Teachers and First Responders Back to Work Act of 2011

Mr. President, before my colleague begins, I ask unanimous consent to be recognized after Senator Blunt.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, there are two amendments that are likely to be called this evening, and I want to address them briefly because I believe both these amendments should be carefully scrutinized.

One amendment is by Senator Ayotte of New Hampshire. What she would do in her amendment is restrict the authority of the President of the United States to refer suspected terrorists to our criminal justice system to be investigated, prosecuted, and tried. She would make it mandatory those terrorists--particularly associated with al-Qaida-- would be tried before military commissions and tribunals.

I listened as she and Senator McConnell came to the floor to explain their point of view. It is an interesting point of view, that we are at war with al-Qaida and, therefore, any trials of suspected terrorists associated with them should be before a military tribunal. Unfortunately, the logic of their argument falls flat when you look at reality. Here is the reality.

Since September 11, 10 years ago, President Bush and President Obama have faced time and time again allegations that individuals are suspected terrorists. Each President--Bush and Obama--has had to consult with the Secretary of Defense, the Attorney General, and other leaders in their administration to determine the appropriate place to investigate and try these cases.

Here is the record. Since 9/11, the Department of Justice advises us that on as many as 300 separate occasions--300--these suspected terrorists have been taken to the article III criminal courts of America and successfully tried and prosecuted. In that same period of time, exactly three suspected terrorists have been sent to military commissions and tribunals.

For the Senator from New Hampshire to now argue that all cases have to go to military commissions is to ignore the obvious. The President, as our Commander in Chief, with the premier responsibility to keep America safe, should decide the best place to try those who are accused. This has been a recurring theme on the Republican side--to take the terrorist cases out of our criminal courts. In fact, almost on a weekly basis Senator McConnell has come to the floor making this argument.

The argument goes something like this: Do you mean to tell me we are going to take a suspected terrorist in and read them their Miranda rights; that they have the right to remain silent? You know what is going to happen. They will lawyer up and shut up and we won't get the information we need to keep America safe. That is why, he has argued time and time again, we shouldn't allow the FBI to be involved and we shouldn't refer these cases to article III criminal courts. And that is why Senator Ayotte is offering her amendment this evening.

The fact is that argument isn't borne out by the facts. Look what happened 2 weeks ago. Remember the underwear bomber--the somewhat crazed individual--maybe crazed--who got on an airplane and was apprehended over Detroit with the argument that his clothing was on fire, and when they apprehended him and took him in, the FBI asked him questions? He answered questions for some period of time and at that point stopped talking.

The scenario at that point would have ended, according to Senator McConnell. He lawyered up and shut up. But it didn't end.

The FBI continued the investigation. They went overseas and brought this man's mother and father to the United States and they sat down and talked to him. After they talked to him, he said he would cooperate fully with the FBI. He talked for day after day after day, telling them all the information about al-Qaida. Then his case was referred to a criminal court in Detroit, and 2 weeks ago he pled guilty.

If you follow the logic that has been given to us by Senator Ayotte and Senator McConnell, this never would have happened. The fact is, it did. The FBI did its job, the Department of Justice did its job. The man was prosecuted in our criminal courts; he pled guilty; he is likely to be sentenced in January to life in prison. It is because the President had the authority, as Commander in Chief, to pick the forum to try the individual. He picked the most effective forum, and when he did, we ended up in a situation where this man pled guilty and is going to be sentenced. It isn't an isolated case. In fact, it is the overwhelming likelihood that when a person is suspected of terrorism, they are more likely to be successfully prosecuted in one of our article III courts.

I note today that the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Senator Levin of Michigan, pointed out on the Senate floor that when Senator Ayotte raised this issue in the Armed Services Committee markup on the Defense authorization bill, her amendment was defeated on a bipartisan rollcall. Six Republicans voted against her, including Senator McCain, the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee, and Senator Graham, the only military lawyer serving in the Senate. But the amendment will still come to the floor.

I urge my colleagues, whatever they think of President Obama--and I respect him very much. Whatever they think of him, do not tie the hands of any President when it comes to picking the proper forum to try a terrorist. If the proper forum is a military commission and tribunal, I will back the President. If the proper forum is an article III criminal court, let's proceed that way as well.

The evidence overwhelmingly tells us that going through our criminal court system, terrorists pay a price--a heavy price--with up to 300 convictions since 9/11 and more than 100 convicted since President Obama took office. Let's respect the President's authority. Let's do the best thing to secure our Nation.

Let's not let the Senate presume to know exactly where every suspected terrorist defendant is to be tried.

Mr. President, there is also another amendment that is likely to be considered this evening, and that I wish to speak to. Senator Stabenow of Michigan, as chairman of the Senate Agricultural Committee, has a special responsibility when it comes to nutrition programs and especially the program known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, the SNAP program, which is known to most Americans as the Food Stamp Program.

Senator Sessions has introduced an amendment that would eliminate the use of what is known as categorical eligibility for people to qualify for the SNAP program. Forty States use it. What they basically say is if you are eligible for some other programs, then we believe, in establishing that eligibility, you are also eligible for the SNAP program. It turns out that only 1 percent of SNAP households have net incomes over 100 percent of the Federal poverty level. The Federal poverty level, incidentally, is $22,350 per family of four. So when these people are judged to be part of a program, such as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, TANF, LIHEAP, Low Income Heating and Energy Assistance Program, and the Social Security disability benefit program, they are eligible then for the SNAP program, the Food Stamp Program.

