Floor Statements

I ask unanimous consent that committee report be considered as read.

Mr. President, I rise to speak on behalf of the conference committee. I rise as the chair of the Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, and Science, one of the three subcommittees in the conference report. The other is agriculture. Senator Kohl will be coming to the floor to speak on behalf of his bill that is part of the conference, and others will speak.

I wish to speak on the Commerce-Justice bill. I am pleased the Senate is considering the conference agreement on fiscal year 2012. As I said, I am CJS. Senator Kohl will speak on agriculture. Senator Patty Murray managed the bill on transportation and housing. She is the chair, and I am sure either she or her designee will speak about a subcommittee we affectionally call THUD.

But let me talk about the CJS conference agreement. This is a great agreement. It is the product of bipartisan and bicameral compromise and cooperation. I wish to thank my ranking member, Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison and her excellent staff. We worked hand in hand on this bill.

I wish to talk about our colleagues in the House. Much is made about the prickly situation sometimes between the House and the Senate. But I wish to thank Chairman Frank Wolf and ranking member Chaka Fattah for their bipartisan support. There was give and take; sometimes stormy exchanges. But at the end of the day, we worked cooperatively and collegially.

So as we look at the process, what I wish to say is that the conference agreement itself is a good one. Our bill, the CJS bill, totals $52.7 billion in discretionary spending. We were frugal. It is $600 million below the 2011 level, and it is $5 billion below the President's request.

The purpose of this bill is to help create American jobs, make our streets and our neighborhoods safe from violent crime and terrorism, and to support innovation and technology so America can continue to be an exceptional Nation.

It also promotes trade. We do this through our Federal agencies: the Commerce Department, through its Economic Development Administration, Patent Office, International Trade Administration, and the Census Bureau. It also has important agencies related to innovation: the National Institutes of Standards and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Our bill also has in it the Department of Justice, NASA, and the National Science Foundation.

It has a lot of important things in it. It is also a bill that promotes justice, including the Commission on Civil Rights, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and the Legal Services Corporation.

Within shrinking funding levels, the CJS conference agreement prioritizes activities that focused on creating jobs, saving lives, protecting communities, and looking out for the future of our country.

The subcommittee faced two very pressing problems that are critical to life and safety. One, our weather satellites. We had to come up with a substantial chunk of money to make sure we had those important new weather satellites that tell us about hurricanes, tornadoes, and other things that are coming. Also, we had a real challenge in providing adequate funding for America's prison population.

These activities are not considered mandatory for budget purposes, but they are not truly discretionary. We had an obligation to fund them. We also had an obligation to provide security funding to the two conventions, to help them underwrite their security concerns.

Together, the bare minimum needed for the new JPSS satellite and prison expenses is nearly $800 million--$350 million for prisons--and we were able to meet that obligation.

We also looked out for our law enforcement, for our State and local police departments. This bill provides $2.2 billion to support our Blue Line to keep our police safe, to protect them with the equipment they need, such as bulletproof vests, so they can protect us with modern tools relating to crime scene analysis, forensic science, and enough cops on the beat.

We funded Byrne grants at $370 million, a main Federal tool for State and local police operations.

In terms of Federal law enforcement, we met obligations to the FBI and funded them at $8 billion; our Drug Enforcement Agency at $2 billion; the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms and the Marshals Service, each at $1.2 billion. Our marshals no longer necessarily ride the planes, but what they are out there doing is serving the warrants that go after sexual predators and also make sure they fulfill their responsibility to protect our Federal judiciary at the courthouses. Those Federal law enforcement actions are at our borders, in our streets, in our communities, and in important task forces protecting our communities.

In terms of science and innovation, I am proud of what we did with NASA--from the space shuttle legacy to our new vehicles for space exploration. We also funded the James Webb Space Telescope, which will be the successor to the Hubble. It is 100 times more powerful and will assure America's place as a leader in astronomy for the next 30 years.

Our conference agreement was $17.8 billion. It is a balanced space program. It ensures the continuity or continuation of human space flight, does important work in space science, and also bold research in aeronautics, so we can be at the cutting edge.

We also funded the National Science Foundation, which continues to do that groundbreaking innovative work that the private sector works off of. This year, three Americans shared the Nobel Prize for physics. One was Dr. Adam Riess at Johns-Hopkins. He used the Hubble space telescope to look out for dark energy, to look at decaying supernovas, and found out that the expansion of the universe was speeding up.

The 2011 Nobel Prize in chemistry winner, Dr. Dan Shechtman, was working at the National Institute of Standards and Technology--which this bill also funds--when he discovered new subatomic particles. Both discoveries were considered unexpected and even game changers. These Nobel Prize winners were those wonderful Americans who make use of whether it was the Hubble telescope or the kind of work that goes on in our chemistry labs. So we are out there winning the Nobel Prizes, but our bill lays the groundwork for winning the markets.

On the floor is the chairman of the full committee, Senator Inouye, and also Senator Kohl, who managed the bill and will speak for Agriculture. There are many things I could say about what we did in the bill, but I think I have summarized the basic themes.

I will be available to answer any questions from colleagues. I also want the chairman of the full committee to have an opportunity to speak and certainly Senator Kohl and Senator Blunt. I want to say to Senator Blunt, when Senator Kohl had to be temporarily off the floor, I thank him for working with me. We moved this bill and showed we knew how to govern and move legislation. If we work this way, we will get America moving again.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I wish to address one of the most important issues facing the supercommittee; that is: Where does Social Security fit into their plans? The Chair knows because she is very close to the people of New Hampshire, she knows all over her great State, and mine in Maryland, people are getting ready for Thanksgiving. As they get ready, they first of all give gratitude for living in the United States of America, the land of the free and the brave. But they are also wondering what kind of country are we living in right now because the Chair and I know they are worried about paying their bills. As they get ready for their holiday dinner and the family gathering and all the wonderful traditions that go into this very special holiday they are saying: Where are we? Have we lost our way? Are we so mired in partisanship we cannot seem to find a path forward?

They think we are the turkeys. They want us to stuff it. They want us to get on and start worrying about the table, worry about their kitchen table, and bring everybody to the table here and begin to solve national problems and to do it in a way that brings the country together. What do they want us to do? While maybe at the kitchen table the children will argue over who gets the wishbone, they want us to have backbone to make the tough decisions that these times call for but not to be tough on one another.

