. It is a response to my work in the
Judiciary Committee, uncovering fraud, misappropriation of funds,
offshore bank accounts by nonprofit organizations.
Can you understand that? Nonprofit organizations in America have
offshore bank accounts, and many other shenanigans are occurring in
grant programs administered by the Justice Department.
To fix this, my amendment includes an accountability and fraud
prevention package for grants administered by the Department of
Justice. I am glad to report the National Taxpayers Union, an
independent nonpartisan advocate for taxpayers, supports the amendment.
For the last decade the inspector general has continuously labeled
grant management at the Department of Justice a top management and
performance challenge. That is from the inspector general. Despite the
large sums of money the Department provides the grantees, the inspector
general has repeatedly found inadequate controls on spending,
inadequate oversight, and a general failure to ensure that taxpayer
dollars are spent by grantees in accordance with the programs.
Each year, the inspector general audits only a small fraction of
grants awarded by the Department. In fact, last year the inspector
general audited 21 grant recipients. Keep the figure 21 in mind. The
inspector general questioned more than one-quarter of all the taxpayer
dollars these grantees received. These questioned costs occurred on a
random selection of grantees and represent less than 1 percent of the
total grant recipients. So we only audit--go over 1 percent, but of
that 1 percent, 25 percent of them were found to have a waste of
taxpayers' money or not proper accounting.
Perhaps the most concerning part of these audits is that they are
randomly selected. If the inspector general's random selection of
grantees universally uncovers unauthorized errors, then we can see why
we have a much larger problem. If the findings of the audit from 2011
were extrapolated through all the grants, that would mean nearly $500
million in questionable costs annually.
My amendment requires the inspector general to audit 10 percent of
the grants. It also requires the Attorney General to ban grantees for 2
years if they are found to have serious problems that have gone
unremedied for longer than 6 months after the inspector general makes a
negative finding. By requiring this remedy within 6 months, it ensures
there is enough time to fix inadvertent mistakes but also ensures that
truly bad actors are taken off the government rolls.
My amendment also requires the AG to reimburse the Federal Treasury
from the Justice Department budget if funds are given to an excluded
entity and then requires the Department to recoup lost grant money from
those grantees. It also includes a limitation on conference spending at
the Department. Just a few weeks ago, the inspector general issued an
audit on conference spending at the Department.
We all heard about this audit, which revealed $16 muffins, the $32
Cracker Jack snacks, $5 cans of cola, the beef wellington appetizers,
and other abuse of the money of the taxpayers by the Justice
Department. What we have not heard is how, by this administration,
spending at the Justice Department increased from $47 million in fiscal
year 2008 to 1 year later $73 million and now 2 years later $91
million. Despite the biggest Federal deficit in history, the Justice
Department, under this administration, has doubled spending on
conferences in just 2 years. This is unacceptable, and it is why my
amendment requires the Deputy Attorney General to sign off on all
conference spending.
My amendment would prohibit the Attorney General from providing any
grant to a nonprofit charity that holds money in offshore bank accounts
for the purpose of evading Federal taxes. If it is nonprofit, one would
think they would be using their money for nonprofit purposes.
This provision was the result of an investigation I conducted into
the Boys and Girls Club of America, the national umbrella organization
for thousands of local clubs. In response to my inquiry, the Boys and
Girls Club of America admitted that, despite closing hundreds of clubs
nationwide, it held nearly $222 million in investment, of which $54
million was in offshore investments and another $54 million in
partnerships. When asked why this money was held offshore, I was told
it was held to `` . . . avoid issues with unrelated Business Income Tax
generated by hedge funds that use leverage.''
I support the mission of the Boys and Girls Clubs, truly I do. It is
true nothing they did was illegal. However, given our current fiscal
crisis, I cannot support Federal tax dollars being awarded as grants to
those who hold millions of dollars offshore--I should say tens of
millions of dollars offshore.
Finally, I will note that my amendment includes a 25-percent matching
requirement for grantees, as I heard the special interest lobbyists
have been calling and sending panicked messages to many Members in the
Senate opposing the matching requirement, arguing it would shut off
Federal money to many grantees.
This provision mirrors one recently included at a Judiciary Committee
markup supported by all Judiciary Committee Democrats and some
Republicans. Matching requirements are often required by grant programs
that virtually all members have supported. The Government
Accountability Office even reported in a 2006 report on grant
management that to strengthen grant management, Congress should
``ensure mechanisms are of sufficient value'' when implementing grants.
This is GAO speak for including a matching requirement so grantees are
financially involved, not simply spending Federal taxpayer dollars.
That said, I wanted to modify my amendment and strike this provision.
However, I understand people on the other side of the aisle objected to
that request so it would be easier to defeat my amendment. Remember,
this is an amendment Republicans and Democrats accepted in the
Judiciary Committee. This is big money at stake with Federal grants.
Talk about special interests, the special interests have spoken. Those
who oppose my amendment oppose holding grantees accountable for how
they spend taxpayer dollars. Those who oppose my amendment are
supporting giving nonprofit charities with money in offshore bank
accounts taxpayer dollars. It will be interesting to see who opposes
this provision, especially given the fact that everyone should oppose
giving taxpayer dollars to those who hold money offshore.
My amendment is a commonsense way to ensure that taxpayer dollars are
protected. It is something we should have done long ago. I encourage
all my colleagues to join me and send a signal that waste, fraud, and
abuse of taxpayer dollars has no place in a Federal grant programs at
the Department of Justice. That would include all of them but
particularly to organizations that hold money offshore to avoid taxes.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.

Amendment No. 879, as Modified

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, when our American government spends money
on infrastructure, core infrastructure, we should look first to
American companies and American workers. But this doesn't always
happen. In fact, recently, there was a bid proposal in Alaska to build
a bridge with America's taxpayer money and a Chinese company employing
Chinese steel outbid the American company using American steel. This
was a big surprise in that normally there is a framework that helps
ensure American companies and American workers are able to do the
infrastructure projects we are funding with our taxpayer dollars so we
are creating jobs here at home.
It turns out there is a loophole; whereas, this basic framework
covers highways, it covers commuting rail, it covers passenger rail but
doesn't apply to freight rail. This was a freight bridge on tracks that
do not also have passenger trains on them. I don't know how many tracks
in America only have freight and not passenger, but when everything got
sorted out through the appeal process, that is what it came down to.
This afternoon, we will have a simple amendment that makes this piece
of

[[Page S6804]]

the infrastructure more consistent with the rest of the infrastructure
world. The industrial might of this Nation was built on American
railroads made from American steel. We often say: Wow, there is a
loophole you can drive a freight train through. In this case, you
actually can drive a freight train through the loophole. That is what
we need to fix.
At a time when Americans everywhere are searching for jobs, we should
be supporting American companies that employ and hire Americans, use
American steel when American taxpayer dollars are employed.
In the framework for infrastructure, there are some exceptions. Those
exceptions in this amendment are exactly the same exceptions that are
provided in the rest of the infrastructure picture; that is, the
Secretary of Transportation can waive this requirement for U.S.-
produced steel, iron, and manufactured products if the application is
inconsistent with the public interest. That is a pretty broad ground on
which the Secretary can make a determination; more specifically, if the
materials and products are not available in sufficient quantity or
quality from the American manufacturer or if the inclusion of the
domestic material would increase the cost of the project by my more
than 25 percent. This is a small change that fills in or eliminates a
loophole you can drive a freight train through.
The bottom line is this: If we don't build things in America, we will
not have a middle class in America. Our taxpayer dollars should go to
create good, living-wage jobs for our workers here at home in these
core infrastructure projects, not to create jobs in China.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
I note the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. KIRK. 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. KIRK. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for
3 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Libya