The Senator from Alabama, Senator Sessions, would change that. What he would add to it is a new redtape requirement that these people, who are by and large some of the poorest people in America, will now have to go through another bureaucratic process and fill out another application. I don't think that is necessary, and I am urging my colleagues not to support Senator Sessions' amendment.

He recently said on the floor something I want to point out. He said: No program in our government has surged out of control more dramatically than food stamps. Then he went on to say: We need people working with jobs, not receiving food stamps.

I will readily concede to the Senator from Alabama that the number of hungry Americans has increased. It is not only evident in the Food Stamp Program; it is evident at the food pantries, at the breakfast and lunch and dinner feeding programs that are available across Illinois and across America. I have been there and I have watched who comes through the door, and I want to tell you it is a heartbreak for them and for me to watch. Many of these people have never in their lives asked for anything, and now they have no choice. And many, to the surprise, I think, of many Senators, are actually working. But they make so little money that they have to go in and ask for help.

I agree, we need to put Americans back to work in good-paying jobs. The Senator from Alabama and others will have the chance to vote for part of President Obama's jobs program this evening. The fact is, 14 million Americans are currently unemployed, another 10 million underemployed, and these feeding programs are essential for them to keep their families together.

The Senator from Alabama points out one example to give a reason why we need to change the law across America. He talks about a case where someone actually won the lottery and then went on to get food stamps. That case got a lot of media attention, but the fact is it was highly unusual. If the Senator from Alabama wants to ensure that people who win the lottery and a windfall of income are not eligible for SNAP, I will be glad to work with him. Let's get that job done. But this amendment is not that legislation. That single, highly unusual situation doesn't merit kicking people who are out of work or in a low- income job out of a program that feeds their families. To impose that new obligation, new paperwork, new redtape obligation on families who are struggling because one person abused the system I think goes too far.

SNAP, in fact, has one of the lowest error rates of all Federal programs. The U.S. Department of Agriculture data shows us that over 98 percent of those receiving SNAP benefits are eligible, and over 95 percent of payments are accurate. The system has good quality controls, and I will work with the Senator from Alabama and any other Senator to make them even better.

The problem isn't food stamps in America. The problem is hunger in America. Let's address the hunger problem and put people back to work. We will have less demand for food stamps and food pantries.

I think what we face in this country is serious. I know it is in my State. In Senator Sessions' home State of Alabama, 17.3 percent of residents live in poverty and the same percent live in households that have food insecurity. Sadly, children are disproportionately impacted with hunger. In Senator Sessions' home State, it is over one out of four kids who is in a situation with food deficiencies. And 873,174 people in Alabama rely on food stamps, the SNAP program. Are we going to make their life more difficult because one person who won the lottery abused the system? I think that goes too far.

I hope we can work together to make this a better program. For those who are angry about food stamps or angry about food pantries, direct your anger toward hunger, toward unemployment. That is what is driving up the numbers in this system. We can work together to make it a better system. But the approach being suggested by the Senator from Alabama will just add redtape, paperwork, and unnecessary hardship to a lot of people who are already struggling.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Does the minority leader wish to speak? I will yield to him if he does. No.

Mr. President, I am going to respond very briefly. This argument is so upside-down. If during the last 10 years we had successfully prosecuted terrorists--300 of them--in military commissions and only 3 in our criminal courts, then all of their arguments would make sense because you would have to argue that is the best place to go, that is where you can investigate and prosecute and successfully incarcerate those accused of terrorism. Exactly the opposite is true.

President Bush and President Obama, given the authority to choose a forum to try a suspected terrorist, have overwhelmingly and successfully chosen the article III criminal courts of America. Here is the score. They don't like to hear me say this, but I am going to give them the score again. It is important to know. Since 9/11, we are told by the Department of Justice, as many as 300 suspected terrorists have been successfully prosecuted in our criminal courts and 3 before military commissions, 2 of whom--before the military commissions--were released within a year to return to their home countries of Australia and Yemen. When you look at where terrorists are in jail in America today, you will find 300 to 1 they were terrorists who were prosecuted in our criminal courts.

In comes the Ayotte amendment and the arguments by Senator McConnell and Senator Sessions to argue that clearly this system is upside-down, that we should be going to the military commissions, not to the criminal courts. Their argument is, incidentally, Miranda warnings-- when you give an alleged defendant, a suspected criminal defendant, Miranda warnings, end of story, they stop cooperating. The problem they have is the facts, and the facts are that all 300 prosecuted terrorists in article III courts were given their Miranda warnings, the investigation continued, and the prosecution continued successfully. It did not end the case.

They do not like to talk about the details about this Christmas bomber, the Underwear Bomber. He was read his Miranda rights, and he shut up. Then the FBI brought in his mother and father, who said, ``Why don't you cooperate?''According to the head of the FBI, the Director of the FBI, he talked nonstop for days about everything he knew about al- Qaida. He did it after he was read his Miranda rights. Then he was off to court, where he is going to defend himself in this criminal case, and he pled guilty.

