Floor Statements

Will the Senator yield for a question?

And I feel the same way.

I understand the Senator from Alabama is the ranking member of the Budget Committee. Could the Senator tell me why six Senators have objected on his side of the aisle to having the conference on the budget? The Senate passed a budget bill 5 months ago, and we could have been in negotiations to resolve that. Could the Senator tell me why those six Senators object? And because of that objection, we do not have a budget. Senator Murray passed a budget working here in a marathon. The Senator will remember that.

I thank the Senator for his answer. I dispute the logic and the reasoning, but I thank the Senator, and I thank him for working with Senator Murray to move the budget. I will comment on that.

Mr. President, I now yield 3 minutes of the proponents' time to Senator Murray, the chairperson of the Budget Committee, who actually did pass a budget 5 months ago but has been precluded because of sheer, rigid, ideological posturing from being able to go to a conference, sit in a room with Paul Ryan, and work out what the budget of the United States of America should be. This is why we have gone from the greatest deliberative body to the greatest delay body.

So I yield 3 minutes and any other time she wishes to consume to Senator Murray, who has done an outstanding job, and I wish people would follow her lead and let her go to the conference so we could have a budget.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Washington State for her comments because, as usual, they were clear, cogent, and compelling.

We need to get a job done today. Our job today--am I correct--is passing a continuing resolution, which means we keep the funding at fiscal 2013 in place until we resolve other budgetary issues with the House. Is that correct?

Mr. President, we will be voting at 12:30 on four questions. Those four votes are cloture on the continuing resolution, waiver of a Budget Act on the point of order, the amendment that I offered on the continuing resolution, and final passage. But essentially it is all pretty much the same thing--it is four separate votes that get there.

Our goal today is to send to the House of Representatives a continuing resolution, stripped of ideological riders, that keeps the government funded until November 15 while we work out other budgetary issues. The continuing resolution historically was always meant to be short-term to get us over problems, to keep the government functioning while we solve problems we have been working on, and it has always been historically not to have ideological riders attached to them.

We the Democrats, hopefully with others who will join with us to find the sensible center--America always governs best when it finds the center, a sensible center--we want to find that and send it to the House where, No. 1, our continuing resolution will be until November 15. This gives us a couple of weeks to work these issues out.

No. 2, to take out the ideological riders. The first rider is to defund President Obama's Affordable Care Act. We want to strip that out because it is now the law of the land. There is no need to keep fighting the same battle.

Next, there is an ideological rider on how we structure paying our debt. That rider is a rigged game, that we pay China first before we pay other obligations to people here, debtors in our own country. We want to strip that out and then send them the continuing resolution, which is not new money. It keeps the Government operating until November 15 at fiscal 2013 levels. That is where we are. I want to explain, if we do not do this we could head to a government shutdown that is harmful to our country, it is harmful to our economy, and it is harmful to our standing in the world.

In plain English, after debating the continuing resolution last Thursday, we now have these four votes. A vote to waive a point of order against the continuing resolution where we could end up with more sand in the gears. Where we are now is that the vote on the Senate amendment to the House CR, as I said, strips out partisan ideology, shortens the date and moves on so the House can look at it.

A government shutdown is a serious matter. If we do not come together across the aisle, across the dome, across town, we will be facing a damaging government shutdown. Here are a few things that will happen. If we cannot enact a clean continuing resolution by October 1, our troops, including troops deployed overseas, will not be paid on time; 800,000 civil servants who serve the American people will be sent home and told they are nonessential. Shutting down the government will have an immediate and harmful effect on our economy. Small Business Administration approval of loans will be put on hold; important rural development housing and farm loan grants will be stopped.

Our economy is struggling to pick up steam. The uncertainty that we will create in the marketplace, in our own country and in the world, will put on the brakes to our economy. It is irresponsible and unacceptable for this to happen.

Every day, thousands of Federal workers keep Americans safe. We don't hear about them every day but they do make a difference. Every time a defective product is removed from the market, every time an inspector recommends a change to keep people safe in terms of approving the safety of our food supply or drug supply, every time a scammer or a schemer is arrested for fraud, the Federal Government and the people who work for them play an important role.

In my own State, I represent the National Institutes of Health. Last spring, Director Dr. Francis Collins announced we had reduced cancer rates in this country by 15 percent. Instead of pinning a medal on the men and women who did the basic research that could then lead to the private sector inventing new pharmaceutical and biological

products that would put that into clinical practice--instead of that, they had to announce a furlough. How would you like to be working at NIH right this minute and be told you are nonessential? You are working on a cure for cancer, you are trying to find out the causes of autism, you are trying to come up with a cure or at least cognitive stretchout for Alzheimer's--just talking about the A words--then you are told you are nonessential. They did not know that. The American people do not believe it.

We have to avoid a government shutdown and a government showdown. What we need to be able to do today is to be sure we work on our amendments and make sure we have cloture on the continuing resolution. We have had substantial debate. It is now time to bring that together, waive the Budget Act and the point of order, pass my amendment to change the time to November 15, and then have final passage.

The time to act is now. You hear in my voice great frustration. I am frustrated, not because of solutions I do not like--that is give and take in a legislative process. What I am frustrated about is the continual process of delay, where we not only throw sand in the gears of our ability to function, we are now throwing cement into those gears.

I hope we can move. There are cool heads on both sides of the aisle. There are people on both sides of the aisle who have worked together and can come together. Let's pass this continuing resolution, have the House act so we can avoid a shutdown so that our focus is on solving the important issues facing our country. Yes, there are those who call for reducing the public debt. I support that. We can do that through a balanced approach: additional strategic cuts, a review of mandatory spending, and a look at closing tax loopholes.

But there are other debts we have. We have the issue of chronic unemployment, of growing education unattainment, where our standing in the world is slipping. I worry that we will not fund the necessary research and development so, working with the private sector, we will come up with those new ideas that lead to new products, that lead to new jobs.

DARPA, a government agency, helped create the Internet. Then the genius of our private sector unleashed a power that the world has never seen. This is what America is known for--discovery, entrepreneurship, moving our own country ahead. This is what I hope we will get back to.

Let's get through this process. Let's get through this quagmire and let's keep America being what America can be.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise in support of the Reid-Mikulski amendment to the continuing resolution. Our amendment makes two important changes in the House CR. First the amendment clears out the toxic political item in the House CR--defunding the Affordable Care Act. It also removes the debt-limit provision that threatens the full faith and credit of the United States. It changes the date of the CR from December 15 to November 15 to see if we can't get to vote on an omnibus bill and end the sequester.

We are out of time. The fiscal year ends in 3 days. Let's pass the Reid-Mikulski amendment, let's pass the CR, and let's keep America's government working as hard as its taxpayers.

Mr. President, it is now time to vote on final passage. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote for this. It will prevent a government shutdown. It will lay the groundwork for us to get to a solution on the long-term fiscal needs of our country, including to replace sequester and to come up with an approach to fund essential government services where we make investments that America desperately needs.

If the Senate keeps this government open, it means continuing our critical services, it avoids a shutdown, and it lays the groundwork for solving our problems.

I urge the adoption and passage of this bill.

We yield back our remaining time.

Mr. President, I rise in support of the Democratic amendment to the House continuing resolution. We have offered this amendment because its content offers a clear path forward to do three things:

No. 1, avoid a government shutdown; No. 2, lay the groundwork for ending sequester for hopefully the next 2 years, which means finding a way to reduce our public debt in each of those years by $100 million; and, No. 3, get rid of the theatrical veto-bait-provocative amendments that are in the House bill calling for the defunding of the President's Affordable Care Act and also for the way they structure public debt.

We offered this amendment because we think it is the best way forward. The American people expect us to do our job. It is Thursday morning, 10:45, and we are only now getting on the amendment. Why? Because for the last several days we had to put up with theatrical politics, rather than get the job done and begin deliberation. We have gone from being the greatest deliberative body in the world to the greatest delay body in the world. The American people are fed up, and so are many of us in the Senate. When all is said and done, more gets said than gets done. This is the time to act.

We have an amendment on the floor that is open for full debate. I am absolutely for this, but we need to do the business of government to be able to do our job. We must replace the sequester and allow a 2014 Omnibus appropriations to move forward before the end of the year. That sentence alone shows what is wrong in communicating with the American people. Factually, it is accurate. It is absolutely truthful. But nobody understands sequester. Nobody understands the word omnibus and nobody understands what we are doing or, most of all, what we are not doing.

Sequester was an invention by the Congress, working with the President, to say that we will reduce public debt over a 10-year period by $110 billion a year, do it in a balanced way--strategic cuts, a review of mandatory spending and additional revenue--and if we fail to do that, sequester triggers, which means across-the-board cuts--50 percent in Defense, 50 percent in domestic.