Mr. KIRK. Mr. President, we all saw the news, yet to be confirmed,
that General Qadhafi is dead. This is a victory for our men and women
in uniform, for the United States, for the administration, but, most
importantly, for the people of Libya.
Senators McCain, Graham, Rubio, and I had the privilege 20 days ago
of traveling to Tripoli. I was quite surprised at what I saw.
Considering other war zones, Tripoli did not appear to be one of them.
The rebels took the capital largely intact. Only the Qadhafi compound
was blown away. There was anti-Qadhafi graffiti--obviously
spontaneous--everywhere, and some of the most popular people in the
city were U.S. citizens.
While many people in Libya do not fully know the position of Senator
McCain, they knew he was an American leader. Throughout our visit, they
came out to thank him for the aircraft they saw overhead that they felt
equalized the battle between them and their government, between the
professional army of Muammar Qadhafi, the people of Misrata, the people
of Tripoli, and the people of Benghazi.
We have the makings of a very pro-U.S. ally. Millions of Libyans
right now are very thankful for the United States. They feel the
aircraft overhead that equalized this battle were almost all American.
In reality, many of those aircraft were British and French from our
NATO allies. But because of that pro-American feeling, the new
government there is likely to be overwhelmingly pro-American.
As we look to a now-secure post-Qadhafi environment, we have to make
several points.
First, when we were there, leaders were obviously afraid that as long
as he lived, Qadhafi could make a comeback. That now no longer looks
possible at all.
Second, to head off Islamists who may try to form a party, Prime
Minister Jibril wanted to call for early elections. We should help him
call early elections because right now the rebel TNC government is
overwhelmingly popular and would be elected.
Next, we have to unify military authority with the new rebel
government. We were briefed that there are 28 separate militias in
Tripoli. We should unify military command under them to make sure any
sectarian violence does not break out with the victory that has come at
hand.
Libya is a unique country that does not need foreign assistance from
the United States. We have seized 34 billion of their dollars and over
$100 billion in a seized account worldwide. They need assistance. They
need medical backup, training for their army, support for their
elections, but they can pay for it.
One thing they asked of us that we should provide is a hospital ship.
USNS Comfort should be allowed to go to Libya to care for those who
were wounded in this battle. We were told 25,000 citizens of Libya died
in this revolution and 60,000 were wounded. The United States should
help care for them, and the Libyan Government should reimburse us for
that effort.
When we look to the future, we also have a couple of key challenges.
We were briefed that Qadhafi's chemical weapons stockpile was secure,
and I think it is, but we need to keep it that way. We were also
briefed that the arsenals of Libya were looted, including thousands of
handheld surface-to-air missiles. It should be a top priority of the
United States to buy or gain custody of those missiles again before
they become a threat to civil aircraft around the world.
In the end, as I said, this is a victory for the administration, for
the men and women of the U.S. military, but especially for the people
of Libya. If we take the steps I just outlined--security for the
chemical weapons arsenal, recovery of the surface-to-air missiles,
support for early elections, and medical care with the provision of a
U.S. hospital ship--I think we will lock in the winning of a new, very
pro-U.S. ally in the Middle East.
With that, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. President. I rise to speak on amendment No.
874, my amendment on housing discrimination. My understanding is, when
we assemble for a series of votes at 2 o'clock, this vote will be voice
voted, and I particularly appreciate the work of Senator Collins, the
ranking minority member of the subcommittee, and chairwoman Patty
Murray for her work and Senator Sanders for his support and
cosponsorship.
Housing discrimination, as we know, prevents hard-working families
from buying homes in the neighborhood of their choosing. Housing
discrimination not only violates Federal law, it is a barrier to
economic mobility. It is a morally wrong practice with real-world
implications.
A study by the Miami Valley Fair Housing Coalition, located in
Dayton, OH, found that foreclosed properties in predominately African-
American neighborhoods in that city are kept in significantly worse
condition than foreclosed properties in White neighborhoods. That is
bad for local property values, and it is bad for local governments that
rely on property tax revenues because we know what that does for home
prices.
That is why the Department of Housing and Urban Development
instituted the Fair Housing Initiatives Program, so-called FHIP. FHIP
invests in the private fair housing organizations that help enforce
antidiscrimination laws.
My amendment would put FHIP funding on equal footing with the House
legislation, increasing it to near its fiscal year 2011 level--exactly
what the House did.
This is about maintaining level funding so fair housing organizations
will not be forced to lay off hundreds of employees across the country.
This amendment is effective. Fair housing organizations investigated
65 percent of the Nation's complaints of housing discrimination--nearly
twice as many as all government agencies combined.
This amendment is efficient. It saves money by streamlining the
claims investigation process.
My amendment is fully paid for, transferring money from HUD's Working
Capital Fund.

[[Page S6805]]

Discrimination should never be tolerated. Especially in these
challenging economic times, it would be particularly devastating to cut
fair housing programs any further.
I again thank Senator Murray and Senator Collins, the top two
members--one in each party--of the Transportation, Housing, and Urban
Development Subcommittee. I thank Senator Sanders for cosponsoring this
amendment.
I urge a ``yes'' vote from my colleagues when this amendment comes
forward for a voice vote in a few minutes.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 60-affirmative vote
requirement under the previous order for the Brown amendment No. 874,
as modified, be vitiated.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Utah.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, on behalf of myself and 32 cosponsors--both
Republicans and Democrats--I ask unanimous consent that the current
matter be set aside and amendment No. 875 be called up and made
pending.
Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I understand there is an agreement
regarding the disposition of amendments already in place, but I believe
this amendment deserves consideration and a vote.
It is a noncontroversial matter, as far as I am concerned. It would
simply make permanent 10 separate appropriations riders relating to
firearms. The House CJS bill did the same thing, but these changes have
been taken out of the Senate substitute amendment.
Each of these riders has been in place for a long time--some more
than 30 years. These clarifying provisions have been enacted year after
year to preserve the rights of law-abiding gun owners and prevent
encroachments on the part of the executive branch.
It does not need to be a yearly exercise. There is widespread support
for each of these provisions contained in my amendment. Once again,
they have never been the subject of any significant controversy. My
amendment would simply make them permanent so we do not have to bring
them up all the time.
This amendment would likely pass with more than 60 or 70 votes. I
hope the leadership and the managers on the other side of the aisle
will not simply accede to the wishes of a minority of Senators who are
hostile to second amendment rights by preventing a vote on this
amendment.
I ask again for unanimous consent to set aside the pending matter and
call up amendment No. 875.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I object. We have a good number of
amendments already pending, and we have a list of amendments already in
order to be made pending. Until we are able to dispense or dispose of
some of these pending amendments, I must object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I hope to be able to work with my
colleagues on the other side. This should not be a difficult exercise.
It is just a smart thing to do. Once again, I am certain this amendment
would have the support of a broad majority, a bipartisan majority, of
my colleagues.
If the other side wants to prevent a vote--keeping in mind that the
vast majority of the American people support these provisions--I hope
they will be able to explain it to their constituents. I hope there
will be a reconsideration of this amendment and that we can get it up
and get this matter solved once and for all. I understand the
distinguished Senator has to object, and I feel very disappointed in
that, but sooner or later we are going to vote on this amendment, one
way or the other.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.