I have heard the Senators on the floor dismiss this--well, he pled guilty, so they didn't really prosecute him. They prepared the case--a case he knew he couldn't win. He fully cooperated with the investigation, and he conceded that he was guilty. Now he faces a life sentence in prison.

Is that a good outcome? It is the best outcome, and I will tell you why because they will not acknowledge this fact, and they should. All across the world, when they look at the way we prosecute terrorists in the United States, they have to say: You know, they are following the same rules and laws for alleged terrorists as they are following for anyone accused of crime in their country, and it is public, and he had an opportunity for a lawyer, and he was given the same warnings as any prospective criminal defendant.

You can't argue that this was done behind closed doors or done any differently from any other criminal defendant. There is something to be said for that. It is a bragging right, or at least something we should be proud of, that in the United States we use that system and use it so successfully.

For those who want to pass the Ayotte amendment and make it more difficult for any President to decide the appropriate forum to prosecuter terrorists, I just leave them one last reminder: The score is 300 to 3 since 9/11, 300 suspected terrorists successfully prosecuted in our criminal courts, 3 before military commissions.

Give this President, give every President the tools and the authority to make the right decision to keep America safe. Defeat the Ayotte amendment.

Mr. President, we have a consent request we are working on. We hope to have people sign off on that. If they do not, one or many are going to have to object to it. We have spent enough time on this that we need to move forward.

We know we have a number of votes already scheduled. Senator McConnell has something pending. I do too. We know we are going to have to vote on that, but that is the least of our worries. We have to work through this appropriations stuff. So people who have concerns, bring them to David Schiappa or Gary Myrick because otherwise I might come here and offer a consent request. Either we are going to move this bill forward or move off this bill.

Mr. President, the provision my friend talks about is placed in legislation as a result of the study made during the Bush administration--second Bush administration. GAO did a study. They found that 33,000 contractors, in effect, cheated on their taxes, and they owed some $3 billion. This money, they also determined, went mostly to giving the owners more salary and building them second and third homes.

There is no question that a lot of people, in addition to the 33,000 who cheated, were found to be burdened by this withholding 3 percent of what they had coming to them. What my friend fails to acknowledge is this bill that was amended that my friend has before the Senate has no chance of accomplishing anything. Constitutionally it will be killed in the House in a matter of a millisecond because constitutionally it will be what we call blue slipped here. It is a revenue measure. It cannot start in the Senate.

It costs $11.6 billion to take this money out--I am sorry--take that 3-percent provision out, and we need to do that. It costs $11.6 billion. What my friend fails to alert the Senators to is that since this matter has come up in years past and months past, things have changed. We have burdened the American people--especially the American middle class--with all of these cuts we have made. We did them. It was done by Democrats and Republicans, but they have given enough.

My friend's bill is offset by reducing discretionary spending by $30 billion. Senator McConnell's bill does nothing to address contractors who cheat on their taxes and still get Federal contracts. Nothing, zero.

Our alternative--and I will offer a unanimous consent request of this at a later time before we get to these two cloture motions we have. It repeals the 3-percent withholding tax, and we acknowledge it should do that. The Democratic alternative also addresses the problem of tax evaders receiving government contracts by expressly prohibiting contractors who are delinquent on their taxes being eligible for Federal contracts. That way all contractors are not punished, only those who are, in effect, cheating.

The Democratic alternative offsets the costs of repealing the withholding requirement by closing the loophole that allows companies to claim excess foreign tax credits and the famous corporate jet preference. It has a 1-year delay in implementing worldwide interest allocation which allows taxpayers to claim greater tax credits for the foreign taxes they pay; fair, reasonable, not a burden on the middle class.

A vote for Senator McConnell's amendment would do nothing to repeal the withholding requirement because the House, I repeat, will blue slip this. The House will send us a repeal bill. They told us, the Republican leadership, soon, and I mean soon rather within a matter of weeks. We will have a real opportunity to repeal the withholding requirement when we get the House bill. We would, of course, put our amendment on that.

Let's be honest about this. This is nothing more than a misdirected stunt by my friend, the Republican leader. This provision will be repealed, but it should be done the right way. We all agree that it is unfortunate that the Bush administration did that. They had a good intent. They were trying to get rid of some people who were cheating, but it was too broad and overreaching and has hurt a lot of people. That GAO report said 33,000 people, civilian contractors, owed more than $3 billion. I repeat, that 2005 GAO report said $3 billion in taxes. I didn't make this up. The GAO report also found that these firms, many of them diverted these payroll taxes to increase an owner's salary or building him a new home or two.

So by withholding a small amount of a contractor's payment and sending it to the IRS, the belief was that the contractors would have more motivation to comply with the law. It didn't work well. It was too overreaching and too broad.

I would hope that we would look at the consent I will offer. Procedurally there is no way we can have a second-degree or side by side with what we are doing here. I would hope my friends, Democrats and Republicans, would do something that is real, not something that is only figurative. What we are doing is real. We agree it should be done. It should be done right. It should not be done by burdening the middle class with more domestic discretionary cuts.

I will say this generally. Here it is 9:30 at night. The decision is going to have to be made very quickly as to whether we will be here tomorrow. The two matters that the Republican leader and I have spoken about, we could vote on those right now. I offered to vote on those earlier today, but we were unable to do that. We can come tomorrow. It is getting late here, and I am not sure what we are accomplishing by trying to work through all of this tonight. We are trying to be reasonable. As I indicated, my friend the Republican leader said he needed 10 or 12 votes. We agreed to that a long time ago. I cannot imagine why we cannot move forward.