The problem with across-the-board cuts is that it cuts good programs as well as programs that are dated, duplicative, or dysfunctional. I oppose that. I would rather make strategic cuts arrived at by the committee I chair--the Appropriations Committee.

For the last year, our committee has done its due diligence. Our job is to review programs and to put them in the Federal checkbook and bring them to the floor for debate, for amendment, and then for passage and sending them to the President. What we want to do in our amendment is to change the date of December 15 in the House bill to November 15. That will keep the pressure on to get the deal needed so Congress can get to work and enact 12 fiscally responsible appropriations bills, lay the groundwork for canceling sequester for 2 years, and invest in the

needs of America today and the needs of the future.

This amendment is important for two reasons. It prevents a government shutdown. The President has already said he will veto any bill that defunds ObamaCare; he will veto any bill that undermines the full faith and credit of the United States. So you can huff and puff for 21 hours, but you can't blow ObamaCare away. I repeat: You can huff and puff for 21 hours, but you can't be the magic dragon that blows the Affordable Care Act away. So if we pass the House continuing resolution, the President will veto it, which means more wasted time in getting the job done, and our agencies, instead of doing their job and fulfilling their missions--making wise use of taxpayer money and being responsive to the American people--will be spending their energy in planning for a shutdown, which amounts to a slamdown.

The President can sign the continuing resolution and keep the government open if we pass the Senate amendment, which will keep the government open until November 15 and gives us 1 month to arrive at pragmatic solutions. It cancels the provocative elements in it--the elimination of ObamaCare and the public debt--and also lays the groundwork for moving forward.

There will be a few things that will happen if we can't enact a clean continuing resolution, meaning keeping the government open by October 1. There are consequences here. This isn't just about show business. The government has to be open for business. An estimated 800,000 civil servants will be sent home or furloughed. What does that mean? If you are an FBI agent during this time, you will be on your job, you will be at your duty station, but when you are working, you won't get paid. You will get an IOU. What does that say to people who put themselves in the line of fire?

Shutting down the government means we will affect crucial research and lifesaving discoveries that will be put on hold. The NIH clinical center won't be able to admit new patients for new clinical trials. Weather forecasters, food safety inspectors, and those involved with public safety will be at their duty stations, but they are going to be earning IOUs and looking forward to across-the-board cuts, which means they could be furloughed when we have already told them there will be no cost-of-living increase for 3 years.

We want to recruit the best and the brightest for the FBI, to oversee our drug approval process, or to be border control agents--work that is dirty and dangerous out there. What are we doing here?

We show a contempt for the people who work for the government, and that also shows contempt for the people who pay for the government. Our government should be working as hard as the people who pay the taxes to support the government. The way they work hard is to put the money in there for the mission and purpose of these agencies, insist they do their jobs, and then we insist we get rid of the dated, the duplicative, and the dysfunctional. We have laid the groundwork for doing this. In fact, we have been doing it all year long.

I chair the Appropriations Committee. It is made up of 12 subcommittees. You will be hearing from my subcommittee chairmen throughout the day. I am so proud of them. For the last year they have listened. They have taken the President's budget and they have analyzed it. They have conducted hearings. They have reviewed it, they have scrubbed it--as I said, they have analyzed it and squeezed it. I am proud of them. Out of what they have done they are ready to bring to the Senate floor legislation that makes wise use of taxpayer dollars. They have listened at every single hearing to inspectors general, where we learn about the dated, dysfunctional, or duplicative, and they are ready to move. But we cannot move if we continue having theatrical showdown politics.

This will have grave impact. When we hear shutdown politics and eventually slowdown through sequester, what we are facing here will have a negative impact on our economy. It will add to the uncertainty for businesses to make wise decisions. It will also slow down, in a way, the impact to jobs because we fund infrastructure and other needed programs. It will impact public safety and it will impact future generations because of the big hit on research and development that comes up with the new ideas for the new jobs.

Later on today I will be talking about the NIH, which is in my State. Yes, the NIH. Because of NIH funding, thousands of people work in Maryland but thousands of people are working for the United States of America. And at the end of the day, they are trying to come up with cures--cures that can be opportunities to create--so we are talking about saving lives, doing the basic research that then helps us get those jobs in biomedical and pharmaceuticals, and also to improve the lives of our people, improve our economy, and get the job done.

I will have more to say, but right now I want to turn to Senator Pryor, who is the chair of the agriculture subcommittee. He is a new chairman, but he is not new to getting the job done. In fact, we refer to him as ``Tightwad'' Pryor. He has looked at the programs, he has analyzed how we are truly going to get value for the dollar and at the same time feed the hungry here and around the world, and also make sure that important, vibrant sector of our economy--the agricultural industry--is viable.

I yield the floor for Senator Pryor.

Madam President, as the chair of the Appropriations Committee, I rise to oppose the continuing resolution the House passed last week

on a party-line vote of 230 to 189. On behalf of all of the people of Maryland and all of the people of the United States, I am so frustrated; they should have a government that they can count on to operate, that they could count on to work as hard as they do; they should be able to count on having the government they pay for. However, what we have here is a manufactured crisis, with histrionics and theatrical politics attempting to bring us to the brink of a shutdown. It is shutdown, slam-down politics.

The CR that was sent over to us is loaded with political ideology. What does it do? First it wants to defund the President's Affordable Care Act and take health care away from those who need it. It also is designed to create a crisis over the debt ceiling and undermine the full faith and credit of the United States. Our President has been clear that he will veto any bill with these toxic political riders. He is right, and we will support him.

Much will be said in the media over the next several days about something called the continuing resolution. Well, here we go again using Washington-speak that nobody in America understands. Here we go with budget-speak. And the American people are saying: What are they trying to accomplish? Well, let me explain it in a straight-talk way.

A continuing resolution is a straightforward, simple act where we extend the government's funding beyond October 1 to a date certain. It is meant to continue the funding. It is always, historically, meant to be, No. 1, short-term and, No. 2, a stopgap measure as we work on getting final resolution of budgetary and fiscal matters. It is also designed to keep the U.S. Government open and functioning while we work out our difficulties.

So that is what a continuing resolution is meant to be. It was never meant to be a vehicle for controversial, provocative, poke-it-in-your- eye and stick-it-to-you controversial legislation. It was never meant to be a negotiating chip for a grander bargain to resolve issues, nor was it ever designed to be a weapon in the fight over the size and role of government. That is for the authorizing committee. That is what we do in our appropriations committees at the subcommittee level. That is what Senator Murray in her Budget Committee worked on when we passed the budget. That is where those fights come in, not at the end of the fiscal year.

Here we have the same old tricks and techniques we have seen year after year since President Obama was elected. They not only want to throw sand in the gears of the Obama administration, they want to throw cement into the gears of the functioning of government. Well, I think that is outrageous.

The House continuing resolution is a manufactured crisis driving us toward a shutdown. We have plenty of real crises in our country. How about the crisis of sustained chronic unemployment at 7 percent or higher in many of my communities or in certain sectors, such as construction, or in the rural parts of my State? There is also a real crisis for those who need health care. There is a real crisis for those who are seeking higher education and can't afford it. And look at our crisis in the foreign policy arena.

On the very day the President is speaking at the U.N. to project American power, the other side is trying on the Senate floor to make us powerless to function. If they want to project American power, they should be willing to show that the greatest parliamentary, deliberative body in the world can be parliamentary and deliberative in solving our problems. If they want to project power, it starts here, showing we can govern ourselves. We start by acting right and focusing on solving real problems with real solutions and getting off of this brinkmanship.

The President has said he will veto it, so the riders are veto bait. This is all designed to use a lot of time and a lot of resources. I was elected to the Senate to be a legislator, not a prop for a political farce. This is not Gilbert and Sullivan, this is the real deal.

The American people are fed up with these manufactured crises, and so am I. So let me give my view about where we want to go. And who is the ``we?'' I believe it is not only the Democrats in the Senate, but I believe there are pragmatists on both sides of the aisle who want to find a sensible center where we can achieve fiscal stability, begin to draw down our public debt but also have an opportunity to be progrowth in our country, where we focus on important issues of national security, rebuilding America with infrastructure, rebuilding our human infrastructure in terms of our educational system and also our research and development, coming up with the new ideas that will lead to the new jobs in the new century. The way we want to do this and the way I am suggesting is the way the American people would like us to vote.

The other party would like us to have a continuing resolution until December 15. That is one more gimmick to bring us to Christmas Eve, where we will have a lot of theatrics and jingle bells-jingle bells while we try to solve our situation.