Amendment No. 860

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I rise in my capacity as chair of the
Judiciary Committee to say I oppose amendment No. 860. It is a one-
size-fits-all approach. It would have catastrophic consequences to the
Justice Department and on the important work the Justice Department
does in supporting local law enforcement, crime victims, and justice
across the country.
I have worked with my good friend from Iowa, Senator Grassley, on
many issues. We have been able to, in a bipartisan way, develop
accountability measures to ensure that particular grants administered
by the Department of Justice operate efficiently and effectively. That
is particularly important at a time of budget austerity. We have done
it in specific contexts when those measures make a lot of sense.
For example, in the course of our negotiations of a bipartisan
version of the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act, we
worked out specific proposals. Nonetheless, six of the eight
Republicans on the Judiciary Committee opposed this bill.
But one size does not fit all. Measures that make sense in one
program cannot willy-nilly be applied to others without careful
consideration of the consequences to the programs and, to the intended
beneficiaries in local law enforcement, and crime victims.
A one-size-fits-all measure actually might harm rather than help
important functions at the Department of Justice.
For example, this amendment would prevent grants to the Boys and
Girls Clubs of America. I know some have criticized some aspects of the
Boys and Girls Clubs, and I would be happy to work with any Senator to
work out these issues. But the Boys and Girls Clubs of America do great
work.
I remember one police chief in my State, when asked if I could help
him get a couple more police officers to help out because of crime
problems, said: No. Get me a Boys and Girls Club. Get me a place for
young people to go.
I know in Vermont they do a great deal, as they do in most States. If
there are reforms that should be made, let's do them, but not just cut
out the funding in a one-size-fits-all way at a time when we are doing
everything possible to give young people a different goal than going
out into a life where they might do things none of us would agree with.

This amendment would greatly restrict the Department of Justice's
ability to spend funds for salaries of its own people. Is that going to
lead to huge cuts in prosecutors and agents? Are we going to be
imposing a salary cap on top of the one the President has already
imposed? Are we going to be losing some of our best people? Are we
going to be unable to develop experienced law enforcement officers or
prosecutors?
I know, in law enforcement and prosecution, we value experience. We
do not want to go for the lowest common denominator. We want people who
are experienced.
Again, a willy-nilly amendment does not help.
The amendment includes a grant-matching requirement. But in some
programs, grant matching is not a good idea. Let me tell you about one,
legislation that former Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell and I put
together. It has worked very well. It is the Leahy Bulletproof Vest
Partnership Grant Program for local jurisdictions. We have, in some
local jurisdictions, the ability to waive matching provisions.
We have seen a rise in the number of assaults and murders of police
officers across this country. Many officers' lives have been saved
because they have had bulletproof vests under the Leahy program. They
would have died otherwise. But they are in small departments, in small
departments in States that could not afford the $500 or $600 per
bulletproof vest. Yet we expect these police officers to be out at 3
o'clock in the morning, usually with no backup. But if they are in a
small, rural park in West Virginia or Vermont or all these other
States, they do not have any backup. They are out there alone. We ought
to give them the kind of protection they need.
I want our police officers in rural communities who do not have the
budgeting of a big city department to have this kind of protection. So
if we put a matching requirement by fiat--again, one-size-fits-all--we
have a lot of rural police departments that are going to be badly hurt.
What about crime victims? Crime victims have already suffered great
loss. Are we going to say: We can help you out, but pony up some money.
Pony up a matching requirement, and then we will come in and help you.
We are going to spend a fortune on the guy

[[Page S6806]]

we lock up who committed a crime. We will spend $30,000, $35,000 a year
on that person. We are not going to ask for any matching money from the
criminal. But we are going to say to the victim: We can help you, but,
sorry--I know you lost all this money; I know you have been beaten, you
have been bruised, you have been injured--you have to come up with some
money before we can help you. The guy who did it, we will take care of
him. We will pay for that. But we cannot help you.
No, no, no, no, no, no, no. I was a prosecutor for 8 years. I know
how these victims suffer. They are usually the forgotten person in the
criminal justice system. The headlines are: So and so was arrested.
They are marched off. We are going to prosecute them. That is good.
They should be. I prosecuted a lot of those people. But the victim is
the one forgotten. Victims and others most in need of assistance are
those least likely to be able to provide matching funds. Rural
communities, small nonprofit providers, tribes, and States that are
facing their own problems should not have another funding mandate put
on them from Washington.
The new matching requirement and other requirements in this amendment
would impose new burdens on all money going to State and local law
enforcement through the COPS Program and many of the Byrne-JAG
programs. It would prevent many police departments from hiring and
keeping the officers they need. That is why the National District
Attorneys Association and the National Association of Police
Organizations have expressed their opposition to this amendment.
At one time, I had the honor of serving as vice president of the
National District Attorneys Association. They care. They care about law
enforcement. They care about prosecutors. They care about victims. We
ought to listen to them.
It also would burden grants awarded through the Debbie Smith Act to
reduce backlogs in testing rape kits. There are rapists who go free
because we do not have the money to test the rape kits. Tell that to a
victim. Tell that to the victim: We do not have the money to go get the
person who did this. I am not going to vote in a way that I am going to
be telling that victim: We cannot help you. We cannot test that rape
kit.
The Debbie Smith grant program has received bipartisan support. It
helps to ensure that rape victims will not have to continue to live in
fear because somebody said: It is going to take a few months to test
this because we do not have the money. By the way, lock your door. He
might come back.
I am not going to vote for that.
The matching requirement would be devastating to the National Center
for Missing and Exploited Children, which works hard every day to keep
our children safe from those who would do them harm. It is hard to
think of any work more important than protecting our children from the
evils of abuse and exploitation, but this amendment would make that
work much harder because the National Center receives Justice
Department grants, but it does not have matching funds.
Time is running out. I could tell some stories. I could tell some
stories about what happens to these children who are exploited and
abused, and it would have everybody in tears. It did me when I saw them
as a prosecutor, and it does every day when I read these reports as
chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
My God, if we can go and try to protect people around the world,
let's protect our children here at home.
I agree with Senator Grassley that we need rigorous accountability
measures. Of course, we should. We do this in our hearings every week
in the Judiciary Committee. GAO does it. The inspector general does it.
But do not do a one-size-fits-all that is going to say to our victims,
that is going to say to rape victims, that is going to say to exploited
children or that is going to say to our police officers, who are told
to go out there without a bulletproof vest but to defend you and me in
the middle of the night: Sorry, sorry, sorry. The wealthiest Nation on
Earth cannot help you.
No; I oppose this amendment.
I yield the floor.

Amendment No. 879, as Modified

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there is now 2
minutes equally divided prior to a vote in relation to amendment No.
879 offered by the Senator from Oregon, Mr. Merkley.
Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I have a modification at the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment will be so modified.
The amendment, as modified, is as follows:

On page 264, between lines 9 and 10, insert the following:

SEC. 153. BUYING GOODS PRODUCED IN THE UNITED STATES.