I repeat, we cannot be stalled so we come back with a very short work period. We have a continuing resolution and many other things to deal with when we come back with the short work period. I wish to do another appropriations bill, but we cannot do another appropriations bill while this one is still floundering here.

This was an experiment that I was happy to engage myself in because I believe we should try to do our work here. But this CR business and holding us up from doing the work we have done for 10 months this year was not our doing. This has been as a result of my friends who are the majority in the House and the minority over here. So we have spent all of these months on two major issues, CRs and raising the debt ceiling. I would hope we can work something out on this appropriations bill and get it done tonight.

No. What I said I would do is when we get ready to schedule these votes, I will do it. I will make sure you are here.

I note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at a time to be determined by the majority leader after consultation with the Republican leader, the Senate proceed to a series of votes in relation to the following amendments and motions: Landrieu No. 781, as modified with the changes that are at the desk; Kohl No. 755; Vitter No. 917 to Menendez No. 857; Menendez No. 857; Gillibrand No. 869; Lautenberg No. 836; Bingaman No. 771, as modified; Sessions No. 810; Coburn No. 791; Coburn No. 792; Coburn No. 796; Coburn No. 800; Paul No. 821; Portman No. 859; McCain No. 892; Cantwell No. 893, as modified with the changes that are at the desk; Cochran No. 805, as modified with the changes that are at the desk; Burr No. 890; DeMint No. 763; Inouye No. 918; Ayotte No. 753; Crapo No. 814; Kyl, as modified with the changes that are at the desk; and Lee motion to recommit; that there be no amendments or points of order in order against any of the amendments prior to the votes other than budget points of order; that there be 2 minutes equally divided in the usual form prior to each vote; that the Vitter, Menendez, Sessions, Paul, Ayotte, Crapo, and the Coburn amendments Nos. 792 and 796 be subject to a 60-affirmative vote threshold; that all after the first vote be 10-minute votes; that upon disposition of these amendments, the remaining pending Coburn amendments be withdrawn with the exception of amendment No. 801; that no other motions or amendments be in order to the bill, the Senate proceed to the cloture vote on the substitute amendment No. 738, as amended; that if cloture is invoked, the substitute amendment, as amended, be agreed to and be considered original text for the purposes of further amendment; that the majority leader then be recognized to raise points of order against any pending nongermane amendments; further, if cloture is invoked, the Senate resume consideration of the bill at 4 p.m., Monday, October 31, and proceed to votes in relation to any remaining germane pending amendments in the order they were offered; further, that upon disposition of any pending germane amendments, the bill, as amended, be read a third time and the Senate proceed to vote on passage of the bill with no intervening action or debate; that when the Senate receives a message from the House with respect to H.R. 2112, the Senate insist on its amendment, request, or agree to, a conference with the House on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses; and the Chair be authorized to appoint the following conferees: Kohl, Harkin, Feinstein, Johnson of South Dakota, Nelson of Nebraska, Pryor, Brown of Ohio, Inouye, Murray, Mikulski, Blunt, Cochran, McConnell, Collins, Moran, Hoeven, Hutchison, and Shelby; finally, that if cloture is not invoked on the substitute amendment No. 738, as amended, cloture on the underlying bill be vitiated and the bill be returned to the calendar in status quo. I failed, Mr. President, to identify the Kyl amendment. It is No. 912.

Mr. President, for all of these amendments that are pending, there is no requirement that we have to have rollcall votes. Everyone should understand that.

Mr. President, tonight the Senate will vote on a bill introduced by my friend, the Republican leader.

While I have great respect for my friend, the senior Senator from Kentucky, I believe in this case he is playing political games.

The Republican leader has inserted a poison pill for Democrats into his proposal.

To offset the $11 billion cost of his legislation, the Republican leader proposes we slash $30 billion in programs that help the middle class and get our economy back on track.

What is more, this is a backdoor violation of the debt ceiling agreement we reached after months of negotiation this summer.

This is not a serious attempt to repeal the rule requiring the government to withhold 3 percent from all government contractors. It is an attempt to circumvent the rules.

And even if we passed the Republican leader's bill tonight, the House will not act on it. Revenue bills like this one must originate in the House, a prerogative that body guards jealously.

So our action on this bill this evening is nothing more than a misdirected stunt by Republican leadership.

But let me be clear: this provision will be repealed before it takes effect.

The Senate will have a real opportunity to repeal this provision, when the House sends us a bill that repeals the 3-percent withholding the week we return from the in-State work period.

In 2 short weeks, we will have an opportunity to work together on a commonsense way to both repeal the withholding requirement and address the underlying problem it was enacted to address.

It is important to review the history of this proposal to understand why we are in this situation today, and how to move forward.

A 2005 GAO report found that 33,000 civilian contractors owed more than $3 billion in taxes. The GAO report also found that some of these firms diverted payroll taxes to increasing the owner's salary or build him a new house.

By withholding a small amount from a contractor's payment and sending it along to the IRS, the belief was that contractors would have more motivation to comply with the tax law.