I want a short-term CR. I would like one between now and November 15--not long term, not something just to dilly and dither. I am tired of dilly and dither. So I suggest a short-term CR for sometime around mid-November. The purpose of that would be that we would use that opportunity to get to a vote in December that would be on the funding of all of our bills, arrived at by a vote here, a conference committee with the House, where our spending would be sensible, it would be affordable, it would meet compelling human need, the national security issues of the United States, and would rebuild our infrastructure.

This isn't hard, but in order to get that, we need to clear out the toxic political items in the CR. So I want a clean CR. A clean CR means getting rid of the political riders of defunding ObamaCare and striking the debt limit rider.

Second, we need to have a shorter date. My recommendation would be around November 15 because the longer term CR means more autopilot functioning of government--in other words, more government dysfunction. November 15 keeps the pressure on both sides of the aisle to get the job done.

What is getting the job done? First of all, we would like to cancel sequester, and we would like to cancel sequester in a balanced way. What is sequester? We have to come up with about $110 billion in debt reduction. We can do that through additional strategic cuts. As an appropriator, I am willing to look at them. Secondly, revenue. What about those loopholes Mitt Romney talked about? Let's bring some of those back and examine them. Let's look at some of the items in mandatory spending. This is the way we can enact our bills, invest in and protect our country.

Our Nation faces long-term fiscal challenges. It does demand action from the Congress. But the place for those negotiations is not in a continuing resolution. It belongs in the Budget Committee. And the six Republican Senators who are planning to filibuster this week are the same ones who threatened and blocked the budget the Senate passed going to conference in the House. So they blocked the budget. Then they blame us because we don't have a budget. Go figure.

The House and Senate Appropriations Committees, the appropriators, have marked up annual funding bills. We are ready to make sure we can do our work, but we need the Budget Committee to give us a top line. We can't get to conference because Republicans have objected. Now they want to have a simple stopgap that leads to a showdown and a shutdown.

If we don't come together, we will have very serious consequences. If we do not enact a clean continuing resolution by October 1 that enables us to get to a sensible outcome in early December, the government will shut down. Doesn't that look great for the United States of America. We say to emerging democracies all over the world, Look at us.

We need to show we can govern.

It has not only consequences in the way we are viewed in the world; it provides uncertainty for business, it will be terrible for our economy, and it will have a direct impact on jobs. Business will not know what the government is going to do and so they don't know what they can do, so they will not be spending to create jobs. All we are doing is creating more chaos.

We want to be sure the Small Business Administration approves loans-- they need to be open to do that--that rural housing development and farm

loans are able to go out so we can help where that is needed.

We need to make sure crucial lifesaving discoveries at NIH happen. Right now if we have a shutdown, people will not be able to be admitted to the National Institutes of Health clinical trials and programs because they don't know if they will be continued.

Weather forecasters will be told they are not an essential service.

We are now looking at the impact on Federal law enforcement.

I could go item by item. I will talk more about these items as time goes on.

I will conclude by saying during this last year on both sides of the aisle the Appropriations Committee has functioned well. I thank not only my subcommittee chairmen--I see Senator Durbin, who chairs the defense subcommittee--but I also wish to thank the Republicans. My vice chairman of the committee, Senator Shelby of Alabama, supported me at every step of the process. We functioned with civility, intellectual rigor, and open amendments during the committee process. It was transparent. We had ``yes'' votes, we had ``no'' votes. But everybody had their day and everybody had their say. We were able to move our process forward, although we disagreed sometimes on the funding level for this or the funding level for that. But we came to a conclusion. I wish to thank them for their cooperation in the process.

Now we are here, where we could take the next step. Yes, we have to debate some of those line items. We do need to debate some of those programs. But we can't move forward unless we resolve the shutdown showdown.

Let's pass a continuing resolution that takes us to mid-November. Let's make that continuing resolution a clean CR, which means let's get rid of the political riders. Our goal in December is that we pass an omnibus bill that is affordable, sensible, meets compelling human needs, national security needs, our human infrastructure, and also lays the groundwork for new jobs by funding research and development, at the same time to cancel sequester, because we have arrived at it in a balanced way where, yes, we can make additional strategic cuts, where we also need to look at some of the items of mandatory spending, and let's look at some revenue. I think we can do it.

If we want to project American power, the way to do that is right now show that we can govern. Let's not get ourselves into a box where we are heading to a showdown. Let's not get ourselves in a situation where we end up with a shutdown. This will not be a way that builds confidence, builds our economy, and makes America continue to be as strong as it can be.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise to speak about ObamaCare.

When we passed the law, it was called the Affordable Care Act. And before he leaves the floor, I would like to compliment the Senator from Montana on the important and crucial role he played in passing the Affordable Care Act. It was through his excellent stewardship in the Finance Committee, where we could expand access to health care, modernize the way we do it to go from volume medicine to value-based medicine and to be able to expand our access in a way that also was fiscally prudent. He also led the way in expanding the children's health initiative.

I know later on he is planning in his life a new future for himself. I want him to know that while he is thinking about living a different life, he really impacted the lives of many people. I thank him personally in a heartfelt way for the way he has improved the lives of people and particularly the lives of children and women in this country.

So, Mr. President, here we are. We are having a national debate on the Senate floor about whether we should provide access to health care to all Americans and be able to do it in a way that is fiscally prudent and modernizes the way we deliver health care to emphasize value health care over volume health care. And we are having this debate even though we passed the legislation in 2010. I thought that when you passed a bill and it was signed into law, it was the law of the land but, no, here we go again. We are trying to take legislation that was passed and undo it by defunding it. I don't know what we are doing here.

First there was an attempt to delegitimize President Obama. He has won two elections. The American people said: We want Barack Obama to be our President. When he ran the second time, we passed the health care initiative. That was another affirmation that there was public support for that bill.

Now here we are, on the eve of the funding for fiscal year 2013 expiring, and there is a manufactured crisis bringing the government to the brink of a shutdown because a few in the other party are sore losers. They lost the election. They lost the battle to get the votes when they had the opportunity to vote and amend and change the Affordable Care Act. So now here we are, and I think it is an outrageous use of the Senate's time, and we need to be able to move on with the serious business of governing the country.

I worry about unemployment in our country. I worry about the fact that our children are no longer achieving the best in the world. I worry about my small to midsized business having access to capital.

I know many here called this bill a job killer. Do you know what is a job killer? Our behavior in the Senate. This gridlock, deadlock, hammerlock on the Senate means we cannot do the business of the country in an orderly and predictable way. Therefore, when businesses need to plan what are going to be the rules of the game coming out of the U.S. Government, they are not going to know. So if they are planning what they should do about their business--should they expand? What should they do--they need certainty. As long as we play brinkmanship politics, we cannot have certainty.

One thing is certain, though: We definitely should keep ObamaCare. I am happy to call it ObamaCare because I think Obama does care. But I think all of us here who are Democrats certainly in the Senate and many on the other side of the aisle also support the fact that we want to increase universal access. So let's go to what the legislation meant.

When we passed the Affordable Care Act, No. 1, it provided access to health care for more people. When we passed

that bill, 42 million Americans did not have access to health care. So that means that here in the United States of America, if you needed a doctor, that didn't mean you would have one. If you needed a prescription drug, it didn't mean you could afford to buy one. In many instances, this was a hardship on many families.

Also what the Affordable Care Act did is it ended abuses of health insurance companies. When we passed that legislation, people were denied health care on the basis of a preexisting condition. That often meant that for children in the United States of America, if they had juvenile diabetes, if they had cerebral palsy, their families couldn't get health care insurance because these children had preexisting conditions.

If you were a woman, it was even worse. Pregnancy was considered a preexisting condition, and in some instances where a woman had a premature birth and a C-section, she was denied health care because that was considered a preexisting condition. In eight States, if someone was a victim of domestic violence, that was counted as a preexisting condition and they didn't have access to health care. Now, what is that?

So in the Affordable Health Care Act we changed that law, so we created the opportunities that the punitive practices of insurance companies would not be a barrier to being able to get health insurance.

Then there was this other issue of lifetime caps. That means that if you had a condition and you hit a lifetime cap, then tough luck for you. What happens if you have a child with hemophilia? That is a hard thing for that child to face the rest of his or her life, and for the family. Don't you think there should be no caps on a benefit? What happens if you are struggling with cancer and you hit a cap? It doesn't mean your need for treatment ends; it just means your insurance company won't pay for it. Well, we lifted the annual lifetime caps.

For us women, the double insult of paying more for health insurance simply because we were women was repealed. In the Affordable Care Act, there is no gender discrimination. We found in our hearings that women paid 2 to 10 times as much for their health insurance as men of the same age and health status. We didn't think that was fair, and we changed it.