As I think about this, I think about Social Security. We say everything should be on the table. I think everything should be on the table that caused our deficit. I think everything should be on the table that caused our debt. Social Security did not cause our deficit. Social Security did not cause our debt. Do we need to take a look at Social Security to ensure its safety and solvency for the rest of the century--or certainly well beyond 2050 or 2070? Absolutely. But I say this: While the supercommittee is charged with looking at a more frugal government, we must maintain the social contract. The social contract in the United States of America is the contract that the U.S. Government made with its people. It said, if a person went by the rules and they paid their dues, al la the payroll tax, there will be a benefit for them. It will be a defined benefit. It is called Social Security. It will be undeniable, it will be reliable, and it will be inflation-proof.

Every President has agreed there is a social contract. Every President has taken a look at how to provide for that. Some ways we have agreed with, some we have disagreed with. Where we agreed was the great, wonderful way we worked in the 1980s when Social Security was facing challenges and President Reagan reached out to Tip O'Neil, Bob Dole, Bob Byrd, Howard Baker, and we made Social Security solvent for 30 or 40 years. We did the same under President Bill Clinton.

President George Bush, the No. 2 Bush, ``W,'' wanted to privatize Social Security. We stopped that. We do not believe in the privatization of Social Security. We did not want to turn Social Security over to Wall Street. We believed Wall Street got enough, they didn't have to get Social Security. If a person were older or sick, we didn't want them to rely on the bull of political promises or the bear of a market.

Social Security affects so many people. There are 50 million Americans who rely on Social Security: retired workers, their spouses, people with disabilities. For two-thirds of the people on Social Security, their benefit is between $14,000 and $15,000 a year. It makes up all or more than half their income. In my own State, 500,000 workers are on Social Security, so protecting the social contract is clearly in our national interest.

What brings me to the floor today? Two things. No. 1, I don't think Social Security should be in the debate about how to reduce our debt or our deficit. I do think Social Security should be discussed in a rational, calm, nonpartisan way to ensure safety and solvency and reliability.

The other issue that brings me to the floor is how do we put our arms around the cost-of-living problem? It is indeed vexing. How do we meet the needs of the people but not exacerbate the drawdown in the trust fund? These are valid conversations. Wise people should talk about it. But one thing I am opposed to is called the chained CPI--isn't that a terrible word, ``chained'' CPI? In our country, the very word ``chains'' has such a negative connotation.

What I worry about is that its Draconian effect will have a chain reaction on seniors that will cause a tremendous crash. I am concerned we are about to shred the social contract. Let me tell you what the chained CPI is. It would actually cut Social Security by over $100 billion over the next 10 years. It does it by changing the cost of living as calculated. It is based on a theory. It is based on social engineering, some kind of abstract concepts about human behavior, that invisible hand that Adam Smith talks about. I worry that this invisible hand will actually pinch Social Security. It assumes consumers will substitute lower cost items for what they normally purchase; that is, if the price of apples increases, they will go buy oranges. I am afraid what we are doing is we are going to buy lemons.

The chained CPI is inappropriate because actually seniors have a fixed market basket. They not only have a fixed income, but they have a fixed market basket. Their primary expenditure is health care, over which they have little control. The cost of health care continues to rise. Their next one is energy, then food, and then housing. For seniors, this is not like giving up opera tickets for movie tickets. It is not like giving up a latte for Dunkin' Donuts. For them, it is not giving up Whole Foods, it is having no food. We have to get real about the market basket of seniors.

I wish to make three points about the myths. No. 1, the chained CPI is not a technical fix. Despite popular notions, op-eds, editorial boards, it is not just a technical corrective. It would actually fundamentally restructure Social Security. It could very well have a chain reaction, pushing old people into poverty. Under the way the CPI is calculated, if a person is now getting $15,000 a year when they are 65, when they are 75, they will have $5,000 less, and if they live to 85, it will be reduced by $1,000.

I have this in this chart. The numbers I am giving do not come from Barb Mikulski. They don't come from some wonky, lefty think tank, this comes from the Social Security Actuary, the keeper of the books and the projections for Social Security. For a single woman on Social Security under the chained CPI, from the time she is 65 until the time she is 80, she could lose as much as $6,000. In other words, the older we get, the worse it will get. Remember, under chained CPI, the older we get, the less we will get; the older we get, the worse it will get.

Myth No. 2 is, this is not an immediate cut. Oh, it is going to go into future beneficiaries. Oh, it is a long way off. Whomever it hits, it will hit hard. Remember the chain reaction. But it is a myth. According to the Social Security Actuary, the chained CPI will affect everyone, and if we pass it as part of the supercommittee, it will go into effect December 2012. It will go into effect immediately, December 2012. That is a pretty big deal.

The third myth is, this change would mirror people's behavior, but it doesn't take into account health care costs, the cost of prescription drugs, copays, and premiums. Remember, one way or the other we are going to change Medicare.

What I want to do at this time is sound the alert. I want to ring the bell. I am at my battle station. I am at my duty station. I want every Senator, when they vote on this, to have informed consent. I want people to read about it and know about it and make up their own minds. I oppose the chained CPI. I oppose Social Security being in the supercommittee. I am not drawing a line in the sand today. I want to say for the supercommittee, God bless them in their work, they are truly pursuing this in a duly diligent way, and we hope we can come to a great resolution where we can reduce our debt, reduce our deficit, and do it in a way that is a balanced approach but does not balance all this on the backs of senior citizens.

FDR signed this bill 75 years ago. Every President, regardless of party, said we will keep the social contract, pay your dues through this payroll tax, Social Security is going to be there for you. We want Social Security to be there for the seniors, and we need to be there for the Social Security Program.

I hope my colleagues put due diligence into understanding this policy.

I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.

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

Madam President, I rise today to address one of the most important issues facing the supercommittee; that is, where does Social Security fit into their plans?

I know the supercommittee is doing a great job. They are working in a steady way to see how we can be a more frugal government, but while we are trying to be frugal, how we also meet our responsibilities for the national defense and also how we maintain our social contract.

To me, one of the most essential programs in the social contract; that is, the contract between the U.S. Government and its people, is Social Security. For more than 75 years, under every President, we have worked in a bipartisan way to ensure the security and the solvency and the safety of Social Security. Every President has agreed that Social Security should be undeniable, available to everybody, reliable, that it is there when you need it, and inflation proof--inflation proof.

I was in the House when we were teetering on a collapse of Social Security. Ronald Reagan was in the White House. Tip O'Neill was the Speaker of the House. Bob Dole and Bob Byrd were in the Senate. We went to work and made sure Social Security was solvent for all of 30 or 40 years.

Under Bill Clinton, we also took positive forward steps. Under President Bush he wanted to privatize it. That is the way he saw entailing its future solvency. We fought that. But we still had money in the trust fund.