(a) Compliance.--None of the funds made available under
this title to carry out parts A and B of subtitle V of title
49, United States Code, may be expended by any entity unless
the entity agrees that such expenditures will comply with the
requirements under this section.
(b) Preference.--
(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, the Secretary of Transportation may not obligate any
funds appropriated under this title to carry out parts A and
B of subtitle V of title 49, United States Code, unless all
the steel, iron, and manufactured products used in the
project are produced in the United States.
(2) Waiver.--The Secretary of Transportation may waive the
application of paragraph (1) in circumstances in which the
Secretary determines that--
(A) such application would be inconsistent with the public
interest;
(B) such materials and products produced in the United
States are not produced in a sufficient and reasonably
available amount or are not of a satisfactory quality; or
(C) inclusion of domestic material would increase the cost
of the overall project by more than 25 percent.
(c) Labor Costs.--For purposes of this subsection
(b)(2)(C), labor costs involved in final assembly shall not
be included in calculating the cost of components.
(d) Manufacturing Plan.--The Secretary of Transportation
shall prepare, in conjunction the Secretary of Commerce, a
manufacturing plan that--
(1) promotes the production of products in the United
States that are the subject of waivers granted under
subsection (b)(2)(B);
(2) addresses how such products may be produced in a
sufficient and reasonably available amount, and in a
satisfactory quality, in the United States; and
(3) addresses the creation of a public database for the
waivers granted under subsection (b)(2)(B).
(e) Waiver Notice and Comment.--If the Secretary of
Transportation determines that a waiver of subsection (b)(1)
is warranted, the Secretary, before the date on which such
determination takes effect, shall--
(1) post the waiver request and a detailed written
justification of the need for such waiver on the Department
of Transportation's public website;
(2) publish a detailed written justification of the need
for such waiver in the Federal Register; and
(3) provide notice of such determination and an opportunity
for public comment for a reasonable period of time not to
exceed 15 days.
(f) State Requirements.--The Secretary of Transportation
may not impose any limitation on amounts made available under
this title to carry out parts A and B of subtitle V of title
49, United States Code, which--
(1) restricts a State from imposing requirements that are
more stringent than the requirements under this section on
the use of articles, materials, and supplies mined, produced,
or manufactured in foreign countries, in projects carried out
with such assistance; or
(2) prohibits any recipient of such amounts from complying
with State requirements authorized under paragraph (1).
(g) Certification.--The Secretary of Transportation may
authorize a manufacturer or supplier of steel, iron, or
manufactured goods to correct, after bid opening, any
certification of noncompliance or failure to properly
complete the certification (except for failure to sign the
certification) under this section if such manufacturer or
supplier attests, under penalty of perjury, and establishes,
by a preponderance of the evidence, that such manufacturer or
supplier submitted an incorrect certification as a result of
an inadvertent or clerical error.
(h) Review.--Any entity adversely affected by an action by
the Department of Transportation under this section is
entitled to seek judicial review of such action in accordance
with section 702 of title 5, United States Code.
(i) Minimum Cost.--The requirements under this section
shall only apply to contracts for which the costs exceed
$100,000.
(j) Consistency With International Agreements.--This
section shall be applied in a manner consistent with United
States obligations under international agreements.
(k) Fraudulent Use of ``Made in America'' Label.--An entity
is ineligible to receive a contract or subcontract made with
amounts appropriated under this title to carry out parts A
and B of subtitle V of title 49, United States Code, if a
court or department, agency, or instrumentality of the
Government determines that the person intentionally--
(1) affixed a ``Made in America'' label, or a label with an
inscription having the same meaning, to goods sold in or
shipped to the United States that are used in a project to

[[Page S6807]]

which this section applies, but were not produced in the
United States; or
(2) represented that goods described in paragraph (1) were
produced in the United States.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I yield back all time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LEAHY. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sanders). Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr.
Lautenberg) is necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 55, nays 44, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 174 Leg.]

YEAS--55

Akaka
Baucus
Begich
Bennet
Bingaman
Blumenthal
Blunt
Boxer
Brown (OH)
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Collins
Conrad
Coons
Durbin
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Graham
Hagan
Harkin
Inouye
Johnson (SD)
Kerry
Klobuchar
Kohl
Landrieu
Leahy
Levin
Manchin
McCaskill
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (NE)
Nelson (FL)
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sanders
Schumer
Shaheen
Shelby
Snowe
Stabenow
Tester
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Webb
Whitehouse
Wyden

NAYS--44

Alexander
Ayotte
Barrasso
Boozman
Brown (MA)
Burr
Chambliss
Coats
Coburn
Cochran
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
DeMint
Enzi
Grassley
Hatch
Heller
Hoeven
Hutchison
Inhofe
Isakson
Johanns
Johnson (WI)
Kirk
Kyl
Lee
Lieberman
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Moran
Murkowski
Paul
Portman
Risch
Roberts
Rubio
Sessions
Thune
Toomey
Vitter
Warner
Wicker

NOT VOTING--1

Lautenberg

The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 55, the nays are
44. Under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the adoption of the
amendment, the amendment is rejected.

Amendment No. 874, As Modified, to Amendment No. 738

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there is now 2
minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote in relation to
amendment No. 874, as modified, offered by the Senator from Ohio.
The Senator from Ohio is recognized.
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 874.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Ohio (Mr. Brown), for himself and Mr.
Sanders, proposes an amendment numbered 874, as modified, to
amendment No. 738.

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

(Purpose: To increase amounts made available to carry out section 561
of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1987, and to provide an
offset)

On page 333, line 9, strike ``$35,940,000'' and insert
``$42,500,000''.
On page 336, line 1, strike ``$199,035,000'' and insert
``$192,475,000''.
On page 333, line 8, strike ``$64,287,000'' and insert
``$70,847,000''.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. President, housing discrimination not only
violates our laws, it is a barrier to economic mobility. This amendment
would put FHIP funding on equal footing with the House legislation. It
is about maintaining level funding so that fair housing organizations
won't be forced to lay off hundreds of employees across the country.
The amendment is effective. Fair housing organizations investigated 65
percent of the Nation's complaints--nearly twice as many as all other
government agencies combined. It is efficient and saves money by
streamlining the claims process.
My amendment is paid for by transferring funds from HUD's working
capital fund. I thank the chair and ranking member, Senators Murray and
Collins, for supporting this amendment, and Senator Sanders for
cosponsoring it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time in opposition?
Mr. KOHL. I yield back our time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, the question is
on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 874) was agreed to.

Amendment No. 815

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 2
minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote on amendment No. 815,
offered by the Senator from Kansas, Mr. Moran. Who yields time?
Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, we yield back our time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas is recognized.
Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, the pending business before the Senate is
an amendment I offered yesterday, Moran No. 815. There has been
agreement that it will be accepted on voice vote, and I appreciate the
leadership of Chairman Kohl and Ranking Member Blunt.
I yield the remaining time, and I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, the question is
on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 815) was agreed to.