We also improved health care for seniors. No. 1, we added new Medicare benefits, such as free cancer screenings. Early detection means better treatment and a better chance of surviving that dread ``C'' word. It also provided an annual free checkup where someone could go and could get an identification of those silent killers early on. So if you have high blood pressure, if you have high blood sugar and we found those early, we could intervene before they either moved to a deadly situation or worse. We know undetected high blood pressure could lead to a stroke or to death. So we helped get better health care and better value for our seniors.

Then there is the prescription drug benefit. The prescription drug benefit--called Part D--had something in it called the doughnut hole. The doughnut hole was hard to swallow because it meant that once a senior's drug costs exceeded a certain amount, they went into not a doughnut hole but a dark hole and they had to pay for the full cost until they reached a catastrophic threshold. For many people with chronic conditions--not only those dramatic things like cancer but a chronic condition like diabetes--they could reach that doughnut hole pretty quickly. But that is exactly what enables you to manage your blood sugar--working with your doctor, following a program of diet and exercise, but you still need medication to help control that blood sugar. If you don't get that medication, you then could be headed for worse problems related to diabetic neuropathy, to vision loss, to the need for dialysis. You need to be in a program that you can follow and that you can afford. That is why closing the doughnut hole was so important. It saves lives, and it saves money.

I could go on to other examples about what is in the Affordable Care Act. There were many advances in terms of women, and there were many advances in terms of children. But I want people to know--because I am getting a lot of vitriolic tweets that somehow or another Maryland isn't being served. When I looked at the data from our own State's health commissioner, 48,000 young adults in Maryland were able to go on their parents' plans and have health insurance while they look for a job or finish their education. Also, 485,000 Marylanders on Medicare were able to get that annual checkup, and 72,000 Marylanders were able to participate in eliminating the doughnut hole. That saved them on the average $700 a year, for a total of $51 million that was pumped back into the Maryland economy to do other things and create jobs for other people.

So when they say they want to defund ObamaCare, what is it they then want to replace it with? Do they want to go back to Big Insurance and their punitive practices of denying coverage for a child with a preexisting condition? Let them call the parent of a juvenile diabetic or a child with cerebral palsy. Do they want to defend the part where young people can't stay on their parents' plan until they are 26? Do they want to make that phone call and say: We know you are working hard to find a job or finish your education. Oh no. Do they want to eliminate the caps on benefits? Do they want to eliminate closing the doughnut hole? No. They just say they want to eliminate it.

Well, I want to eliminate this from the CR, so let me tell you where I come in as the chair of the full committee. In a very short time, the majority leader will offer an amendment to the CR sent over by the House. I want to get rid of this brinkmanship, slam-down, showdown politics. The amendment we will be offering will strike the provision to defund ObamaCare. It will strike the provision that was put in on the debt ceiling which means that the way they want to structure it-- what the House sent over--is we pay China first and Americans at the end of the line.

I then want to set into motion working with our Democrats--it is not only us Democrats--to have a CR.

I want to have an amendment to strike the defunding of ObamaCare, strike the language on the debt limit, and move the date for the next continuing resolution from December 15 to November 15 so that we can get to a situation where we focus on completing our budget, getting an omnibus, and eliminating sequester for 2 years.

I want to get rid of the theatrical politics and get into the real business of running and helping govern America in a way that provides jobs, economic opportunities, and ensures our national security.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, what is the pending parliamentary business?

Are there any amendments that need to be set aside?

Mr. President, I am going to speak from the heart--a heavy heart--because six Marylanders died at the Navy Yard on Monday.

I join with all Americans in expressing my deepest condolences to all of the families of those killed and injured in the Navy Yard shooting, and I particularly express my condolences to the Maryland families.

I also thank our first responders, including the local and Federal law enforcement officers who were first to arrive at the scene and took control of this terrible, horrific situation. I thank the doctors and all the support staff at MedStar trauma center who worked so hard to help the injured and saved lives that day and every one of those who played such an important role in responding to that emergency.

My heart goes out to the victims and the families and to everyone who is mourning the loss of the men and women who died there. This has deeply affected those of us in Maryland, as it has those in nearby Virginia and the District of Columbia. But for us in Maryland, this is whom we mourn, a cluster of people, the dead, the shooting victims. This is Maryland and Virginia--hands across the Potomac--and we just can't believe it.

We think of Kenneth Bernard Proctor. He was 46 years old. He was a civilian utilities foreman at the Navy Yard. He worked for the Federal Government for 20 years. He lived in Charles County and married his high school sweetheart in 1994. They have two boys, now teenagers. He loved his sons and the Redskins.

Then there was Sylvia Frasier, who was 52 years old. She was a resident of Maryland and one of seven children. She studied computer information systems at Strayer College. She received

an undergraduate and her master's degree in computer information systems. She worked hard to get her education, and she wanted her education to work hard for America. She had worked at the Navy Sea Systems Command since 2000, and she worked a few nights a week at Walmart as a customer service manager, helping her family, paying off student debt. Sylvia really was a remarkable person.

Then there is Frank Kohler. He was 50 years old. He lived in a community called Tall Timbers, MD. And we certainly say that Frank was a tall timber when it came to working for his country. He too was a computer specialist. He worked as a contractor for Lockheed Martin. He was a graduate of Pennsylvania's Slippery Rock College, where he met his wife Michelle. He was president of the Rotary Club and was honored for his Rotary Club work. Down in southern Maryland, in St. Mary's County, they have an oyster festival that is coming up. He held the title ``King Oyster'' for his community service and organizing the Rotary Club's annual festival to raise money for the much needed Rotary Club Challengers. He was a great family man and loved by many.

There is John Roger Johnson, who was a civilian employee for the Navy who lived in Derwood, MD, for more than 30 years. He was the father of four daughters and a loving grandfather. His 11th grandchild is due in November. Like so many who live in our community, he loved the Redskins. His neighbors described him as smart, always had a smile, and was always there for his neighbors.

Then there is Vishnu Pandit, who was 61 years old. He came from India in his early twenties. He lived with his wife Anjali in North Potomac, MD. He was the father of two sons. He was well liked in his community and was known for helping people and particularly those who are part of the Indian heritage community in Maryland. He was known for talking about job opportunities, educational opportunities, and was a strong advocate for them. He was proud of his heritage from his mother country, but he was proud of being a citizen of the United States of America.

Richard Michael Ridgell, 52 years old, was a father of three. This guy, though, was a Ravens fan. When the Ravens came into Baltimore at No. 1, he bought season tickets and has owned them for the last 17 years. He grew up in a community called Brooklyn, MD, but settled in Carroll County in Westminster. He was a Maryland State trooper before he came to work in Federal service, a brave guy, and someone who really liked to protect and defend people in many ways.

Those are six of the 13 who died, and there are those who are recovering. It is just a heavy heart we have. In the wake of yet another senseless tragedy and mass casualties, I hope we do take action to end this kind of senseless act of violence that takes innocent lives in our communities. I hope we do something about it.

There are those who are calling for renewed background checks, and I support that, and renewed efforts to get guns out of the hands of dangerous people, and I support that. But there are also people who suffer from mental illness. This case is currently under investigation, so I am not going to comment on the person we know did this horrific act and the struggles he had with the demons inside of him. I just know we have to come to grips with problems. Yes, background checks are one thing, but really--and this is where I truly agree with the NRA--we have to do something about mental illness and early detection and early treatment.

We mourn for those whose lives were lost on Monday. We mourn for their families. And we hope now that out of this something positive grows. But I want to say to their families that today is not really the day to talk about public policy. The men and women who were at that Navy Yard were Federal employees. They worked hard every single day. They were proud to work for the U.S. Government. They were proud to do everything from IT service to security service. Some had master's degrees, some had a high school education. Whatever their education, whatever ZIP Code they came from, they really served one Nation and one flag.

I acknowledge their tremendous service to this country. I also acknowledge the wonderful way they were involved with their families and their communities. And on behalf of all of Maryland, I know Senator Cardin and I express our deepest gratitude to them for their lives and express our heartfelt sympathy and condolences.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, what is the pending business before the Senate?

Which is?

Mr. President, it is to that ominous resolution that I would like to speak.

Within a few days the Senate will be called upon to vote on whether to give the President of the United States limited authority to use military action in response to Syrian President Asad's use of chemical weapons against his own people. It is an enormous and grave decision. It is the most serious vote I can take.

When a U.S. Senator is called upon to authorize America's use of military action or military might, it calls for the

most sober reflection, the most due diligence analysis of the facts and the compelling need because once you vote to authorize the use of military might, you cannot take it back. It is one of the few votes you can't take back. We can vote on our budget this year, but there will be another vote next year. You can vote to confirm a member of the Cabinet, but they serve at the pleasure of the President. But once you vote to use military might or military action, it is irrevocable, so I take it very seriously.