The withholding requirement was enacted with overwhelming Republican support. Only a couple of Democrats supported the legislation.

But this withholding has turned out to be more trouble than it is worth for a number of reasons, and now many on both sides feel it should be repealed.

But Democrats also believe we must address the underlying problem. The Republican leader's bill does nothing to prevent taxpayer dollars from going to contractors who fail to pay their taxes.

Democrats have offered alternative legislation that would address the problem of noncompliant contractors without targeting those who pay their taxes.

The Senate will take action on this worthy alternative in just a couple weeks, after the House sends us its bill.

Voting on this measure today is nothing more than a diversion by my Republican colleagues.

I am confident that Senate Democrats and Republicans will be able to work together next month to repeal this provision.

We should be successfu1 at working together to stop an unfair tax increase that will hit middle-class families.

This month, Republicans blocked our attempt to keep payroll taxes low for families and businesses who are still struggling as our country fights its way out of a serious recession.

I hope they will be as willing to work with Democrats on finding solutions that work for middle-class families as they are on finding solutions for government contractors.

Unanimous Consent Request--H.R. 674

Mr. President, I want to get the Republican leader's attention.

I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate receives from the House H.R. 674, the Senate proceed to its consideration; that the Reid substitute amendment, the text of which is at the desk, be agreed to.

This amendment would do the following: It repeals the 3-percent withholding requirement; prohibits contractors who are delinquent on their taxes from being eligible for Federal contracts; offsets by closing a loophole that allows oil and gas companies to claim excess foreign tax credits, eliminating a tax preference for corporate jets, and a 1-year delay in implementing worldwide interest allocation.

I then ask consent that the bill be read a third time and the Senate proceed to a vote on passage of the bill, as amended, with all of the above occurring with no intervening action or debate.

We have both given our statements in this regard, Mr. President, earlier today.

Mr. President, I would say there would be no blue-slip problem whatsoever because, as I indicated, this would be an amendment to a revenue bill we have received from the House, and I identified which one that would be.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the cloture vote with respect to the Reid motion to proceed to Calendar No. 204, S. 1723, occur at 9:55 tonight; further, that if cloture is not invoked on the Reid motion to proceed, the Senate then proceed to a vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the McConnell motion to proceed to Calendar No. 205, S. 1726; finally, that if cloture is invoked on either motion to proceed, that notwithstanding cloture having been invoked, the Senate resume consideration of H.R. 2112, and upon disposition of H.R. 2112, the Senate resume consideration of the motion to proceed, postcloture.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Montana for speaking on behalf of the rural States. It is clear our Nation is facing two grave economic threats: a job crisis and a debt spiral. As much as some people may wish, we cannot ignore one threat over the other. For the sake of our Nation's economic future, we must work together, Democrats and Republicans, and try to find a commonsense solution that protects and creates jobs but does so without adding to our growing deficit and debt.

In a more sensible legislative process, we would be able to sit down and work out compromises that make sense. It is what legislators throughout the Nation's history have done.

Unfortunately, looking at where things stand now, it is clear the legislative process in Washington has gotten so dysfunctional that it doesn't make much sense at all.

I came here to try to fix things, not to make excuses. I sure didn't come here to play the blame game. I have never fixed a thing by blaming someone else. As I have said many times before, it is time for all of us who have been given the great privilege to serve to focus on what is right for the next generation, not worry about the next election.

It is why--as frustrating as this legislative process can be--I will not lose hope that we can make this legislation better.

With respect to the current Teachers and First Responders Back to Work Act, there is no doubt about the fact that our teachers and first responders have a critical role in our Nation. From the classroom where teachers educate our children to the streets where first responders put their lives on the line to keep our communities and Nation safe, these great Americans are so important to the future of this Nation.

They and the American people deserve better than a temporary 1-year legislative proposal that does nothing to fix the long-term fiscal problems that led so many States to lay off thousands of teachers and first responders in the first place.

What will we do next year when States come back again asking for more Federal money? Will we give out more money and go further in debt? Will we borrow more money? What will we do?

As it stands, without any changes, this bill will not solve the fiscal problem that will come once the aid ends. But this bill is not hopeless. It can be made better. I know it.

In my State of West Virginia, we didn't have major layoffs of teachers or first responders during this brutal recession. As difficult as it was, we balanced our budget based on our values and priorities. We made difficult decisions, but we kept our teachers in the classroom and our firefighters protecting our citizens.

Make no mistake, we cut back our spending, but we did so responsibly. We spent where it was needed--on our priorities.

That is the commonsense approach that works in West Virginia because that is how people run their lives. It is how they operate their small businesses, and it is how we should run this country.

We make budget choices based on what is important in our State, to our family, to our business, and to our country.

In West Virginia, this simple, commonsense approach paid off. Every year I was Governor, we ended the fiscal year with a surplus. Every year for the past 3 years, West Virginia has seen its credit rating upgraded.

But now, because of the impact of this recession and the fact that other States did not make the difficult decisions years ago, the taxpayers of West Virginia are being expected to foot this bill for other States.

I believe there is a better way. I believe there is a better way where we can balance the fiscal constraints that States face with the need to protect these vital jobs.

I believe there is a better way we can balance the need to keep teachers and firefighters working, while not asking West Virginia taxpayers--or any taxpayer in any State--to pay for more than is necessary.