Now where are we? Well, there are those who say we have got to reduce the debt. Hey, I know we have to reduce the debt. I say to the Presiding Officer, we have had extensive conversations. The Presiding Officer has some very meaty ideas worthy of consideration. But let's make it clear, Social Security should not be on the table. When they say all options are on the table, let's put all options on the table for those programs that created the debt, that created the deficit. Social Security did not create our debt. Why it is part of the supercommittee conversation, debate, and even hit list, I do not know.

That casts no aspersions against any member of the committee. I am talking about somehow or other editorial boards that know everything about everything all the time have said you have to do something about Social Security. We know we have to reform Social Security to modernize it for a 21st century economy and a 21st century demography. We get that. But it does not belong in the supercommittee up against the wall with impossible deadlines, up against the wall with impossible mandates.

So while they are looking at revenue, discretionary spending, military spending, Social Security does not belong there. The reform of Social Security belongs in another environment. So that is position No. 1.

Position No. 2 is, what are we doing on Social Security? Well, I am concerned we are about to shred this social contract, and we are going to do it by doing something called the ``chained CPI.'' Isn't that a terrible word: ``chained CPI''? Wow. I am afraid we are going to chain seniors to poverty.

Let me tell you what a chained CPI is. When you read all of the books we get, policy books, chained CPI would cut Social Security by $112 billion over 10 years. They do it by changing the way the cost of living is calculated. It is based on kind of this ``theory.'' It is based on a ``theory of human behavior,'' one of those ``social engineering schemes.'' What it says is this: It assumes that a consumer will substitute lower cost items when the cost of what they normally purchase goes up.

Well, that means, again, ``in theory,'' if the price of apples goes up, you are going to buy an orange. It sounds good. But for the debate on Social Security, it is inappropriate because the market basket approaches by senior citizens, validated by every economic and marketing group, say their largest expenditure is health care, and the reason they do it on health care is because they need it to keep alive. This is not trading a latte for Dunkin' Donuts. This is not going from arugula to big lettuce. This is life. This is life on the line when we are about to cut the seniors' bottom line. We have to get real and talk about what is the way seniors live, what is it they need to do to stay alive, and what is their purchasing power.

So this is not Barb Mikulski. The Social Security people themselves say there is something called the market basket for elderly, CPI-E. It means they spend their money on health care, on food, and on energy, and in many cases housing. They cannot reduce those costs. Those are fixed costs for which they have no choice and no negotiating power. Our citizens, our senior citizens, cannot negotiate on their heat, they cannot negotiate much on their prescription drugs. Oh, they might go from a brandname to a generic. But if their cost of living is being squeezed down, they will not be able to do it. You cannot substitute your medication, your insulin, and substitute it for apricot juice.

If the cost of prescription drugs goes up, so does medication. I am concerned that this chained CPI--human behavior, untested, untried social engineering scheme--is going to become the basis by which we calculate the cost of living.

Let me go to some facts. By the way, this is not Senator Barb Mikulski talking, this is the Social Security Actuary, the Actuary actually giving accurate facts. Let's go to the A word. The Actuary actually giving accurate facts. First of all, they say this is a technical fix and does not mean a whole lot to seniors. Actually, the chained CPI will fundamentally restructure Social Security. If we do it, we will be complicit and complacent in creating a structurally induced poverty for old people.

What do we mean? Well, if you look at this chart--and this comes from the Actuary--if you go to the chained CPI and the purchasing power they talk of, first of all, it will go into immediate effect. Then it actually cuts--it is not like--you know how the seniors were upset they did not get a cost of living 2 years in a row? They will actually get a reduced benefit. And under the way this will be calculated, hypothetically if you are now getting $15,132 in Social Security, if you are getting it when you are 65 now, 10 years from now your benefit will be reduced. Not only will you not get your cost of living, but your benefit will be reduced to $14,572.

If you continue to live, and you are 85, it will be reduced to $14,148. It compounds itself. So God forbid you even make it another 30 years. Because under what the chained CPI would do is you would essentially lose over close to

$1,600 in benefits. I cannot believe this. I cannot believe we are even talking about it. Because if we are talking about going with the true market basket, what you should do is actually have this increase. I will not go through all of the numbers, but they are significant and they are severe.

There is another thing going around here on the floor: Oh, Senator Mikulski, why are you so upset? It will hurt future beneficiaries. Well, I am upset because no matter what time it affects a beneficiary, it affects a beneficiary. But what everyone fails to grasp is this will be an immediate--underline the word immediate--cut, according to the Social Security's Chief Actuary. If we pass this this year, this chained CPI begins December of 2012. So 1 year from this December, it would go into effect. That means if you are 65 years old, your benefit will be reduced that year. By the time 10 years later, your benefit will have been reduced five times as much. And if you make it to 85, your benefit will actually be reduced by 10 times as much.

This is, to me, a horrific idea. The current CPI-W, which is what we call the cost of living, was used in 1972. It was the only measure we had at the time. It was viewed as an advanced thing for an inflation- proof benefit. Now when we look at it, what we know is that we know the purchasing power--not the purchasing power, what is the market basket that seniors use. Chained CPI might be fine in other areas or other categories. I am not going to debate this here today.

But what I do want to do this time, this place, I want to sound the alert. I am going to ring the bell. I am going to be at my battle station saying to every member of our caucus, and every member of the people on the other side of the aisle, please, read up on this. Know what we are doing. If you are going to vote, I do not want to hear buyer's remorse a year from now. I do not want to hear buyer's remorse 2 years from now. I do not want to hear from the seniors in my home State of Maryland say: Where were you, Barbara? Did you say anything? Did you do anything? So I am saying here today, get out our policy books and for God's sake read them. Read them. And do not read what this think tank or that editorial board says, read the Social Security Actuary. Because I am telling you, we are about to do something that is irrevocable.

I believe in old-fashioned values, and one of the great ones is honor thy father and thy mother. It is not just a great commandment to live by, it is sure a great public policy to govern by. The American people every day particularly who work hard now and live by the rules, go by the rules, pay into Social Security over a lifetime, we said to them: If you do that, your Social Security will be a guaranteed benefit. It will be a lifetime benefit. It will be reliable and undeniable. And it will be inflation proof.

FDR signed the bill that created that contract. Every President regardless of the party has kept that promise. And it is up to this Congress not to shred the social contract with the seniors of the United States of America.

I want to yield the floor to someone from the Finance Committee who has done so much work on this, such great work, such due diligence, and has a grasp of both the policy and the impact that it has on people.

I yield the floor.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Franken.) The Senator from Washington.

Would the Senator yield for a question?

First of all, I compliment the Senator for the really wonderful teaching she just did on this issue. She is a member of the Finance Committee, and with all they are doing in Social Security, hasn't there been a hearing in the Finance Committee on the chained CPI, and have experts and senior advocacy groups shared their views with the Congress?