I say to the men and women of our military that we owe them a tremendous debt of gratitude. I think that should not only be with yellow ribbons, but we also owe it to them to do the due diligence to choose the wisest, most prudent course.

This is what I have done as I have contemplated my vote on the Syria resolution. I went to numerous briefings before Asad used chemical weapons, and I have gone to all of the briefings since then. I participated as a member of the Intelligence Committee in a variety of meetings. I went to a classified House and Senate briefing. I have listened carefully to the President, to the Secretary of State, to the Secretary of Defense, and even had the opportunity to sit with the Vice President of the United States in the Situation Room at the White House to go over this situation and what options are available to the United States of America.

In addition to listening here in Washington, I have also listened to my Marylanders, whether at events or meetings going around the State, whether it has been grocery shopping or just being out in the Maryland community. I have also gotten thousands of e-mails and calls from Maryland constituents, and I want to thank them for their civic engagement. They overwhelmingly oppose military action in Syria. My constituents have spoken loudly and clearly. They don't want a war. They don't want boots on the ground. They don't want an all-in effort. They don't want to use or expend America's talent and treasure on another military expedition. They don't want war, and neither do I.

Yet the use of chemical weapons--a weapon of mass destruction--grim and ghoulish, mandates a response. The use of chemical weapons flies against all international law and international norms. It is an act that should have consequences or I believe it surely will happen again--in Syria, possibly in Korea, possibly used by Iran.

Since the attack, I have been waiting and hoping for a worldwide reaction because if it is serious enough for the world to be aghast, then it is serious enough for them to respond.

I have been waiting to hear from the 189 countries that are signatories to the Chemical Weapons Convention. I believe if you sign a treaty or a convention, you sign up for the responsibility that comes with that, which means stop proliferation of the weapons you signed against; stop the proliferation of chemical weapons; also, if necessary, to take action if mandated.

I am waiting to hear from the Arab League. I wanted to hear from the Arab League, beyond: Yes, we want Asad to be accountable. I don't know what that means--hold him accountable. What does that mean? Does it mean if we use missiles they will send in Arab men to defend Arab women and children? I have not quite heard that.

I have waited to hear from our allies, and there are a hearty, reliable few who have supported us. Are they going to help support the chemical weapons treaty? Are they going to help support the moderates in the opposition? Have they called for a donor conference on refugees? Hello out there.

Then there is the U.N. Security Council. By the way, I applaud the work of the U.N. weapons inspectors and the U.N.'s work on refugees, but where is the Security Council? People will say: Oh, we can't act unless the Security Council acts. Three times Asad enablers at the U.N., Russia and China, have vetoed every effort to move to a political solution--vetoed three times efforts to move to a political solution. The U.N. seems paralyzed in this effort.

In deciding my vote, I had to be sure that chemical weapons were used by the Asad regime. I was 1 of 19 Senators who voted against going to war in Iraq. I did vote after 9/11 to use lethal action against the Taliban, but when it came to the Iraq war, as a member of the Intelligence Committee I had reviewed these briefs and I did not believe Saddam Hussein had nuclear weapons so I voted no. I was right.

This time is different because, after extensive briefings and the evidence that has been outlined to members of the Intelligence Committee, I am satisfied that, indeed, chemical weapons were used in Syria and I am satisfied the Asad regime gave the order to do so.

There are those who say to me: Senator Barb, aren't you concerned about the risks and the retaliations if we take action? You bet I am. I worry about that. I worry about my own country. I worry about our own military. I worry about treasured allies such as Jordan, Israel, Turkey. But I also worry about the risk of doing nothing because, as I weigh this, I believe the risk and retaliatory possibilities are the same even if we do not act because if they do not use them in retaliation against us there is a very good chance that if we leave it unresponded to, they will use them anyway. There is no guarantee that by doing nothing the bad guys, who have chemical weapons, will do nothing. In fact, I fear that Asad, Iran, and North Korea will be further emboldened.

Last, I had to review the President's resolution that is pending before us, that came out of the Foreign Relations Committee, modified, and the President's plan. The President's plan is very straightforward, his proposal is very straightforward, a targeted limited attack. His purpose is to deter and to degrade; to deter Asad from using those weapons again and to degrade Asad's capability and capacity to use them.

I also listened to the President's promise--and I take him at his word--that any action would not be boots on the ground; that it is not an extended air campaign; that it is not another Iraq or Afghanistan; that we are not in it to try to do regime change. That must come from the Syrian opposition themselves, and I hope others help do that. It is meant to deter the use of chemical weapons and to degrade Asad's capability.

I believe the President's plan is the best response to protect U.S. security interests in the region and to show commitment to our common security interests with allies such as Turkey, Jordan, and Israel. Therefore, after great reflection and as much due diligence as I could do, I want to announce today to my colleagues, and most of all to the people of Maryland who supported me, that I will support the President's request for a targeted, limited military action against the Syrian President Bashar Asad's regime in response to the horrific, grim, and ghoulish use of chemical weapons.

Let me be clear: I have no grand hopes or illusions about what this strike will do. I do not believe this strike will stop Syria's brutal civil war. I do not believe this strike will stop Asad from being a ruthless, brutal dictator. I do not believe a strike will eliminate all of his chemical weapons. But I do believe it will deter and degrade his capability to strike again, and I do believe when you sign up for a convention to ban the use of chemical weapons, the United States of America acts in accordance with its responsibility.

Syria is one of the toughest foreign policy issues on which we have focused; there are not many good options. Yet I believe the President's plan is the best way and, as of this moment, the only way forward. He has my support.

In today's late-breaking news, I understand Russia has now said: Oh, let's put these weapons under international control. Where were the Russians during the U.N. Security Council meetings on those three other occasions? Is this another tactic for delay? Is this just another tactic to enable Asad to have more time to focus?

I remain skeptical, but I will leave that to the President to analyze the Russians' intent about what their followthrough is on that. Today is not to mandate the strike. My vote does not mandate a strike. But my vote is to say: Mr. President, you are the Commander in Chief. We can only have one at a time. You analyze the situation and if you think it is necessary to protect the security of the United States of America and to fulfill our responsibilities under the conventions we

have signed on chemical weapons, you have my support to act in what you think is the best way and in our best interests.

I look forward to additional debate with my colleagues and also further in this debate, in coming to closure, hopefully this week.

I yield the floor.

I note the absence of a quorum.

I agree that this bill in no way limits the ability of the Board to oversee projects under its jurisdiction and facilitate their construction.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak on an important anniversary in our country. In just a few weeks, we will commemorate the 50th anniversary of the famous March on Washington. On August 28, 1963, we marched. We marched for jobs, for justice, for the economy, and for freedom.

I remember that march. I was getting ready to go back to school. Baltimore was a staging location, and many social workers helped as marchers came down from New York and Pennsylvania. These determined individuals--a diverse group--all with a story and a cause, made up the nearly 250,000 people who marched that day. It was an important testament to the power of a collective voice, one in support of equal rights and treatment of all. And it was this collective voice that helped lead to the passage of the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act.

We have had many victories, and made much progress in ensuring equality for all. We have elected a Black President to the White House, passed the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, repealed DOMA and Don't Ask Don't Tell. We have accomplished so much, but we still have so far to go. The fight for civil rights is far from over. Racial, religious and gender violence continues in our streets and in our homes. Voters rights have been threatened by the recent Supreme Court decision, leaving Americans vulnerable to prejudice and intimidation. And so we find ourselves, 50 years later, fighting many of the same fights.

We need to reclaim that bill of rights, and not let any court decision take it away from us. They are chopping away at the Voting Rights Act, but let's change the law if we have to. Let us march for our liberties and the people who were there, and said ``ain't I a man'', later calling on the words ``ain't I a woman''.

So it is important now more than ever to hold that dream of Dr. King in our hearts. Let's remember the history that was written here 50 years ago. And just as we marched then, we need to march today. Together we can end injustice. Together we can break down barriers to equality, so that all people regardless of race, faith or gender can live in a country that never promised anything less than their undeniable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Robert S. Mueller, III, and to thank him for his 12 years of service as the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, FBI.

Director Mueller had just settled into his office just a week before the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. These attacks on the Nation affected us all, including in my home State of Maryland. In the terrible aftermath of the events of that day, we grieved together. On 9/11, we were caught unprepared, searching for answers and scrambling to find a way to prevent future attacks.

After 9/11, the FBI was charged with a heavy responsibility: disrupt terrorist plots before they happen by identifying, tracking, and dismantling terrorists on U.S. soil. During his term, Director Mueller has provided steadfast leadership, guiding the FBI as it transformed from a traditional domestic law enforcement agency into a global counterterrorism and crime-fighting force. His guidance has helped keep Americans safe from terrorist attacks here at home and abroad. But such leadership is nothing new to Director Mueller. Before he led the FBI, he served our Nation as a decorated marine in Vietnam, and as a Federal prosecutor who tackled cases ranging from the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 to the prosecution of Panamanian dictator Manuel Noriega.