Amendment No. 860

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there is now 2
minutes equally divided prior to a vote in relation to amendment No.
860 offered by the Senator from Iowa, Mr. Grassley.
The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, this is a good-government amendment, and
it goes after the Justice Department grant management program because
the inspector general has had grant management at the top of his 10
major management challenges. The inspector general says that management
of grants at the Justice Department is abominable, so this amendment is
trying to take care of what the inspector general has said is needed to
be done for a long period of time. Grant recipients would be held to
basic principles of accountability. There are only a handful of grants
audited each year, but out of that handful 25 percent talk about
mismanagement, fraud, and things of that nature.
A vote against my amendment would be a vote to allow fraud, waste,
and abuse of taxpayer-funded grant programs. A vote against my
amendment would allow nonprofit charities to continue to hold money in
offshore bank accounts for tax purposes and still receive Federal
grants. I have a letter in my office that justifies $54 million in
offshore accounts.
I hope my colleagues will vote for this good-government amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I have worked with my good friend from Iowa
on accountability measures and will continue to do so but not for this
amendment.
This is a one-size-fits-all. There is a reason the National District
Attorneys Association and a reason the National Association of Police
Organizations oppose it. This would make it impossible for small, rural
communities to get bulletproof vests under the Leahy-Campbell
bulletproof vest program. This would make it impossible for some of the
small departments to have the money to pay for rape kits, so they would
have to tell the rape victim: Sorry, we can't go after the person who
raped you, even though they might come back, because we don't have the
money. We don't have the money to test this rape kit.
This is a one-size-fits-all that is going to hurt law enforcement. It
is going to hurt victims. We will pay the price of the person we lock
up, but we won't do anything to help the victim? I oppose it.
Mr. GRASSLEY. It is supported by the National Taxpayers Union.
Mr. LEAHY. I stand with the prosecutors and the police who oppose it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
The question is on agreeing to the Grassley amendment No. 860.
Mr. GRASSLEY. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?

[[Page S6808]]

There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
The result was announced--yeas 46, nays 54, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 175 Leg.]

YEAS--46

Alexander
Ayotte
Barrasso
Blunt
Boozman
Burr
Chambliss
Coats
Coburn
Cochran
Collins
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
DeMint
Enzi
Graham
Grassley
Hatch
Heller
Hoeven
Hutchison
Inhofe
Isakson
Johanns
Johnson (WI)
Kirk
Kyl
Lee
Lugar
Manchin
McCain
McConnell
Moran
Paul
Portman
Risch
Roberts
Rubio
Sessions
Shelby
Snowe
Thune
Toomey
Vitter
Wicker

NAYS--54

Akaka
Baucus
Begich
Bennet
Bingaman
Blumenthal
Boxer
Brown (MA)
Brown (OH)
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Conrad
Coons
Durbin
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Hagan
Harkin
Inouye
Johnson (SD)
Kerry
Klobuchar
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
McCaskill
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (NE)
Nelson (FL)
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sanders
Schumer
Shaheen
Stabenow
Tester
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Warner
Webb
Whitehouse
Wyden
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 46, the nays are
54. Under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the adoption of
this amendment, the amendment is rejected.
The Senator from Oklahoma.

Amendments Nos. 794 through 797, 799 through 801, and 833, to Amendment
No. 738

Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to call up the
following amendments en bloc, displacing the amendment that is present,
but considering each one of them individually: amendments Nos. 794
through 797, amendments Nos. 799 through 801, and amendment No. 833.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendments are pending
en bloc.
The amendments are as follows:

amendment no. 794

(Purpose: To provide taxpayers with an annual report disclosing the
cost of, performance by, and areas for improvements for Government
programs, and for other purposes)

At the appropriate place, insert the following:
Sec. __. (a) Each fiscal year, for purposes of the report
required by subsection (b), the head of each agency shall--
(1) identify and describe every program administered by the
agency;
(2) for each such program--
(A) determine the total administrative expenses of the
program;
(B) determine the expenditures for services for the
program;
(C) estimate the number of clients served by the program
and beneficiaries who received assistance under the program
(if applicable); and
(D) estimate--
(i) the number of full-time employees who administer the
program; and
(ii) the number of full-time equivalents (whose salary is
paid in part or full by the Federal Government through a
grant, contract, subaward of a grant or contract, cooperative
agreement, or other form of financial award or assistance)
who assist in administering the program; and
(3) identify programs within the Federal Government
(whether inside or outside the agency) with duplicative or
overlapping missions, services, and allowable uses of funds.
(b) With respect to the requirements of subsections (a)(1)
and (a)(2)(B), the head of an agency may use the same
information provided in the catalog of domestic and
international assistance programs in the case of any program
that is a domestic or international assistance program.
(c) Not later than February 1 of each fiscal year, the head
of each agency shall publish on the official public website
of the agency a report containing the following:
(1) The information required under subsection (a) with
respect to the preceding fiscal year.
(2) The latest performance reviews (including the program
performance reports required under section 1116 of title 31,
United States Code) of each program of the agency identified
under subsection (a)(1), including performance indicators,
performance goals, output measures, and other specific
metrics used to review the program and how the program
performed on each.
(3) For each program that makes payments, the latest
improper payment rate of the program and the total estimated
amount of improper payments, including fraudulent payments
and overpayments.
(4) The total amount of unspent and unobligated program
funds held by the agency and grant recipients (not including
individuals) stated as an amount--
(A) held as of the beginning of the fiscal year in which
the report is submitted; and
(B) held for five fiscal years or more.
(5) Such recommendations as the head of the agency
considers appropriate--
(A) to consolidate programs that are duplicative or
overlapping;
(B) to eliminate waste and inefficiency; and
(C) to terminate lower priority, outdated, and unnecessary
programs and initiatives.
(d) In this section:
(1) The term ``administrative costs'' has the meaning as
determined by the Director of the Office of Management and
Budget under section 504(b)(2) of Public Law 111-85 (31
U.S.C. 1105 note), except the term shall also include, for
purposes of that section and this section, with respect to an
agency--
(A) costs incurred by the agency as well as costs incurred
by grantees, subgrantees, and other recipients of funds from
a grant program or other program administered by the agency;
and
(B) expenses related to personnel salaries and benefits,
property management, travel, program management, promotion,
reviews and audits, case management, and communication about,
promotion of, and outreach for programs and program
activities administered by the agency.
(2) The term ``services'' has the meaning provided by the
Director of the Office of Management and Budget and shall be
limited to only activities, assistance, and aid that provide
a direct benefit to a recipient, such as the provision of
medical care, assistance for housing or tuition, or financial
support (including grants and loans).
(3) The term ``agency'' has the same meaning given that
term in section 551(1) of title 5, United States Code, except
that the term also includes offices in the legislative branch
other than the Government Accountability Office.
(4) The terms ``performance indicator'', ``performance
goal'', ``output measure'', and ``program activity'' have the
meanings provided by section 1115 of title 31, United States
Code.
(5) The term ``program'' has the meaning provided by the
Director of the Office of Management and Budget and shall
include, with respect to an agency, any organized set of
activities directed toward a common purpose or goal
undertaken by the agency that includes services, projects,
processes, or financial or other forms of assistance,
including grants, contracts, cooperative agreements, compacts
loans, leases, technical support, consultation, or other
guidance.
(e)(1)(A) Section 6101 of title 31, United States Code, is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(7) The term `international assistance' has the meaning
provided by the Director of the Office of Management and
Budget and shall include, with respect to an agency,
assistance including grants, contracts, compacts, loans,
leases, and other financial and technical support to--
``(A) foreign nations;
``(B) international organizations;
``(C) services provided by programs administered by any
agency outside of the territory of the United States; and
``(D) services funded by any agency provided in foreign
nations or outside of the territory of the United States by
non-governmental organizations and entities.
``(8) The term `assistance program' means each of the
following:
``(A) A domestic assistance program.
``(B) An international assistance program.''.
(B)(i) Section 6102 of title 31, Untied States Code, is
amended--
(I) in subsection (a), in the matter preceding paragraph
(1), by striking ``domestic'' both places it appears; and
(II) in subsection (b), by striking ``domestic''.
(ii) Section 6104 of title 31, United States Code, is
amended--
(I) in subsections (a) and (b), by inserting ``and
international assistance'' after ``domestic assistance'' each
place it appears; and
(II) in the section heading, by inserting ``and
international'' after ``domestic''.
(f) Section 6104(b) of title 31, United States Code, is
amended--
(1) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (2);
(2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (3) and
inserting a semicolon; and
(3) by adding at the end the following new paragraphs:
``(4) the information required in paragraphs (1) through
(4) of section 419(a) of the Transportation, Housing and
Urban Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act,
2012;
``(5) the budget function or functions applicable to each
assistance program contained in the catalog;
``(6) with respect to each assistance program in the
catalog, an electronic link to the annual report required
under section 419(b) of the Transportation, Housing and Urban
Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2012,
by the agency that carries out the assistance program; and
``(7) the authorization and appropriation amount provided
by law for each assistance program in the catalog in the
current fiscal year, and a notation if the program is not
authorized in the current year, has not been authorized in
law, or does not receive a specific line item
appropriation.''.