How many years has the Senator been on the committee?

In those 2 years, this has not come up.

I have another question about the Finance Committee, which also has jurisdiction over health care. Is it the Senator's understanding that both in the supercommittee and other reforms, Congress's intent is to raise premiums and copayments and a variety of other things on seniors? Is that one of those things out there in the ether?

Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the Rebuild America Jobs Act. This bill is about jobs today and jobs tomorrow across the Nation and in my home State of Maryland. It also is about repairing our crumbling infrastructure.

This bill does three things. First, it provides $50 billion for immediate transportation investments. It will provide formula funding and award competitive grants to our States for transportation infrastructure projects. This includes funding for our highways and bridges. It also includes our transit systems and passenger and freight networks as well as our aviation system and ports.

Second, it provides $10 billion to establish a national infrastructure bank. This bank will leverage private and public capital to fund large infrastructure projects. These include not only transportation projects but also desperately needed water and sewer, and energy projects. The bank will provide direct loans and loan guarantees for projects of regional and national significance.

I have been a strong proponent of establishing a national infrastructure bank for several years now going back to the original Dodd-Hagel legislation. I am now a cosponsor of Senators Kerry, Hutchison, and Warner's bill.

Third, this bill pays for itself. It implements a surtax of less than 1 percent on those that make more than $1 million a year. This tax will begin in 2013.

This bill is so important because it will create hundreds of thousands of jobs across America by putting construction workers and engineers back to work. According to Moody's, every $1 spent on infrastructure spurs economic activity raising GDP by about $1.59. Without this investment, nearly 1 million Americans will lose their jobs and our economy will lose nearly $1 trillion over the next 10 years.

Our failing transportation infrastructure is costing everyone money we don't have: State and local governments, motorists, and companies shipping their goods. Americans pay approximately $333 in car repairs a year because of poor road conditions and more at the pump because of congestion. We just learned Marylanders have the longest commute in the country--even longer than New Yorkers. Can you believe that?

Freight bottlenecks and congestion are costing us about $200 billion a year. It is estimated that our failing infrastructure will drive the cost of doing business up by adding $430 billion to costs in the next decade. This means it will cost more to ship goods and consumers will feel it in their pocketbooks.

My State of Maryland has a 6-year transportation plan with $10 billion worth of needs. A recent blue ribbon commission found the State needs another $500 million annually to meet these needs. This bill will help close this funding gap by providing nearly $600 million in transportation formula funding to Maryland. This funding will support about 7,500 jobs.

This formula funding will pay for repaving and improving safety on our highways and byways. It will be used for to replace diesel buses with more environmentally friendly hybrid models. Improvements also will be made to Maryland's commuter rail service, MARC, and the light rail and metro in the Baltimore region. Lastly, Maryland would be eligible for competitive grants for all modes of transportation including high-speed rail investments along the Northeast corridor.

In addition, the infrastructure bank will provide new financing options for Maryland. It will help move along projects of regional and national significance that currently are harder to get underway with traditional financing options. Most promising is that the bank will provide financing for water and sewer and energy infrastructure projects too. Maryland alone has $14 billion in water and sewer infrastructure needs.

I firmly believe that a reliable and well maintained infrastructure is a vital to sustain economic growth and create jobs. That is why we must pass this bill and get Americans back to work.

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

Mr. President, I compliment all Senators in the way they have worked cooperatively and expeditiously in moving these three very important appropriations bills forward. Every Senator who has had an amendment has worked with us constructively either to modify it or to comply with what the leadership wanted to do.

I compliment all the managers for their work in moving the bills forward. I think it shows that we can govern ourselves.

This is the first time in a couple of years that we are actually following the regular order on due deliberations of our appropriations bills. It is very important that we do this to meet our fiscal responsibility of funding annual appropriations; that is, actually putting money in the Federal checkbook.

We have followed the regular order by each subcommittee holding rigorous hearings, doing due diligence in terms of oversight, and being quiet guardians of the purse. If anybody has watched us over the last couple of days, we have moved expeditiously. The debate has had such rigor, civility, we have learned from each other, and we have modified amendments back and forth. I think this is so positive and so constructive.

I hope we can conclude deliberations on these three appropriations bills today. Again, Senators need to have their say. Better they have their say than have their day and we show we can govern in a manner that is civil, that has intellectual rigor and due diligence in terms of oversight but also looking at how we protect vital American interests.

The three bills we have today are agriculture, which is so important to the American economy--this is a jobs bill. It is also a food and drug safety bill. At the same time, there is transportation and housing.

People talk about an infrastructure bank. We don't know what we are going to do or how we are going to pay for it, but right here, today, we have transportation pending that will go to every State on a formula basis, and then to some very important special needs identified by Senators in this process, to really then create jobs and meet the kinds of needs our respective States have, to build and repair highways, bridges, and have mass transit to get people to work.

At the same time, housing is absolutely crucial to our economy. The Federal Government does own and operate housing. It is called public housing. The ranking member on the Transportation-HUD bill speaks eloquently about that. Maine is well known for its compassionate way of dealing with people in need, whether it is the elderly, the handicapped, or the poor. But it is also how we can work with local government in the Community Development Block Grant Program, where local people make local decisions on how best to invest Federal funds to have a multiplier effect in economic and community development. We don't only want to build housing, we want to build community and at the same time build jobs. This is fantastic.

Then there is my own bill, the Commerce-Justice-Science bill, which I have worked on in such a cooperative way with the Senator from Texas, Kay Bailey Hutchison.

We also have the Commerce Committee. The Commerce Committee is supposed to be about American business, and we have put in money for the Trade Representative to make sure we not only import--we want to make sure we just don't export jobs but we export products made in America by Americans, helping the American economy.

We also have the Patent Office. We have just reformed the process. If we want to out-innovate, we have to protect our intellectual property. There are those who would rather steal our ideas than invent their own. We have to have it where if you invent it, you get to keep it and profit from it.

The National Institute of Standards works with the private sector--a Federal agency to create the standards necessary so that products can go beyond the prototype and then be sold in America, but because there are certified standards they can be sold around the world.

Then we have the Justice Department. Aren't we proud of our Federal law enforcement? Sure, BATF had a big spill and cinders with the Fast and Furious Program. But look at the FBI, look at the DEA, and look at how they are intercepting everything from terrorists to organized crime to child molesters. And let's hear it for the Marshals Service, which is often overlooked and undervalued. They are out there every day protecting people who work in the courthouses and also serving the warrants and keeping an eye on sexual predators.

Then our subcommittee is one of the real engines of innovation through its work at the National Space Agency and at the National Science Foundation, doing the kinds of basic research the private sector can't do but will value in order to invest again in those new products that will create new jobs in America.