Director Mueller has shown unwavering commitment to the FBI and its mission. He is the only Director to serve a full 10-year term, and then serve another 2 years. From day one, he has fought to make sure the hard-working men and women at the FBI have the tools they need to carry out their extraordinary responsibilities. As chairwoman of the Senate Appropriations subcommittee that funds the FBI and as a member of the Intelligence Committee, I am proud to call Director Mueller my steadfast partner in that fight. Together, we have worked to provide the FBI with the capabilities to stop terrorists before they attack us here at home, go after schemers and scammers who prey on hard-working American families, prevent cyber terrorists from devastating our technology infrastructure, and catch sexual predators who seek to harm our children.

Lastly, Director Mueller has strong integrity. He speaks truth to power, even when the truth is unpopular or inconvenient. He is a straight talker--when he tells me that the FBI needs more tools to carry out its national security and crime-fighting duties, I find a way to help him get those tools because I trust his judgment, and I trust his leadership. He answered the call to service when President Bush asked him to serve as FBI Director in 2001. And he answered the call of President Obama when asked to serve 2 more years.

We live in extraordinarily critical times, and face threats from both within and outside our Nation. But over the past 12 years we knew that having Director Mueller at the FBI meant that one of the tested ``nighthawks'' was guarding our Nation's national security. I speak for all Americans when I say that we have been privileged to have such a committed and dedicated public servant leading the FBI. I will miss my steadfast partner and friend and, above all, wish to send him a heartfelt thank you.

Mr. President, I rise today in strong opposition to the Toomey motion to recommit. This motion to recommit would send the transportation-housing bill back to the committee with a new allocation of $45.5 billion, a cut of $8.5 billion from the Senate bill's current level of $54 billion. The THUD subcommittee would then have to rewrite its bill to the new, lower allocation.

This motion is simply a backdoor approach to make sequester the new normal by slashing the THUD bill. This is a cut of the magnitude proposed in the Ryan budget. I remind my colleagues the Ryan budget puts a moat around defense spending, and cuts $91 billion from domestic programs. I will not accept sequester, I will not accept the Ryan budget, as the new normal.

The allocation for the THUD bill is based on a topline of $1.058 trillion. This is the presequester topline contained in the American Taxpayer Relief Act, a law that passed the Senate by a vote of 89 to 8 in January. The allocation for THUD proposed by the Toomey amendment is based on a topline of $967 billion, the postsequester level.

Those who support $967 billion want to make sequester the ``new normal.'' They say: We must follow the law, and sequester is the law. First of all, the House is not following the law. The House ignores the law by taking all $91 billion of cuts out of domestic discretionary programs.

This committee's spending allocations assert that sequester will be replaced with a balanced solution to the deficit problem that will be decided in a conference on the budget resolution. But guess what. Six Senators have objected to a conference on the budget resolution. And now this motion to recommit is further sand in the gears of the appropriations process. But I am determined that this committee will not be undermined by this obstructionism. While we wait for the Budget Committee to be able to do its job, we will continue to do our job.

Colleagues, this isn't a disagreement about whether we should have across-the-board cuts. Nobody thinks across-the-board cuts are smart. This is a disagreement about how much we will invest in America, in our infrastructure, our people, and our national security.

The Toomey motion to recommit would require huge cuts--in this case, $8.5 billion in cuts--but it provides no specifics. The THUD bill keeps America moving on land, at sea, and in the air. This motion to recommit stops America in its tracks. If this motion passes, roads will not be resurfaced, bridges will not be replaced or repaired, air traffic controllers will not be hired, and airports will not be upgraded. And all these cuts mean one thing--fewer jobs--fewer good American jobs.

The FAA modernization program will be delayed--again. This delay will cause more congestion at our airports and leave America further behind in the global economy. And these cuts mean safety will be put at risk, with fewer resources for the agencies charged with keeping us safe on the roads and in the air. These cuts today have consequences for years to come. This is true for our physical infrastructure, and it is true for our human infrastructure.

This motion is irresponsible and should be rejected. It demands $8.5 billion in unspecified cuts, which would have terrible impacts on America's infrastructure, and on our efforts to create good jobs right here at home.

I believe our government should meet compelling human needs. It should provide for the national defense. And our government should make smart investments today so our Nation will grow stronger tomorrow.

This motion to recommit puts all of these essential functions at risk and would have terrible near-term and long-term impacts. I strongly oppose the Toomey motion to recommit.

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

Madam President, as the chair of the full Committee on Appropriations, I rise today to comment on this bill, but also to thank and acknowledge the really important role that Senators Murray and Collins have played. Really, it has been the way the Senate should operate. They have held extensive hearings in the subcommittee on America's needs in transportation--an ever-piling up backlog that we need to address.

It would accomplish several good, agreed-upon public policy goals. No. 1, safety. Because when we are talking about roads, bridges, and the other infrastructure areas in this bill, safety is our No. 1 priority.

No. 2, when you are building or repairing a bridge in Maryland, Maine, Washington State, or North Dakota, those people are working in the United States of America, and, hopefully, the supply chain involved--whether it is asphalt to steel--is made in the good old USA. So what we would do is improve the safety rates and lower the unemployment rate and at the end of the day have something to show for it.

So many of the American people are frustrated with us when it comes to spending because they think if they give us $1, we will spend $2 and not have spit to show for it. But yet in this bill, at this time, we have a legislative framework, and a restrained fiscal framework, to be able to move on important transportation infrastructure needs and on housing.

The appropriate role for the Federal Government to be involved in is housing: those things that are involved in, No. 1, promoting economic development in blighted areas, regardless of whether you are in an urban State or a rural State. The needs of North Dakota are different than the needs of Maryland. Even in my very dear State of Maryland, we have different needs in different parts of the State. The robust Baltimore corridor, which is more urban, requires one framework for the community development block grant money.

If you go to Garrett County, in the western part of my State, that was hit by a blizzard during Hurricane Sandy or you go down to the Eastern Shore, Somerset County, that was hit by a hurricane, literally flooding to dangerous proportions--those two counties have as high a poverty rate as Baltimore City.

So when we talk about the great things in this bill, what I like about it is it is local--it is money that will come for local needs. The needs of Garrett County and Somerset County are different than the needs of Baltimore City. But what we do know is that we need jobs and we need to be able to address the needs of the people who want to be middle class and are looking for an opportunity to get there and also for the compelling needs particularly of the elderly and disabled.

Again, we in the Senate know because we are urban and rural and suburban. You meet different needs according to the locale. In Baltimore City, it is a high concentration of elderly in certain areas. We can meet those needs through a combined effort of housing, Meals On Wheels, helping people be able to receive coordinated services to keep them independent and healthy. When you get to the rural parts, that is even harder.

So what I like about this bill is it is, first of all, focused on rebuilding America. I so salute our troops. We have been in a 10-year war. The consequences of that war will be felt by the men and women who served and the taxpayers who have to pay it for many years to come.

But as we look at this, what they fought for is for America. Now we have to think about rebuilding America. I am glad we gave it a try in Iraq. OK. We gave it a try in Afghanistan. But come home, America. As the troops come home, and hopefully the money comes back home, we begin to show results there. If we rebuild our infrastructure, focus on compelling human needs, I think we will not only serve the Nation well but people will begin to have trust in us that through smart approaches, restrained spending, we can get there.

I am proud of what this bill does in Maryland. It does create jobs. It helps with infrastructure. This bill is absolutely crucial to Maryland. First, the THUD bill provides $40 billion for highways and nearly $9 billion for mass transit. We need that. This means Maryland will receive in fiscal year 2014 $700 million.

We are not waiting only for the Federal Government. The Maryland General Assembly recently increased the gas tax--very controversial-- because of our compelling needs. Governor O'Malley and our general assembly wanted to rise to the occasion, but they want us to rise to the occasion as well.

As we look at some of these projects, they affect not only the State of Maryland but they affect the region and the Nation. The Presiding Officer was not here when we had a horrific accident in 2009 on the Metro. The Metro suffered a terrible crash: brakes failed, safety systems failed, a lot failed--nine people lost their lives.

We said we were going to create a safety culture and turn to our National Transportation Safety Board to be able to do it. I made two promises to families: that I would do everything I could to see what were appropriate Federal safety standards and to put money in the Federal checkbook to improve that safety. I demanded reforms at Metro management to a culture of safety.

So where are we now? Guess what. We have put money in the Federal checkbook, $150 million to continue to buy the important crash- resistant cars that will be able to help them. The money will be used for signal improvement, rail car maintenance to make sure we are improving this.