[[Page S6809]]

(g) Section 6104 of title 31, United States Code, is
further amended by adding at the end the following new
subsection:
``(e) Compliance.--On the website of the catalog of Federal
domestic and international assistance information, the
Administrator shall provide the following:
``(1) Contact information.--The title and contact
information for the person in each agency responsible for the
implementation, compliance, and quality of the data in the
catalog.
``(2) Report.--An annual report compiled by the
Administrator of domestic assistance programs, international
assistance programs, and agencies with respect to which the
requirements of this chapter are not met.''.
(h) Section 6103 of title 31, United States Code, is
amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(d) Bulk Downloads.--The information in the catalog of
domestic and international assistance under section 6104 of
this title shall be available on a regular basis through bulk
downloads from the website of the catalog.''.
(i) Section 6101(2) of title 31, United States Code, is
amended by inserting before the period at the end the
following: ``except such term also includes offices in the
legislative branch other than the Government Accountability
Office''.
(j)(1) Not later than 120 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Director of the Office of
Management and Budget shall prescribe regulations to
implement this section.
(2) This section shall be implemented beginning with the
first full fiscal year occurring after the date of the
enactment of this Act.

amendment no. 795

(Purpose: To collect more than $500,000,000 from deadbeat developers
for failed, botched, and abandoned projects)

At the appropriate place, insert the following:
Sec. __.  The Secretary of Housing and Urban Development--
(1) shall cancel any funding obligated for a construction
or renovation project for which the Department of Housing and
Urban Development committed to provide $50,000 or more that--
(A) commenced before the date that is 5 years before the
date of enactment of this Act;
(B) is not complete;
(C) did not draw funds against a Department of Housing and
Urban Development account during the 18-month period ending
on the date of enactment of this Act;
(D) on the date of enactment of this Act, is vacant and has
not been sold or leased; or
(E) has not drawn funds against a Department of Housing and
Urban Development account, if, on the date of enactment of
this Act, funds have been obligated for the project for more
than 1 year;
(2) may not provide any funding on or after the date of
enactment of this Act for a project described in paragraph
(1); and
(3) shall transfer any funds deobligated under paragraph
(1) or made available to carry out a project described in
paragraph (1) to the general fund of the Treasury and are
hereby rescinded.

amendment no. 796

(Purpose: To end lending schemes that force taxpayers to repay the
loans of delinquent developers and bailout failed or poorly planned
local projects)

At the appropriate place, insert the following:
Sec. __.  A person or entity that receives a Federal loan
using amounts made available under division A, division B, or
division C of this Act may not repay the loan using a Federal
grant or other award funded with amounts made available under
division A, division B, or division C of this Act; Provided
further, a grant or other award funded with amounts made
available under division A, division B, or division C of this
Act may not be used to repay a Federal loan.

amendment no. 797

(Purpose: To delay or cancel new construction, purchasing, leasing, and
renovation of Federal buildings and office space)

At the appropriate place, insert the following:
Sec. __. (a) Except as provided in subsection (b), none of
the funds made available by this Act or an amendment made by
this Act may be used to pay for renovation projects that have
not commenced as of the date of enactment of this Act
(including renovation projects for which plans have been
created, but for which physical renovation has not begun) to
any Federal building or office space in existence on the date
of enactment of this Act, or for the purchase, execution of a
leasing agreement, or construction of any Federal building or
office space that has not commenced as of the date of
enactment of this Act (including construction or purchase or
lease agreements for which plans have been established, but
for which physical construction has not begun or an agreement
has not been executed).
(b) Subsection (a) shall not apply to the renovation of,
purchase of, leasing agreement for, or construction of
(including renovation, construction, or purchase or leasing
agreements for which plans have been established, but for
which physical renovation or construction has not begun or an
agreement has not been executed) any Federal building or
office space needed to address a safety or national security
issue.

amendment no. 799

(Purpose: To prohibit the use of funds to carry out the Rural Energy
for America Program)

At the appropriate place insert the following:
Sec. ___.  None of the funds made available under this Act
may be used to carry out the Rural Energy for America Program
established under section 9007 of the Farm Security and Rural
Investment Act of 2002 (7 U.S.C. 8107): Provided further, any
funds appropriated by this Act for this purpose are hereby
rescinded.

amendment no. 800

(Purpose: To reduce funding for the Rural Development Agency)

At the appropriate place, insert the following:
Sec. _.  Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act,
the total amount of funds made available under this title to
the Rural Development Agency are reduced by $1,000,000,000,
to be applied proportionally to each budget activity,
activity group, and subactivity group and each program,
project, and activity of the Rural Development Agency carried
out under this title.

amendment no. 801

(Purpose: To eliminate funding for the Small Community Air Service
Development Program)

On page 226, strike lines 1 through 5, and insert ``and not
less than $29,250,000 shall be for Airport Technology
Research: Provided further, no funds made available under
this Act may be used to carry out the Small Community Air
Service Development Program.''

amendment no. 833

(Purpose: To end the outdated direct payment program and to begin
restoring the farm safety net as a true risk management tool)

At the appropriate place, insert the following:
Sec. _.  None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used by the Secretary of Agriculture to provide direct
payments under section 1103 or 1303 of the Food,
Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 8713, 8753).

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.