We like our bills. Again, we have done oversight to deal with how to be more frugal. We want people to work on that as the day moves on. I wanted to give everybody the lay of the land.

For those Senators who want to improve our bill by the regular order of the amendment process, we encourage them to come to the floor now to offer them and speak out. We want them to have their say and to have their day.

Amendment No. 750

Mr. President, while we are waiting for those Senators to come, I wish to comment on an amendment offered by our colleague from Virginia, Senator Webb.

Senator Webb has been a longstanding advocate that our people in this country be well served by the justice system. He has become increasingly concerned about the way the justice system works and feels it needs a comprehensive review. He has recommended the establishment of a national justice commission to do a review of Federal, State, and local Federal criminal justice systems, which will make a final report recommending changes in policy and practices to both prevent, deter, and reduce crime and violence and also to reduce recidivism and do it in a cost-effective way.

I want my colleagues to know I am an enthusiastic supporter of the Webb criminal justice commission. It is just a patchwork now. At times, because we so load up in the bottom end after a crime is committed, we need to look at prevention and intervention and also other things, such as alternative sentencing.

I wish to acknowledge the validity of the issue raised by our colleague from Virginia. We have a very high incarceration rate in this country.

More than 2.3 million Americans are in prison. Another 5 million are on probation or parole. Correction costs continue to grow and we have to tighten our belt. The problem is definitely evident in my bill. For Federal prisons alone, we had to include another $300 million to safely guard the Nation's growing Federal prison population, and that does not include those in State prisons and local jails. This subcommittee has an obligation to fund Federal prisons, but this increase did consume a significant part of our allocation at the expense of other DOJ agencies.

Why is this happening? Is it partly because of Americans being more violent, there are more criminals, or are we getting better at catching them and prosecuting them? You know what, the answer could be yes, but we don't know. Is it that our mandatory sentencing--a good intention-- has now had unintended consequences; that people who are first offenders could be in alternative sentencing and doing something else?

We are spending a lot on prisons, and so I support Senator Webb's effort to create a blue-ribbon national commission to do an 18-month, top-to-bottom review, examining costs and practices and policies for prevention, intervention, prosecution, and imprisonment, looking at which programs work and which can be improved. I hope it will end in concrete, wide-ranging reforms.

I support the amendment and look forward to voting for it and then to working on a constructive way to take a look at what his recommendations are. I understand the Senator from Virginia is retiring. Along with his incredible service in terms of the national security of our country, this will be one of his more lasting legacies. I hope we adopt the Webb amendment.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I do want to comment on the Vitter amendment and then be able to have the Senator from New Hampshire speak.

But before the leader leaves, I want to express my condolences to the Mullins family for what happened. It is a little hard to get back into talking about amendments and debating issues when you hear such a poignant and wrenching story.

I am glad the Senator from Louisiana is on the floor, because I know we will be debating his amendment.

I want to make a comment about the Vitter amendment No. 769, as modified. I oppose the amendment. I appreciate the intent of the Senator from Louisiana to make lower cost drugs available to the American people, but we

have many flashing lights about this and I bring this from knowledge of being both on the Intelligence Committee and also in working with the FBI through our CJS in both the classified and unclassified setting.

The amendment allows individuals to import FDA-approved drugs from Canada. It sounds great. But we don't know if the drug was made in Canada, and we don't know if it is coming from a regulated Canadian Web site.

We are concerned because of organized crime involvement and now counterfeit drugs--lethal, lethal, lethal drugs--could come into our country and have dire and devastating effects.

We could talk about how to have pharmaceutical FDA-approved drugs available to our people at less cost. Ironically, this is coming from a national health system. I am not going to get into ObamaCare and all that, but I do want to speak as someone who knows a lot about international organized crime.

What I want our colleagues to know is where there is compelling, compassionate human need, there is greed. Where there is greed, there are scams, schemes, and in many cases they have lethal consequences. What the Vitter amendment does--first of all, it does not give the FDA additional resources to combat counterfeit medicine, it just makes an allowable use.

I don't know where we are going to get the money. If our colleague, Senator Kohl, were here, he would speak about the money. I wish to speak about the safety.

There are rogue Canadian pharmacy Web sites, and the consequence of that is we do not know what is coming. One of the things we do know is, we have examples of awful things that have happened. Do many of you remember when Coumadin came into this country? That is a blood thinner. It was illegally produced and did not meet FDA standards and resulted in people dying because they hemorrhaged out because of a counterfeit drug. They bled to death taking something they thought was safe.

There is Tamiflu that came into our country, but it was not Tamiflu; it was talcum powder. A person might want to swallow talcum powder. It might give them indigestion. But I tell you there are other things that can have more dire circumstances--birth control pills made out of rice flour. There is a complete list, and I encourage my colleagues, go to the FDA, find out what they have experienced in this. Go to the FBI, find out what they have done to try to intercept this. Go to our customs and border people. They have heartburn trying to prevent heartache from those things that could come illegally into our country.

We do have to deal with the cost of prescription drugs. We did deal with it in subsequent legislation in which we have closed the doughnut hole. I compliment the Senator from Louisiana for wanting to do that and all who modified it. But do not make a good intention have a horrible, lethal, unintended consequence.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I know my colleague wishes to speak, but I have a matter to dispose of. I ask unanimous consent that the Murray amendment No. 772 be withdrawn.

Thank you very much.

Mr. President, I oppose this amendment. First, it is a budget buster. To enforce this will take enormous amounts of resources. You cannot be sure that that drug coming from Canada is not a counterfeit, lethal death drug. You don't have any enforcement procedures in here, you don't have the money to enforce it, and we have a history of phony drugs coming into rogue Web sites through counterfeit countries.

If you want a drug that has been made in a country that we view as predators toward the United States, when you take your Coumadin, when you want your wife to take her breast cancer drug, when your daughter is going to take that birth control bill, then you want the Vitter amendment. But if you want safety, then defeat the amendment.

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

Madam President, I wish to echo the comments of my colleague from Missouri. I too invite Senators to come down. We are showing that we can govern. We have our appropriations bills here, and we have already disposed of 8 amendments--actually, I think we have disposed of more than 8 by now--but we have 22 amendments pending. If Members have an amendment, come and speak to it. If a Member has reviewed these 22 and opposes them, have your day, have your say, because that is what the Senate is--due diligence, due deliberation.

What we don't want is everybody--exactly as the Senator from Missouri said, who is the ranking member on Agriculture--coming at 5:30 or 6 or 7 o'clock and wanting to speak. I know the leadership on both sides of the aisle would like to move expeditiously and even, if possible, finish this bill tonight. I think we have agreed we are willing to work through the evening to dispose of amendments, but Senators have to speak on their amendments.