Safety is the No. 1 obsession with me. In addition to working on Metro, I know this bill deals with FAA's contract tower program, a subject of much debate during last year's continuing funding resolution. I remember real debate with Senator Moran on how we could keep those airports open.

They are the first to be hit by the sequester. I have five of them. They are in communities called Easton--by the way, Secretary Rumsfeld is down there. Cheney would come by as well--the Frederick Municipal Airport that the President uses periodically for

coming to Camp David, Hagerstown, Martin, Salisbury, and Ocean City.

Those towers are important for two reasons: national security and economic security. So we are looking at how we can make sure we keep these towers open so airplanes can come and land safely and take off safely and aid the commerce to our communities.

You have heard me also speak about housing and community development. When I got started in Congress, we had something called revenue sharing that was started by President Nixon so the local communities would get formula-based funding to help them rebuild their communities or strengthen them in the area of economic development.

That changed. That ended. That ended during the Gingrich era. But we came up with community development block grant money. Again, that money comes locally to meet local needs. The criteria are: eliminate blight, improve employment opportunities, and be able to create a sustainable infrastructure that will not need government subsidies so the community can be able to sustain itself and build on that to create jobs.

We are very impressed with this. Again, this legislation meets needs for seniors and housing. I could go on about it. But this bill is a very important accomplishment for the State of Maryland. When I talk about safety, I note the Portman amendment. I note Senator Cardin has an amendment on a report on the highway deck.

I wish to say something else. We had some tough things happen in my State over the last couple of days on the Bay Bridge. Many of the people in this Senate travel the Bay Bridge, some to go to their State. We are a next-door neighbor with our pals from Delaware, Senators Carper and Coons, who represent the Delmarva Peninsula, a wonderful place. We hope the Presiding Officer comes over sometime and actually sees real water, oceans and rivers and crabs and so on, the Senator from North Dakota.

But this bridge, we now have two of them because of the volume, and then, second, the way people travel on it, the velocity has increased. Last Friday, we had a terrible situation where a truck tailgated a passenger vehicle and pushed it off the bridge--off the bridge. The car fell 40 feet.

Thank God the passenger survived, a young lady who--the impact was so hard, the windshield broke, so she was able to get out. She is a fitness instructor. So she had the robust and physical vigor to be able to swim to safety. We thank God for her survival. But we are now scared on the Bay Bridge.

Yesterday, we had another head-on collision on the bridge. The AAA, the American Automobile Association, has called upon the National Transportation Safety Board to review the conditions on our bridge. Are the barriers high enough? Should we be using two-way traffic now to alleviate the traffic jams because transportation is changing? In other words, these are very important questions related to safety.

Do we need another bridge? An analysis needs to happen. If we build another bridge, should it be there or further south? Controversy. But again we need analysis.

I cite that example because as I review the facts of this case and consult with the State, I too am considering joining with the American Automobile Association to ask for the NTSB to review the accidents on the bridge and give us recommendations in terms of what we need so it does not happen again.

You cannot fall 40 feet. It could have been someone elderly. There could have been babies in that car. It does not matter. You cannot fall 40 feet off the bridge being rear-ended by a trick and think it is OK. You cannot have a head-on collision and think it is OK. I do not think it is OK what is happening on the Bay Bridge.

I now want to work with my Governor and consider what are the best steps forward. But as of today, I am very strongly recommending a review by the National Transportation Safety Board to look at it. It is not only what is happening in Maryland. It is what is happening all over America.

I see on the floor the Senator from Oklahoma. I am going to yield the floor so others can speak. But before I do, I wish to compliment Senators Murray and Collins and the way they have been moving this bill. I think it is important.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Wait a moment, I suggested the absence of a quorum.

I object.

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

Madam President, my colleague from Oklahoma was waiting to offer amendments, but filling in for Senator Murray, I was trying to get a sense what that meant. The reason I wanted the quorum to go on was so I could have a chance to talk to the Senator from Oklahoma. Wherever he is, I want him to know that if he thinks I was trying to stifle him or not allow him to have his rights on the Senate floor, I apologize. What I was trying to do was create an orderly process so we could keep this excellent momentum going. I invite Senator Coburn to please return to the floor. If in any way he felt I was being negative toward him, I do not mean that. In fact, what I meant was let's get it clear so he could go forward.

The Senator from Oklahoma and I have an excellent relationship. We have agreed on many things, and we have duked it out on others. We did promise an open amendment process, and we intend to keep it.

Again, I apologize. I invite him to come back to the floor. Let's have a discussion and let's keep it going.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Madam President, I wish to add some further comments on the bill while we are waiting for Senators to return to the floor to offer amendments. I note the gentlelady from Maine is returning.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Well said.

I thank the Senator, and I wish to respond to the ranking member of THUD to say this: No. 1, yes, that is our understanding. As we move ahead on this bill, remember that this is the first appropriations bill on the floor in 2 years and the first time THUD has been on the floor in 4 years. The Senator from Maine and Senator Murray are to be commended. The old-school way--old school, with respect--was an open amendment process with alternating amendments back and forth. Old school was never to bring up 12 or 15 amendments at one time; it was usually 1 amendment.

So the understanding is that it is to go back and consider one amendment at a time, alternating sides, with the understanding that the Senator from Oklahoma wishes to speak on a variety of amendments and offer them.

Again, I think we have cleared the air, and I am so happy about that. So I do concur with the Senator from Maine.

We also understand, in addition to his amendments, alternating among the ranking member, the chair, and the chairman of the subcommittee, there might also be other intervening amendments; is that correct?

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I rise as the chair of the full Appropriations Committee in support of the fiscal year 2014 Transportation, Housing and Urban Development appropriations bill. At noon we will be voting on the motion to proceed. I am here in the strongest, most affirmative way to urge my colleagues to please vote yes so we can get on with this very important bill that was fashioned with bipartisan participation to literally get America moving again.

The Transportation-HUD appropriations bill for 2014, under the leadership of Senator Murray and the ranking member Senator Collins, is an outstanding effort. It shows what bipartisan consensus is and focuses on two things: America's infrastructure and transportation and meeting compelling human needs in housing and urban development, both of which contribute to creating jobs in the United States of America.

This is not a bill where jobs will be on a slow boat to China or a fast track to Mexico. It puts America on the right track to meet these needs in transportation.

There is a very good reason we need this bill. The American Society of Civil Engineers says the need for physical

infrastructure in our country is piling up. Steel rusts, asphalt wears out, and buildings need to be repaired, to be maintained.

It is not politics; it is physics. We have to make investments today so our Nation can grow. We still have an unemployment rate of over 7 percent.

So how do we get America moving? Public investment that creates private sector jobs.

That is what we like about transportation. This bill, under the leadership of Senators Murray and Collins, includes Federal aviation-- that is a word for airports--the Federal Highway Administration, in which we need to build and repair, Amtrak, and also the National Transportation Safety Board. When there is an accident, they are on the job find out what the problems are.

This bill keeps America moving on land, sea, and in the air. But, most of all, it is about bread-and-butter issues. It meets real needs in real time in our communities, building roads and building community.

This is also why I am a strong supporter of the housing and urban development aspects in this bill. The Presiding Officer knows of my social work background; I know of his as a county executive--working hand in hand on the needs of the people in the Delmarva Peninsula. We know there is prosperity and pockets of poverty. This bill, through the community development block grants, helps meet these compelling needs-- again, local needs decided by local leaders in real time. It also meets needs for the elderly and for the disabled.

The Senate bill provides an allocation, under my leadership, of $54 billion in discretionary spending. This is in sharp contrast to the House bill, which provides $10 billion less than the Senate. The House allocation fails to provide those resources in transportation. Senators Murray and Collins will go into that in more detail.

But what I want to be able to say is, under my leadership as the full committee chair, my subcommittees have marked up--with the budget bill passed under Senator Murray's leadership chairing the Budget Committee--a top line of $1.058 trillion. Oh, my God, $1 trillion. Well, remember, $600 billion goes to defense, and $400 billion comes to domestic needs. If ever there were domestic needs, it is in our physical infrastructure in meeting the tattered, worn aspects of our communities.

There is a much greater debate going on in our country now because of the Trayvon Martin-George Zimmerman situation. A debate has begun, really under our President's encouragement, on race, ethnicity, and other aspects.

Well, what we need to do is be able to take stock of ourselves--take stock of ourselves: how we treat one another, how we view one another. Do we view one another as enemies consistently, do we view them on street corners or in communities, or do we begin to look at how we build community in our neighborhoods, starting with housing for the elderly, making sure the disabled are taken care of, having respect for one another, passing an education bill dealing with the student loans.