Amendment No. 753

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am going to speak now against the pending
amendment of Senator Ayotte, which would prohibit the prosecution of
terrorists in Federal courts.
We need all available tools against terrorists, including the
possibility of prosecution in Federal courts or before military
commissions. While there is no doubt we have made use of military
commissions in the course of previous wars, we have never enacted
legislation closing the Federal courts to the prosecution of our
enemies. We have always left it up to the executive branch to determine
which tool best suits an individual case.
Indeed, both the Bush administration and the Obama administration
have repeatedly used the Federal courts to bring terrorists to justice.
For example, the Bush administration successfully used the Federal
courts to prosecute Richard Reid, the so-called shoe bomber, in October
of 2002. The Bush administration used the Federal courts to
successfully prosecute Ahmed Omar Abu, who was convicted and sentenced
to 30 years in 2005. The Bush administration used the Federal courts to
prosecute and sentence Zacarias Moussaoui, the so-called twentieth
hijacker, convicted in 2006, and sentenced to life in prison for his
role in the 9/11 attacks.
The Obama administration successfully used the Federal courts when
they prosecuted Najibulla Zazi in 2009 for his role in the New York
subway bombing plot; when they prosecuted Faisal Shahzad in 2010 in
connection with the Times Square bombing; and when they prosecuted Umar
Farouk Abdulmutallab, the so-called underwear bomber, in 2011 in
connection with the attempted Christmas Day bombing in Detroit.
If the Ayotte amendment had been law, these successful court
prosecutions would have been thrown into doubt. In fact, prosecution
might not have been possible in any forum, because if a court
determined that a military commission lacked jurisdiction and if the
Ayotte amendment precluded jurisdiction of a Federal court, there
couldn't be prosecution in any forum whatsoever.
That could have actually been the outcome in the case of Ahmed
Warsame, an accused member of the terrorist group al-Shabaab. He was
indicted in Federal court earlier this

[[Page S6810]]

year on charges of providing material support to al-Shabaab and al-
Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula. In the Warsame case, our national
security and legal teams determined that the Federal courts provided
the best forum in which to prosecute Warsame for his alleged crimes.
This decision was reached for two reasons:
One, Warsame is alleged to have violated a number of Federal
statutes, including sections of the criminal code prohibiting
trafficking in explosives, use of dangerous weapons, acts of
international terrorism, providing material support to foreign
terrorist organizations, and receiving military type training from
foreign terrorist organizations. Only the Federal courts have
jurisdiction to try violations of those sections. Those offenses are
not listed as crimes under the Military Commissions Act.
There is a second reason why it was decided that Warsame was best
prosecuted in a Federal court, which could not happen under the
amendment of Senator Ayotte. Warsame appears to have engaged in acts of
terrorism and material support to terrorism, both of which are crimes
under the Military Commissions Act, but--and this is the problem--only
if they are committed ``in the context of and associated with
hostilities'' against the United States.
The administration concluded it would have been difficult to prove
beyond a reasonable doubt before a military commission that Warsame met
those jurisdictional thresholds. As a result, if the Ayotte amendment
were law, it might be impossible for the United States to prosecute
Warsame in any forum.
Our Federal prosecutors have a proven track record of prosecuting
terrorists in Federal courts. Two years ago, the Justice Department
informed us that there were 208 inmates in Federal prisons who had been
sentenced for crimes relating to international terrorism, and an
additional 139 inmates who had been sentenced for crimes related to
domestic terrorism. Those were crimes which were prosecuted in Federal
courts.
By contrast, only four enemy combatants have been convicted by
military commissions since 9/11, two of them, by the way, as a result
of plea agreements, sending them to Australia and to Canada.
Critics of the decision to try Warsame in Federal court apparently
would prefer that he be tried before a military commission even though
he might be less likely to be convicted there due to the jurisdictional
issues.
The most appropriate forum for trial should be determined, as it was
in Warsame, on the basis of the nature of the offense, the nature of
the evidence, and the likelihood of successful prosecution. The
executive branch officials who make these determinations are more
likely to reach a sound conclusion after weighing those factors than
would be the result of a one-size-fits-all legislative restriction that
we would impose under the Ayotte amendment.
Yesterday afternoon we received a letter from the Secretary of
Defense and the Attorney General expressing their ``strong opposition''
to the Ayotte amendment. The letter states as follows:

Whether a given case should be tried in an Article III
court or before a military commission is a decision that
should be based on the facts and circumstances of the case
and the overall national security interests of the United
States. It is a decision best left in the hands of
experienced national security professionals.

The letter continues:

If we are to safeguard the American people, we must be in a
position to employ every lawful instrument of national
power--including both courts and military commissions--to
ensure that terrorists are brought to justice and can no
longer threaten American lives. By depriving us of one of our
most potent weapons in the fight against terrorism, the
amendment would make it more likely that terrorists would
escape justice and innocent lives would be put at risk.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the letter be printed in the
Congressional Record immediately following my remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 1)
Mr. LEVIN. This issue, as the Presiding Officer may recall, came up
in the Armed Services Committee during our markup of the Defense
Authorization Act. Our bill expressly allows the transfer of detainees
for trial by a court or competent tribunal having lawful jurisdiction.
The amendment of Senator Ayotte to delete that authority was defeated
in the Armed Services Committee by a vote of 19 to 7.
The bottom line is that Congress has never before attempted to
prevent the prosecution of terrorists in Federal court. We should not
do so now. We should continue to use military commissions in cases
where they are the best place for prosecution and for trial. We should
not foreclose prosecution and trial in Federal courts.

Exhibit 1

Hon. Harry Reid,
Majority Leader, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Mitch McConnell,
Minority Leader, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Leader Reid and Leader McConnell: We write to express
our strong opposition to the Ayotte amendment to H.R. 2112,
which would severely curtail the ability of the Executive
branch to prosecute alleged terrorists in Federal court.
The amendment represents an extreme and unprecedented
encroachment on the authority of the Executive Branch to
determine when and where to prosecute terrorist suspects.
Whether a given case should be tried in an Article III court
or before a military commission is a decision that should be
based on the facts and circumstances of the case and the
overall national security interests of the United States. It
is a decision best left in the hands of experienced national
security professionals.
If we are to safeguard the American people, we must be in a
position to employ every lawful instrument of national
power--including both courts and military commissions--to
ensure that terrorists are brought to justice and can no
longer threaten American lives. By depriving us of one of our
most potent weapons in the fight against terrorism, the
amendment would make it more likely that terrorists will
escape justice and innocent lives will be put at risk.
Leon E. Panetta,
Secretary of Defense.
Eric H. Holder, Jr.,
Attorney General.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts. Madam President, I rise to speak today as
in morning business for about 5 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. McCaskill). Without objection, it is so
ordered.

Withholding Tax Relief Act

Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts. Madam President, I rise to speak in
strong support of a bill we will be voting on, I hope, later today, S.
1726, the Withholding Tax Relief Act of 2011, which has over 30
cosponsors. You are one of them, Madam President, and there are many
others. It is based on legislation I have introduced on three separate
occasions which currently has almost one-third of the entire Senate
cosponsoring it. As I said, I brought it up before, and I am glad it
will finally be getting a vote.
This is exactly the type of bipartisan jobs bill that the American
people are yearning for and that we should be focusing on, and I am
glad we are finally able to bring the repeal of this job-killing tax
provision to the floor for a serious vote. This is a jobs bill, plain
and simple. I don't know how else you can phrase it.
Section 3402(t) of the Tax Code will require, beginning in January of
2013, Federal, State and local governments to withhold 3 percent of
nearly all contract payments made to private companies, as well as
Medicare payments, construction payments, and certain loan payments.
This is an arbitrary tax that is extremely expensive to implement and
punishes the many for the bad acts of the few. What is more, this tax
absolutely promises to kill jobs at a time when we absolutely cannot
afford to kill any jobs.
The Government Withholding Relief Coalition, a coalition of more than
100 members--I have a sheaf here of 4 pages of groups: American Bankers
Association, Americans for Tax Reform, National Association of
Manufacturers, wholesalers, National League of Cities, chambers of
commerce--4 pages of groups and entities, over 100 members, a cross-
section of America. They have estimated that a combined 5-year total
cost to the States and the Federal Government in implementing this
legislation could be as high as $75 billion. The Department of Defense
alone has estimated this provision could cost the DOD around $17
billion.