So, again, on my side of the aisle, I would really encourage Members, if they have an amendment, to come and speak to it. Regardless of the side of the aisle a Member is on, if a person opposes an amendment, come and speak on it as well.

Some of these are quite controversial. Again, we invite this due deliberation.

Everybody has worked hard. We have done a lot in appropriations. We have ended earmarks--a topic I know is of special interest to many of our colleagues. We have made significant cuts this year as a result of the continuing resolution and other agreements. But at the same time, the subcommittees have worked hard to follow the mission of what we are trying to do in this country: have a more frugal government.

I know in my bill we have paid particular attention on how to curb waste, and I will be speak about that shortly. But, again, I invite my colleagues to come to the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of Calendar Nos. 206 through 210 en bloc, which are all post office-naming bills--in other words, naming post offices, if they remain open, after distinguished Americans.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the bills be read a third time and passed en bloc, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table en bloc, with no intervening action or debate, and any related statements be printed in the Record.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I would say to my colleague from Alabama, I am the Senator from Maryland.

But Delaware is next door, and we share the Chesapeake Bay and a whole lot of chicken farms, so that is OK.

I want to advise the Senator that his amendment 810 is pending, and I believe the leadership is negotiating on which group of amendments will be voted on in the next phase, which we hope we will be able to announce shortly.

The amendment which the Senator has on the Patent Office, is not a pending amendment. Again, that would be subject to leadership on both sides of the aisle determining what would be called up. So I suggest he stay in touch with the Republican leader, Senator McConnell, and his floor staff, as they are talking with Senator Reid. But the Senator's amendment 810 is pending and I know he debated it yesterday and I know our colleague from Michigan, Senator Stabenow, chair of the Agriculture Committee, commented on that.

I would just say to the Senator, because I believe him to be a compassionate conservative--a phrase we once used a decade ago--maybe not filing papers is one thing, but we do have 9 percent unemployment. Gosh, in my State, we are seeing people come to food banks who used to donate to the food banks. We are seeing an increase of people who have been laid off who either have no job or have taken now

part-time jobs. So one of the reasons the food stamp population is increasing is because of unemployment. Unemployment is increasing.

I look forward to working with the Senator on a bipartisan jobs bill, but we also want the Senator to be able to speak to his amendment; and, hopefully, because it is pending, it will be included in the voting.

Are we still talking about food stamps?

I kind of got lost here.

I remember that very well. I remember it was enormously controversial. It was significantly confusing, and there was much to be said on both sides. I believe somebody missed a filing deadline by 24 hours.

You were the Chair of the Judiciary Committee, so you are well versed on the patent issues. Why don't we turn it over to the leadership and see how it turns out.

We will turn it over to that higher power.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, would the clerk please call the roll and see if a quorum is present. I believe a quorum is present.

Point of personal privilege. Could we call the roll faster?

Mr. President, I wish to thank Chairman Kohl and Senator Blunt for their hard work on this bill. They had to make tough choices because of their tight allocation. I commend them for the choices they made and agree with them. They have my full support for this bill.

I especially want to thank them for increasing the Food and Drug Administration's budget. They provided $2.5 billion which is $50 million over this year's funding level. Twenty-five cents for every dollar spent by consumers is for FDA-regulated products, over $1 trillion worth of goods bought each year.

This funding increase will strengthen our food safety infrastructure so that the FDA can meet its increased responsibilities. It gives the FDA new defense capabilities to hold imported and domestic foods to the same standards. It also will help Federal, State, and local officials prevent and more efficiently detect food safety problems. Finally, it increases the FDA and State and local workforce capacity to prevent deadly outbreaks.

Employees at the FDA are on the front lines every day to stop food safety outbreaks in their tracks and get unsafe foods off of supermarket shelves. We rely on the FDA more than ever to make sure the drugs and medical devices we depend upon are safe and effective.

I have been a longtime fighter for the FDA. I have fought for years for the right facilities and the right resources. I will continue to fight for these hard-working employees. This increase will help the FDA continue to be the gold standard in upholding drug, device, cosmetic, and food safety.

They also make nutrition assistance programs a priority, which is so important in these difficult economic times. For Women, Infants and Children, they provide $6.6 billion. This funding level will meet the needs of low-income pregnant women, infants, and children under 5 by providing nutritious foods, dietary supplements, healthy eating information, and medical referrals.

This bill is also very important to Maryland. It supports the hard- working Federal employees at FDA and the Beltsville Agricultural Research Center. Headquartered in Silver Spring, MD, FDA employs 9,400 people, while BARC, located in Beltsville, MD, employs 975 Federal employees, including 250 scientists. BARC is the flagship campus of the Agricultural Research Service. It conducts cutting-edge research to develop and transfer solutions to our Nation's most pressing agricultural problems. This research is impacting not just farmers but every American as it relates to food safety, nutrition, and obesity. They keep BARC funded at existing funding levels and protect these jobs.

They also provide $16.5 million for farmers market nutrition programs. This program gives WIC recipients vouchers to use at farmers markets and roadside stands to buy locally

grown fruits and vegetables. This program helps low-income women and children as well as our local farmers. In 2009, Maryland distributed $403,000 vouchers to 42,000 WIC clients. This also helped 260 Maryland farmers sell their crops.

In addition, Maryland is home to two land grant institutions: University of Maryland at College Park and University of Maryland Eastern Shore. They rejected the House cuts to land grant university research and extension programs and keep them in good standing. These programs support food and agriculture research, provide peer-reviewed, competitively awarded grants, help attract top-notch scientists, fund youth programs, including 4-H, and reach out and solve community needs for small farmers and business owners.

Maryland's No. 1 industry is agriculture. We have both the traditional industry sectors and nontraditional: everything from poultry, to dairy to organic farms and vineyards and a specialty nursery industry. This bill supports these farmers and small business owners, but it also supports all Americans by protecting our public health and safety when it comes to our food supply, drugs, and medical devices.

Mr. President, I also wish to thank Chairman Murray and Senator Collins for their hard work on this bill. I say to the Senators, you worked together in a bipartisan way and with collegiality. You had a tight allocation and had to make tough choices. But you did an outstanding job, and you have my full support for this bill.

I support this bill because it is a jobs bill. It provides formula funding to the States for our highways, byways, and subways. According to the U.S. Department of Transportation, every $1 million spent on transportation creates 13 jobs.

This bill will hire the construction workers and engineers to widen our highways and build new bridges. The bill also provides $550 million for TIGER Grants, the discretionary grant program begun in the economic recovery bill. This competitive grant program funds road, rail, transit, and port projects.