That is why I am offering a commonsense amendment that would transform this $35 billion in funding to keep teachers and first responders working into a loan program instead of a grant.

The loan program would allow any State to borrow at very low--or no-- interest the money they need to keep teachers and firefighters employed and pay it back over time, when this recession basically ends.

I don't know of any State that wouldn't put their teachers and firefighters as one of the highest priorities and budget that first.

So this loan program would ensure that States are making the decisions on how much money they actually need and not the Federal Government's willingness to put us further into debt by giving away more money.

It would also ensure that States make smarter and more responsible decisions about what they can and cannot afford to do.

Such a loan program would help protect these jobs and would protect the fiscal future of States when they get in trouble. In short, it just makes common sense.

I encourage my Republican and Democratic colleagues to embrace this commonsense amendment. I encourage them to help me make it even better.

I hope they will support this cloture motion, not because they support the bill as it stands but because they believe in what this legislation could be if we all put politics aside and work to make it better.

If we can get past a filibuster, I hope the amendment process will be a testament to the great legislative moments this body has seen in the past.

As I have been assured by my leadership, this bill, if it gets to the floor, will have an open amendment process that will give us all an opportunity to make this legislation better. It is the

reason why I will vote for this motion to move on with debate.

To my Republican and Democratic friends who may not support this bill as it stands, I respectfully ask them to seize this opportunity to work together to make this bill better.

Trust me, I share many of their concerns. To be clear, if we cannot and do not adopt this commonsense approach that stops throwing money at the problems we have in this country, I will join them and vote against it.

This country is looking to us to do what is right. It is not about this vote or this bill. It is about the fact that so many Americans have lost confidence in this great body. They have lost confidence in the process that they see as broken and incapable of working. They have lost confidence in a legislative process that has become so political it doesn't matter what we do, it just seems all we care about is scoring political points to be used in the next election.

It is a fact that some folks in this town are so busy trying to make the other side look bad that they don't realize they are making us all look bad.

I don't believe for one minute that anybody in this Chamber-- Democratic or Republican--is rooting for our economy to fail or jobs to be lost. We just all have different ideas. While we should question each other's ideas and policies, we should never question each other's convictions.

Shame on us if the blame game is the best thing we can do. We are better than that. I came here to fix things, not to play politics. It is time for us to stop with the bickering and remember one thing: We may be members of different political parties, but we are all party to this great Nation. We are all Americans.

As difficult as it may seem, America and the future of the American people are more important than politics or an election.

I ask again, let's work together on commonsense, bipartisan ideas to get this country on a responsible financial path that will strengthen the economy and create jobs.

Let's work together on making America's future brighter--not just for us but for the next generation.

I yield the floor.

Yes.

Mr. President, I say to my friend that the way the system is set up and the bill, we are able to use this money where possible. An example of where money was used prior--we had two rounds of stimulus funding. This is our third. It was for a very worthy cause. For my State and your State, which didn't have the layoff of teachers or have the cutbacks in education, they would short that into their budget proposal, so when the Governor made his proposal, that money would backfill. That is how it was used. We only created 33 new jobs that first round, but that was $217 million.

The bottom line is--that is why I said we need a loan program. If spending money will fix our problems in America, we have no problems. We have to do it wisely. The Senator's amendments are appreciated, and I hope to support them.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of my amendment be printed in the Record.

Parliamentary inquiry: Has Pastore time expired?

Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the priorities facing Montana and this Nation, creating jobs, responsibly cutting our spending, cutting the deficit, rebuilding our economy. I appreciate the proposal that will be put forth I think later this evening to attempt to create jobs. When that proposal gets to the floor, I will vote to have the debate on S. 1723, because only then will I be able to offer my amendments to that bill, because as it is written, I cannot support that bill.

Having debate will allow us an opportunity to amend it so that it will guarantee jobs in Montana and across America. The perspective I bring to the table is a little different than most. I am someone who lives in, works in, represents a rural State. My responsibility is to make sure every decision I make works for not only Montana but the entire country.

I expect full accountability for every penny of taxpayer dollars we spend. I expect that when you invest in something, you get what you pay for. A lot of folks know I am a farmer, but many do not know I am also a former schoolteacher. I used to teach elementary music at Big Sandy Elementary, in Big Sandy, MT. I fully understand the importance of making sure all of our Nation's teachers have the resources they need to do their job, to lead our most important resource, our children.

As a teacher, I also know that when rural schools are asked to compete with urban schools for Federal funding, rural schools often get left behind. The same goes for emergency responders. Their service sometimes is--even as volunteers, it is very important to rural States such as Montana, whether it is firefighters, police officers, EMTs, they are on the clock whenever they are needed.

In Montana, as everywhere else, firefighters are respected for their courage and their hard work for doing whatever is expected of them to save property and save lives. But when Montana's rural fire departments and rural police departments have to compete for Federal funding, guess who often gets the short end of the stick. That is right, it is the emergency responders in rural States such as Montana, the folks who often do not have the professional grant writers to help them secure the basic equipment that they need to do their jobs safely.

That brings me to my proposal. I want to state again, as 1723 is written, I cannot support it. I am not convinced it will create the jobs it must create. And $30 billion in this bill is meant to go to States to boost education, to hire teachers. Yes, investing in education is a powerful short-term and long-term way to create jobs. But as written, this bill fails to give taxpayers any guarantee that their money would actually be used to hire teachers and invest in our schools.