[[Page S6811]]

I know Chairman Levin, who spoke before me--we are wrestling with
trying to reinstate I think $20 to $25 billion from what the
appropriations folks cut. That is real money.
Here is the catch: It is estimated to bring in only around $8 billion
during that same period. I am not sure about you, Madam President, but
you have the cost of approximately $75 billion, the cost to the States
and the Federal Government of implementing the legislation, and then
the DOD is $17 billion, and yet we are only going to get $8 billion in
return? I do not know how else to say it except that only on Capitol
Hill does something such as that make sense, where we are spending more
than we are actually going to be getting.
Unfortunately, there are many other reasons this provision should be
repealed as soon as possible. At a time when the State and local
governments are under extreme financial stress, why would we want to
force another unfunded, costly mandate on them to recover minimal funds
for the Federal Treasury? It makes no sense. As I said before, only in
Washington does spending $2 in order to recoup $1 make any sense.
I am encouraged by many of the cosponsors. As I said, it is a
bipartisan group. At what point do you see Senator Franken and Senator
Paul on the same bill together and everybody in between as well?
I am concerned, as are many others, that businesses that contract
with the government will simply pass on the costs of this provision to
the government in the form of higher bids on projects. I am also
concerned about the effects on small businesses as well. Senator Snowe,
the ranking member of the Small Business Committee, on which I serve,
and my follow cosponsor on my original bill, recognized early on with
me that this provision has destructive consequences for small
businesses. Everybody here knows it.
At what point do we put politics aside and just agree to pass
something that is so simple? This provision makes absolutely no sense.
As you know, it will restrict cashflow and discourage small businesses
from participating in Federal contracting.
Members of the construction industry are equally worried. As you
know, that is an industry which has been devastated. They are equally
concerned that it will tax away all their anticipated profit on
government projects, thus diminishing competition and further raising
costs to the government.
There is a reason it has been delayed over and over since 2005.
Everyone knows it can never go into effect because it will place an
extraordinary cost burden on the Federal Government and State and local
governments as well. We cannot afford to shoulder that burden right
now; everyone agrees.
Once again, the 30 cosponsors of the original bill represent a
diverse cross-section.
The President proposed its delay in his most recent jobs package.
I said before, why don't we work on that which we can all agree? Why
don't we just take up the measures in a bipartisan, bicameral manner
and get them out the door? I understand the House is working on this.
We are doing it now. It is a small piece, a small step, but let's get
it right out the door. There is no reason we should not be able to do
it.
Last week, I had an opportunity to speak before the Small Business
Committee with Secretary Geithner, who issued the provision's latest
delay in May, about the importance of fully repealing this provision.
This repeal is one of those rare opportunities we have around here
where everyone can be on the same team. It is very similar to when we
passed the Arlington Cemetery bill, with your leadership, Madam
President. In the midst of all the problems we had last year, the
legislative bodies of both branches came together and passed the
Arlington Cemetery bill. I look at this as a similar provision where we
can actually do something in a bipartisan, bicameral manner and get it
passed.
I urge my colleagues to rise above partisan politics and support this
truly bipartisan legislation. As I said before, we are Americans first.
We are Americans first. To me, that means it should not matter whether
this is a Republican bill or a Democratic bill. It matters that it is a
bill that is going to help small businesses and Americans who are
fighting on a daily basis just to make ends meet.
We have a great opportunity today to move forward on a piece of jobs
legislation and pass this portion of the bill that is, in fact,
supported by the President and scheduled, as I said, to be taken up in
the House next week.
I offer my complete support for the bill and appreciate the leader
for bringing it to the floor for a vote.
I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
(The remarks of Mr. Hoeven pertaining to the introduction of S. 1751
are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills
and Joint Resolutions.'')
Mr. BLUNT. Madam President, I note the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BLUNT. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BLUNT. Madam President, yesterday, around 5:30 or so, we had all
kinds of Members who suddenly wanted to come over and talk about their
amendments. Now is an opportunity to talk about these three
appropriations bills. The floor is open. There are a number of pending
amendments. Hopefully, Members will come over and offer amendments or
talk about the amendments they have offered. We want to move through
this legislation as quickly as we can but, actually, no quicker than we
need to. There is plenty of time. If Members want to talk about this
bill, if they want to support the bill or oppose the bill or maybe more
likely right now come and talk about the significant number of pending
amendments, this is a good time to do that.
I suppose the other thing I could and should talk about that I know
the Chair would be happy with would be the great Cardinals victory last
night. Even the cushions in the back of the Chamber seem to be a little
brighter red today than they normally are. So maybe the Texans need to
come and talk about their amendments and talk about the Rangers. But I
will say that the Cardinals team, from the last week or so of August
until right now, has been one of the true miracles of baseball
history--going from 10\1/2\ games to even qualifying to be the wildcard
in the playoffs and almost every game from that moment on having the
sense that this is the intensity of the final game of the season.
All Cardinals fans are proud. There is quite a bit of red on today
here on the Senate floor.
There is another Cardinals game tonight, and I wouldn't mind watching
some of it. My best chance of doing that is if Members will come over
here and talk about their pending amendments now and defend those
amendments.
It seems to me as though this week the Senate has been working as the
Senate should work--bringing appropriations bills to the floor,
debating those bills, letting Members propose amendments--and hopefully
we will continue with these bills: the Agriculture, Rural Development,
and Food and Drug Administration bill Senator Kohl and I brought to the
floor; the Transportation, and Housing and Urban Development bill; the
Commerce-State-Justice bill--I think it may be Commerce-Justice now. So
we have a lot of topics. We don't want to let this appropriations
process go to one huge bill that nobody understands, nobody has time to
read, and nobody has time to debate. So hopefully, with all of these
pending amendments, we will have some discussion. We have had a number
of votes already today, but a number of Members have things they would
like to see discussed and voted on, and hopefully we will begin to see
more of that happen.
With that, it does appear we don't have a quorum yet or other Members
to speak, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.

[[Page S6812]]

Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, I wish to echo the comments of my
colleague from Missouri. I too invite Senators to come down. We are
showing that we can govern. We have our appropriations bills here, and
we have already disposed of 8 amendments--actually, I think we have
disposed of more than 8 by now--but we have 22 amendments pending. If
Members have an amendment, come and speak to it. If a Member has
reviewed these 22 and opposes them, have your day, have your say,
because that is what the Senate is--due diligence, due deliberation.
What we don't want is everybody--exactly as the Senator from Missouri
said, who is the ranking member on Agriculture--coming at 5:30 or 6 or
7 o'clock and wanting to speak. I know the leadership on both sides of
the aisle would like to move expeditiously and even, if possible,
finish this bill tonight. I think we have agreed we are willing to work
through the evening to dispose of amendments, but Senators have to
speak on their amendments.
So, again, on my side of the aisle, I would really encourage Members,
if they have an amendment, to come and speak to it. Regardless of the
side of the aisle a Member is on, if a person opposes an amendment,
come and speak on it as well.
Some of these are quite controversial. Again, we invite this due
deliberation.
Everybody has worked hard. We have done a lot in appropriations. We
have ended earmarks--a topic I know is of special interest to many of
our colleagues. We have made significant cuts this year as a result of
the continuing resolution and other agreements. But at the same time,
the subcommittees have worked hard to follow the mission of what we are
trying to do in this country: have a more frugal government.
I know in my bill we have paid particular attention on how to curb
waste, and I will be speak about that shortly. But, again, I invite my
colleagues to come to the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

____________________