This bill provides nearly $16 billion for the Federal Aviation Administration, the current year funding level. This funding supports our air traffic controllers, air safety personnel, and construction jobs at our airports.

This bill also provides funding to maintain the Maritime Security Program. This program maintains 60 U.S. flagships, crewed by U.S. citizens, to service both commercial and national security needs.

This bill provides $120 million for Choice Neighborhoods. Choice Neighborhoods uses the lessons of HOPE VI. It builds upon them to reach more communities and turn ZIP Codes of poverty into healthy, vibrant communities.

It also provides much-needed funding for veterans' housing, a total of $75 million, to get them the housing help they need. Our Nation owes our vets a debt of gratitude, and I will keep fighting to show that gratitude not just with words, but with deeds.

For Maryland, this bill guarantees $750 million in Federal transportation formula funding. Within this amount, Maryland receives $600 million for highways and $150 million for transit. It also supports 9,750 jobs. About half of Maryland's highway and transit capital projects are funded with these Federal dollars.

In addition, this bill funds Metro here in our Nation's capital, providing $150 million for safety improvements, including new rail cars, track, and signal upgrades. It also guarantees Metro's $228 million in Federal formula funding for capital improvements. This funding combined supports nearly 5,000 public and private sector jobs.

Infrastructure and housing investments are vital to sustain economic growth and create jobs. I support Senate action on multiyear transportation and aviation authorization bills and infrastructure bank legislation. But agreement and passage of these bills is going to take some time. This appropriations bill is a jobs bill we can pass now to get Americans back to work in the near term.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on October 20, 2011, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Housing Finance Reform: Continuation of the 30-Year Fixed-Rate Mortgage.''

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on October 20, 2011, at 2:30 p.m., in room 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on October 20, 2011, at 10 a.m., to hold a hearing entitled, ``U.S. Military Deployment to Central Africa.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on October 20, 2011, at 8 a.m. in room 216 of the Hart Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on October 20, 2011, at 2:15 p.m. in room 628 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, on October 20, 2011, at 10 a.m., in SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct an executive business meeting.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Ad Hoc Subcommittee on Disaster Recovery and Intergovernmental Affairs of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, on October 20, 2011, at 10:30 a.m., in order to conduct a hearing entitled, ``Accountability at FEMA: Is Quality Job #1?''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select

Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, on October 20, 2011, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, Subcommittee on Security and International Trade and Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, on October 20, 2011, at 2 p.m., in order to conduct a hearing entitled, ``The G20 and Global Economic and Financial Risks.''

Mr. President, I note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I want to associate myself with the remarks of my colleague from Maryland regarding the nomination of Mr. Boarman. My colleague from Maryland has offered a spirited and comprehensive description of why Mr. Boarman should be confirmed as our Public Printer. I wish to, one, validate everything he said; and, second, Mr. Boarman, we need to know, is a reformer. He has the heart of a reformer. He has the spirit of a reformer. He has the know-how of a reformer.

As we look at the position he is being asked to serve in, we need someone who has technical competence in the field, experience in managing a large organization, and also one who has dealt with the challenges related to both delivering a product but also those related to the workforce.

I think we are doing a national disservice by not putting this man in office so he can take charge and maintain something that is a nonpartisan job--the Government Printing Office. It is not as though he is going to be in some back room reprinting little pamphlets from the 1930s Bread March. He is here to be our Public Printer.

We know we are into a new age, a digital age. He has a lot of reform to do. We know there is workforce reform that needs to be done but done with sensitivity. Again, he is somebody who himself is from the rank and file.

I think this: Once again, we are playing politics with a job that certainly is not political. We have an esteemed, qualified individual who wants to be a reformer, to get the job done, and who knows we are in a more frugal atmosphere.

I think we are wasting time, we are wasting money, and we are wasting the talent of an exceptional individual.

I am going to say this: The more we continue to delay and be deleterious on these appointments, why would anybody want to come forth to serve in the public domain? They often have to give up jobs or put their jobs on hold while they are waiting for these confirmation processes. We put more sand in the gears of government, and then we blame government for grinding to a halt.

Let's have an orderly way of dealing with nominations and at least give the man a vote up or down, yes or no.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, the American people are watching this and saying: What are they doing? Well, actually we are doing a lot. Senator Blunt and I are managing the bill. You might say: But there is nothing going on. Well, there is a lot going on because we are reviewing amendments of Senators. That is what all this discussion is, to see what we can take or there might even be bipartisan agreement. And then we are lining up how we will proceed on the next four to six amendments, again alternating both sides of the aisle.

So if people are watching this and saying: What are they doing, just what are they doing, well, we are doing a lot. We hope to, by the close of business tomorrow, finish the Agriculture, Commerce-Justice, and Transportation-Housing bill appropriations. We are going to have some robust debate on some amendments. Some are quite controversial. But right now, we are trying to see what we agree on and, what we don't agree on, how could there be a regular, civilized, orderly process for having a debate and then voting.

We anticipate that somewhere around 5:30 or 6:00, we will have a cluster of votes. So that is kind of the game plan so far.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the next first-degree amendments in order to be called up and made pending to H.R. 2112 and the substitute amendment No. 738 be the following: Ayotte, No. 753; Crapo, No. 814; Moran, No. 815; Coburn, No. 793; Coburn, No. 798; DeMint, No. 763; DeMint, No. 764; Grassley, No. 860; Sessions, No. 810; Lautenberg, No. 836; Brown of Ohio, No. 874; Merkley, No. 879; Bingaman, No. 771; Gillibrand, No. 869; Feinstein, No. 855; and Menendez, No. 857; further, that a motion to recommit from Senator Lee be in order; that, if offered, the motion be set aside and the Senate return to the consideration of the pending amendments.

Mr. President, this means this is now the order in which we will proceed. These are the amendments that both sides have agreed should be offered in this tranche or cluster.

We are saying to the Senators who now have these amendments, get ready to come to the floor. As I understand it, Kelly Ayotte will be here to offer her amendment, which will be important, and then what we would like to do is alternate on both sides of the aisle. The Senator from New Hampshire will offer her amendment. We hope then that there would be a Democrat, and we will go back and forth. If a Senator is not here, we will move on to the people who are here.

We have 16 amendments. We would like to finish these amendments this evening. The more that can come and be ready to offer their amendments and debate--and Senators will be able to present their amendments and debate them, but we would like to do that.

That is the way we are going to proceed. These are the amendments. We will alternate on both sides of the aisle. We encourage Senators who have these amendments to come over and we will call them up.

Mr. President, the Senator from Missouri is right. We haven't had a regular order for some time. Leadership on both sides of the aisle has created this fantastic opportunity. We are actually following a regular order on our appropriations. We are actually following a regular order. This is our opportunity to show we can have a regular order, that we can move our annual appropriations together in a well-measured, well-paced, well-debated, and well-scrutinized way.