This bill will put Americans to work and also meet our compelling needs, and we can do it in a way that shows we can do smart spending to accomplish national goals.

I too want to reduce the public debt of the United States, but I am going to lower our unemployment rate. I am going to lower the rate of danger in our physical infrastructure. I also really want the motion to proceed to pass.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I rise in support of one of Maryland's favorite sons, Mr. Tom Perez, the President's nominee to lead the Department of Labor. Mr. Perez has been the Assistant Attorney General for the United States and has also been Maryland's Secretary of Labor and Licensing and also was a member of the Montgomery County Council. All three of these jobs show his expertise and his ability to navigate some very complex situations. I believe he is the right man for the job.

I support his nomination, not only because he is one of Maryland's favorite sons, but because I believe he brings integrity, competency, and commitment to the mission of the Department of Labor.

His resume is outstanding. A Harvard Law School graduate. He has served in public service at the Federal, State, and county levels and he has a commitment to the mission of each agency.

In terms of personal background, it is really the story of America. His father came to this country under very difficult circumstances. His grandfather was one of the leaders of the voices of freedom in the Dominican Republic--punished for that and declared a persona non grata. But his father was able to stay in this country as a legal immigrant, go on to military service, and become a physician. And to show his gratitude to this country, he worked only for the Veterans Administration serving the country that saved him and his family.

Tom grew up with public service in his DNA. His father died when he was a young boy and he will tell that compelling narrative, but through the dint of hard work, a loving mother, and a nation that offered opportunity--he was able to work his way through school, get the scholarships, worked even as a trash collector during summer break to be able to advance himself.

He knows what the American dream is, but he also knows what hard work is, and he knows what an opportunity ladder we need to have in this country.

But in addition to that, he brings a great deal of skill--we know Tom at the Montgomery County Council level where government is closest to the people had to really govern best. And it is a complex, growing county where you had to work with public-private partnerships.

I admire Tom so much for his work as head of the Maryland Department of Labor. They now have a letter in the Record recommending Tom to be the Secretary of Labor. Why? Because he listens, he learns, and he brings everybody to the table for a pragmatic, fair, and collaborative work.

That is how he earned support from worker advocates and many of the Maryland's largest employers, the Maryland University System, the Maryland Association of Community Colleges, the Maryland Minority Contractors Association, and the Greater Baltimore Committee.

I am confident Tom Perez will be an excellent Secretary of Labor. I know he will be a strong voice for the working class and for keeping the government on the side of the people who need it. I urge my colleagues to support his nomination.

Madam President, I am proud to rise today to support the Keep Student Loans Affordable Act. This bill would extend the current interest rate of 3.4 percent for subsidized Stafford loans for the next school year. This interest rate reflects a record low for interest rates on Federal student loans, and these loans can only go to students and families that demonstrate a need for them; 60 percent of dependent subsidized loan borrowers come from families with incomes of less than $60,000. Subsidized Stafford loans help more than 7 million college students without worrying that the interest on their loans will begin accruing while they're in school. It helps more than 105,000 students in Maryland. Middle class families are feeling stretched and stressed and if we fail to act, students could be facing an additional $1,000 in debt over the life of their loans.

I would also like to announce my support for the Bank on Student Loans Fairness Act, introduced by Senator Elizabeth Warren. This legislation would lower the current interest rate of 3.4 percent to 0.75 percent for subsidized Stafford loans for the next school year, which is the same interest rate that banks pay. Banks have arbitrarily raised interest rates on consumers, and applied higher interest rates retroactively. They charged fees without any legitimate purpose--and then charged interest on top those unfair fees. And they marketed their products to college students who they knew could not afford the credit they were providing.

The banks are not looking out for the best interest of students; they are looking after themselves to make a profit. The Federal Government has worked hard to keep student loan interest rates as low as possible to ensure that access to higher education remains a viable option for students and their families. That is why it is important that we work together to keep the interest of students at heart and not create additional burdens on them. So why not let students pay the same interest rates as banks?

I have said this often, but we in this country enjoy many freedoms-- the freedom of speech, the freedom of the press, the freedom of religion. But there is an implicit freedom our Constitution does not lay out in writing, but its promise has excited the passions, hopes, and dreams of people in this country since its founding. The freedom to take whatever talents God has given you, to fulfill whatever passion is in your heart, to learn so you can earn and make a contribution--the freedom to achieve.

When I was a young girl at a Catholic all-girls school, my mom and dad made it clear they wanted me to go to college. But, right around graduation, my family was going through a rough time because my dad's grocery store had suffered a terrible fire. I offered to put off college and work at the grocery store until the business got back on its feet. My dad said:

Barb, you have to go. Your mother and I will find a way,

because no matter what happens to you, no one can ever take

that degree away from you. The best way I can protect you is

to make sure you can earn a living all of your life.

My father gave me the freedom to achieve. And this legislation will give millions of Americans that same freedom without adding a dime to the deficit.

Students will bless us if we are successful in keeping their student loan interest rates as low as possible. Getting a college education is the core of

the American dream and I am going to be sure that every student has access to that dream and make sure that when they graduate their first mortgage is not their student debt. Senator Reed's legislation should be passed in a swift, expeditious, uncluttered way. It gives our students access to the American dream. It gives our young people access to the freedom to achieve, to be able to follow their talents, and to be able to achieve higher education in whatever field they will be able to serve this country.

While our work is not done when it comes to ensuring access to affordable higher education, this bill helps us get there. While these bills will fix the problem today, I will continue to work with my colleagues to figure out a longer-term solution.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I come to the floor to speak on the bill that is before us, the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Bill. No matter what side of the aisle you are on, we can all agree that our current system is not working, and it is in need of reboot and reform. I believe that the bipartisan approach taken in this bill gives us an opportunity to address this issue in a thoughtful manner. I thank the drafters of this bill for their hard work and tireless advocacy; I also thank Chairman Leahy and the Majority Leader for the open and transparent process that this bill has undergone.

I have three principles on immigration reform: we must protect our borders, protect American jobs, and reward those who play by the rules. And I believe that this carefully drafted and negotiated bill meets all of these metrics. In addition to an accountable path to citizenship for the undocumented population currently in the U.S., the bill also includes new resources to secure our border and puts forth a rational approach to future legal immigration to the U.S. While I do not agree with every part of this bill, I believe that the compromises that were made are fair. In passing this bill, we do what is right for our economy, and we do what is right for our society.

This bill makes important reforms across the board, but I want to focus on a few that are of particular importance to Maryland. The seafood industry is the lifeblood of Maryland's Eastern Shore. It is also a traditional industry that is adapting in today's world. They rely on H-2B workers to keep their businesses running when American workers are unavailable. I have consistently fought for an approach to the H-2B program that recognizes that one size does not fit all, protects the wages and jobs of all workers, and provides the certainty that small businesses need to survive. This bill includes important, tailored provisions that ensure the availability of the H-2B program. The inclusion of the returning worker exemption, a provision that I sponsored for many years, simply allows workers who entered during this fiscal year not to be counted toward the H-2B cap through 2018. This is a fix that aids the small, seasonal businesses that rely on these workers year after year, such as the crab-pickers on Maryland's Hooper's Island.

The bill also includes language that protects the wages of American workers while striking a balance with the needs of employers. It adds crucial

worker protections by providing for transportation costs for H-2B workers, mandating that employers are responsible for fees, and requiring that American workers not be displaced. The H-2B program is far from perfect--and it could benefit from improvements--but its availability is vital to many businesses. It is our job to make sure that it works for all.

Tourism is vital to Maryland's economy, and programs like the Visa Waiver Program ensure our friends and allies around the world are able to visit our State. Each year, the Visa Waiver Program allows 16 million tourists to visit the United States and spend more than $51 billion, while supporting half a million jobs. This bill includes important provisions to expand the Visa Waiver Program that I have long fought for. These provisions give discretion to the Secretary of Homeland Security to include countries that meet strict security requirements, while also protecting our borders and creating jobs in the tourism industry. New national security requirements mean stronger passport controls, border security, and cooperation with American law enforcement.

The current system punishes our allies--and that is what is happening with our close friend Poland. Poland has been a longtime friend to the U.S. and has stood with us in Iraq and Afghanistan, fighting and dying alongside Americans. But Polish citizens cannot visit the U.S. without a visa. Expanding the Visa Waiver Program to Poland alone could mean $181 million in new spending and could support 1,500 new jobs. The expansion of the Visa Waiver Program is good for national security and economic development and helps our most trusted allies.

Now is the time for comprehensive immigration reform. Immigrants are part of the fabric of our country, and we all benefit from an approach that recognizes these contributions while ensuring that our laws are followed and respected. This bill does that, and I look forward to supporting its passage here in the Senate.