The fact is, this money could be used to supplant funds instead of supplement funds. A State would get loads of money with little guidance that they spend the money on teachers. But we all know what happens. A lot of smart folks who work in State budget offices can find their way around guidance, because money is pretty darn easy to move from one budget account to another. In other words, there is no guarantee that this bill will create the jobs.

Montana is one of two States that has a budget surplus right now. We have been living within our means. There are other States such as Kansas that are considering broad-based tax cuts. That is fine. Kansas can do that if it wants. But I am not convinced that we should be writing checks to States so they can cut taxes. Montanans should not be paying for tax cuts for people in our States, nor should we be giving precious taxpayer money for States to build up their rainy day fund.

I am all for individual States making smart choices with their own money. But giving them Federal money and hoping they will use it for education and teachers, well, that is not good enough. With that kind of money, we need a guarantee. If the motion to proceed is adopted, I plan to offer two amendments to address my concerns. One will address the $5 billion in this bill meant to provide aid to the Nation's first responders. My amendment is a simple one. It requires that 20 percent of the competitive grant funding goes specifically for rural communities. That is only fair because rural communities make up 20 percent of our Nation.

The other amendment puts sideboards on the remainder of the money in this bill, to guarantee that it will be used in a way that it is supposed to be used, to create jobs in education, to invest in our kids. My amendment will prohibit States from pulling their own State money out of education programs when they take this Federal money. How? By putting the money into Part B of the Individual with Disabilities Education Act, IDEA, otherwise known locally as special education.

When I traveled around Montana after the passage of the Recovery Act in 2009, school administrators told me the money that made it to the ground was very much appreciated, but that special education was their top priority. IDEA funding is still one of the biggest unfunded mandates the Federal Government has on local school districts.

When it was first enacted, the Federal Government promised to pay 40 percent of the cost of this important law. Today, we pay less than half of that promise. This amendment will help bridge that gap somewhat. Special education funding is not only a top priority for the folks in Montana, it also guarantees that the funding gets to the local level.

It also guarantees that its funding gets to the local level. If the money in this bill is supposed to be for teachers, then let's make sure it ends up there. This amendment is a good way to do just that.

I ask unanimous consent that these two amendments be printed in the Record.

I would like to talk about one other thing that is missing from the bill, and that is a reauthorization of the Secure Rural Schools Program and the Payment-in-Lieu of Taxes Program, otherwise know as PILT.

These two programs will do more to ensure that thousands of teachers stay on the job than anything else we can do around here. Here is the kicker: In the middle of this partisan debate, Secure Rural Schools and PILT are bipartisan programs.

Under the leadership of Senators Bingaman, Murkowski, Baucus, Crapo, Wyden, and Risch, we have a bill that can pass right now--today.

It would keep 4,000 teachers on the job at a cost of $3.5 billion over the next 5 years. That is small potatoes compared to the $35 billion in the bill that is before us today.

It is a very reasonable bill. But because it is so reasonable, nobody wants to see it appear in the middle of such a partisan debate. Once again, too many folks in Washington are looking for ways to point fingers.

Quite frankly, I don't have as many fingers as most folks around here, so I would rather use mine to solve some problems. Only after this final bill is amended to guarantee job certainty will it be able to earn my vote.

In order to amend it, I am going to vote for the motion to proceed. My vote is a vote for a debate we ought to have. It is an important one, so we can truly create jobs and focus on rebuilding our economy.

I look forward to that debate.

With that, I yield to my friend from West Virginia.

Mr. President, will the Senator from West Virginia yield for a question?

Mr. President, I say to Senator Manchin that I think everybody in this body wants to have real job creation. They want to see this unemployment rate go down. I think most everybody realizes that if we cannot get the unemployment rate to go down, the chances of paying off our debt and getting the budget under control will be severely diminished. The Senator has offered some potential amendments to S. 1723, as I have--assuming we get cloture on this bill. In a previous life, the Senator from West Virginia was a Governor. When I was in the State legislature, oftentimes, money came to us from the Federal Government, and we very much appreciated it. But we took an administrative cost right off the top, as a natural procedure--anywhere from 3 to a much higher percentage rate than that. Is that something they did in West Virginia? How would the Senator's amendment impact things such as administrative costs and will you be able to get more of your money to the ground out of these dollars?

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, I thank the distinguished assistant majority leader for his comments. And I will disagree, but I think we could agree, because my proposal is not to cut off anybody who ought to receive food stamps. My proposal wouldn't cut off any benefits to anybody who deserves food stamps. My proposal would not cut off anybody who qualifies for food stamps. It would say that just because you complied with the requirement for TANF or you complied with the requirement for LIHEAP or you sought assistance for some family planning issue, that those don't automatically qualify you. I don't think it is too much to ask someone who would be given thousands of dollars over a period of time in food stamps to fill out a form. That form would say what your income is and what your assets are. And if you have substantial assets that are higher than the food stamp law allows, you should not get it.

So I don't believe this proposal does anything but help tighten up the act. I don't believe it is too much to ask that somebody fill out a form to demonstrate they are qualified before they receive free money from the U.S. Government for the purchase of food, and certainly I would emphasize that dramatically.

I don't think the Senator disagrees that any program in the U.S. Government of any real size has surged faster than this program has. It has gone up, since 2010, $20 billion. In 2009 or so, unemployment hit 9.8 percent. It is now 9.1. It is too high, and people need food stamps and they should get them. And perhaps there are more people out there who qualify even than in 2009, or whenever our unemployment hit almost 10 percent. Maybe there are more people today. I don't know. But I don't think there are huge numbers more. You go from $59 billion to $79 billion, that is about a 38- or 40-percent increase in 2 years in this program. One of the reasons is we have made people automatically eligible.

So if you are eligible for any of these programs, you have received any assistance, you may not have even filled out a form that has anything like the same qualifications that the Food Stamp Act requires, you are automatically, categorically, qualified.

The Congressional Budget Office says if this change in the law that happened recently were to be eliminated, it would save $10 billion over 10 years. It would not reduce food stamps; it would just reduce a little bit the growth in food stamps. The $10 billion over 10 years represents $1 billion a year in the first year. It would be less than that, according to the score we have seen. But let's say in the first year that this program reduced spending by $1 billion, that is $1 billion out of the proposed $79 billion. So we are expecting to spend $79 billion this year, and we would only

spend $78 billion. But that adds up over time. And food stamps need to be looked at across the board much more carefully, because we don't have that many more people who are in poverty today than we have had. But we have many more people receiving food stamps.

I would stress that this year's increase in food stamps by another 14 percent is not an acceptable figure, because we know that there are problems within the program.

Amendment No. 753

Mr. President, I wish to say one thing briefly about Senator Ayotte's proposal on terrorism prosecution. As a Federal prosecutor for almost 15 years, I truly believe she is correct on this issue. It is something we have been debating in Congress for a long time. Congress has made clear its view about it.

I would simply say this. The Presiding Officer is a former Attorney General. But if you make the presumption that an individual who is arrested is to be tried in article III courts, even though they are an enemy combatant against the United States, against the laws of war, an unlawful enemy combatant, those individuals should be treated as warriors and they should be treated as enemies of the country, and they should be arrested and detained, and presumptively in military custody. This is the tradition of the United States from its founding. This is worldwide accepted law. And I do believe we need to understand the reason this is important.

An individual who is arrested attacking the United States and who is going to be tried in a Federal court must be given Miranda warnings before they are interrogated, must be provided a lawyer, must be promptly taken before a U.S. magistrate, must be provided discovery in the government's case, and must have a public hearing. You don't do that for people who are at war with you.

I would yield.

That is a very important question. This individual perhaps looks like he just fell off a turnip truck or something. He was not a very solid person and he decided to plead guilty, and that was good.

Many of these individuals are very tough, very clever, very devious. They have, we know for a fact, used the civil justice system to find discovery against us, how we discover their activities, what kind of surveillance techniques we use, and made the trials dangerous places and have made the trials showcases. So I think that just because one individual decided to plead guilty, it has no bearing on the overall principle that if you arrest people on the battlefield, they are not required to be taken immediately to a judge and given a lawyer.

I will be pleased to.

The Senator is so correct. We went through a number of actions. The Supreme Court found the law inadequate, and Congress responded to the Supreme Court's concerns and passed clear laws that are certainly adequate within the Constitution as described by the Supreme Court. We now have an entire system set up to meet the Supreme Court's concerns about the trial of these individuals. It is safe. It is secure. It is consistent with Supreme Court requirements and international law.

Absolutely correct. I think Senator Ayotte really reached out to Members of this Senate to make sure they knew there was an option to do it another way, and it does provide the President that option.

With regard to the FBI and their involvement, they are a great investigative agency. If they participate in the arrest of one of these individuals and they were turned over to the military, the FBI can still work with the military to investigate the case. It would just be tried under military commissions according to the lawful system Congress, in a bipartisan way, passed several years ago.

That is a very good question. Under the law of the United States, if you are to interrogate an individual who has been taken into custody, the police have to give them Miranda rights before they interrogate them. As long as that person is in custody, if you are going to try them in a civilian court--and Director Mueller of the FBI, in response to questions I asked him, acknowledged that if you are going to try the person in the civilian courts and you conduct interrogation, you must give them Miranda warnings.

There have been suggestions that somehow the terrorist cases would allow the interrogation to go on a few hours, but I have not seen any real authority that would justify that. The clear Miranda standard for any police officer in America is that if you arrest someone, before you ask them questions, they must have been given their Miranda rights. That is the rule in the trial of any Federal court. I think it would be very dangerous to assume the court is going to give some extraordinary new rights that they have never indicated they would.

I thank the Senator, the Republican leader, for his good questions.

I would just say I think Senator Ayotte has worked very hard on this amendment. She herself is a skilled prosecutor. I believe the legislation would be helpful to us.

I will just say that as a matter of policy, you can be absolutely sure it will be more difficult to prosecute a case, more likely to complicate matters significantly, if they are given Miranda warnings, if they are given lawyers, if they are brought publicly before a judge--perhaps revealing to the other coconspirators the fact that you have been arrested before they can be apprehended. It would cause many more difficulties than are necessary.

Of all people we ought not to give extra rights to, it would be terrorists bent on killing and maiming innocent Americans.

I yield the floor.