I hope our colleagues who have amendments will come over. We know Senators have lots of opinions, and opinions sometimes get translated into amendments. But we ask our colleagues now to show we can govern. Come down, come to the floor and offer these amendments and show we can move three very important bills. The one affecting transportation and housing is important to our economy. This is a jobs bill, putting people to work building highways, roads, and housing. Agriculture is an important part of our economy, and also Commerce, Justice, and Science is the innovation committee, the trade committee, and the advocacy for justice committee. We look forward to these amendments and debating them.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I would advise the Senator that we are waiting for one of the Senators to come and offer an amendment, if he wishes to speak on another subject.

Why don't you proceed.

Does the Senator from Idaho wish to offer an amendment?

Madam President, what I wish to suggest as a way of proceeding, with the concurrence of the other side, is the Senator modify his amendment, because that is quick. Then we will go to the Senator from Idaho. Then I have some rebuttals to some of the amendments offered.

Madam President, I want to thank the Senator from New Mexico for his comments regarding the U.S. Trade Representative and the work of the U.S. Trade Representative's Office.

We do have to fight unfair and even predatory trade practices. In his cogent comments, he spoke about steel. We have been trying to look out for steel in my State for some time against these unfair practices. Sometimes we win, most of the time we lose ground. The amendment that is offered by the Senator from New Mexico would, as he said, increase the funding by $4.5 million for a new total of $51 billion. That is identical to what the House has. The amendment does rescind money from the forfeiture fund which has been used for law enforcement task forces, including drugs, human trafficking, and other things. I am inclined to support the amendment. I certainly support the philosophical thrust of the amendment. We have some questions about the offset. We have to get the concurrence of CBO to make sure it is budget neutral, and we are consulting with my ranking member to get her thoughts and views on it.

Again, I wish to say to the Senator from New Mexico that I support the thrust of the amendment, and I need to consult. We are waiting for a comment from our ranking member who is tied up on other legislative matters and we expect to hear from her shortly. When we do, we will be able to talk about how we will dispose of this amendment.

I thank the Senator from New Mexico for his advocacy.

Amendment No. 753

I wish to speak on another matter, which is an amendment that was raised, amendment No. 753, on terrorists and prosecutions, which was offered by the Senator from New Hampshire earlier. In order to expedite proceedings, I withheld my rebuttal, and now I choose to take this time to rebut the amendment of the Senator from New Hampshire.

I rise in opposition to her amendment. Although well intentioned, there are serious objections to it. Her amendment would prohibit the Department of Justice from trying anyone charged with terrorism-related concerns in an article III court in the United States.

I oppose the amendment for three reasons. First, the amendment is unnecessary. The Department of Justice has a strong track record of successfully prosecuting terrorists in criminal courts.

Second, it goes beyond the law that already prohibits certain terrorist suspects from even coming into the United States, even for prosecution. This was language included in the 2011 continuing resolution, and our fiscal year 2012 CJS bill does carry that same language. For example, we have already dealt with someone such as Khalid Shaikh Mohammed. This amendment also would reach beyond that and it wouldn't allow prosecutions on any new non-U.S. citizen on terrorism-related charges.

Third, this amendment is opposed by the Departments of Justice and Defense. I don't mean just the Departments. Attorney General Eric Holder and Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta object to this amendment. They feel they have a working agreement on how best to try terrorists.

I say to my colleagues, I hope they would reject the amendment of the Senator from New Hampshire when it comes up.

The Department of Justice has a strong record of successfully convicting terrorists in their criminal courts. One can look at the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, the attack on the U.S. Embassies in East Africa, and the trial and conviction of the Blind Sheik. Over 400 terrorists have been tried and convicted since 2001. Just last week, another success, the so-called underwear bomber, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, pled guilty in Federal court in Michigan. There were and are major cases resulting in criminal convictions of terrorists. So I would suggest the Senator from New Hampshire's concern that the Department of Justice is not equipped to try terrorist suspects does not have traction because the record shows otherwise.

I think we have to be careful because this amendment goes beyond current law. In 2011, we passed the Defense Authorization Act and then the 2011 continuing resolution, both of which prohibit the administration from bringing Guantanamo Bay detainees into the United States even for prosecution. Congress will have to change restrictions in law before Gitmo detainees are transferred to the United States for prosecution or detention. Senator Ayotte's amendment would go beyond these restrictions to say that anyone indicted on a terrorism-related charge who isn't a U.S. citizen couldn't be prosecuted in Federal courts, unnecessarily court-stripping.

I have no sympathy for terrorists, and I am going to make sure we honor international law but that we prosecute to the fullest extent possible. What we want to be able to show is that the Department of Justice has successfully prosecuted them, and this amendment would prohibit--this amendment would not be about prosecuting terrorists, it would be about choking the Department of Justice.

Let me go to my third reason, which is the opposition by Secretary Leon Panetta and Attorney General Holder. Defense and Justice share responsibility for prosecuting terrorists. Justice prosecutes in criminal courts and the Defense Department prosecutes in military commissions. Defense and Justice have a joint protocol where they work together to evaluate terrorist cases to decide where best, where most effectively to prosecute them. In light of the restrictions Congress has already made on these trials, the Defense Department decided earlier this year to resume new charges in the military commissions. But Congress shouldn't restrict the ability of the executive branch to decide where best to prosecute terrorists--understanding some of the dynamics of international law, criminal codes, codes of military conduct, to decide where best to prosecute terrorists.

We don't want to set a dangerous precedent, if Defense or Justice are restricted from using every tool available to bring the terrorists to justice.

I hope, when we vote on this amendment, we defeat it, recognizing that the Senator from New Hampshire wants to be sure justice is served, and we want it too. The best way to serve justice is to let the Defense Department and Justice Department decide what court or tribunal is the best way to proceed--to ensure the fairness of a trial but to make sure we have the best, most effective, most efficient way to do it. I must say, when one looks at the record of the Justice Department in prosecuting these terrorists in civilian courts, prosecutions were achieved, convictions were obtained, and as the world watched it, justice was served. I am pretty proud of that.

I hope we will defeat the amendment of the Senator from New Hampshire but that we be united as a Congress and the Senate in making sure we prosecute those who engage in any predatory activity directed to the United States of America and its citizens.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I would like to compliment the Senator from New Jersey for this amendment. I think it is common sense. I think it accomplishes so many objectives. No. 1, it helps people with real problems be able to get back on their feet, maintain home ownership, and get our economy going and put people to work.

I know the Senator from New Jersey and others here support an infrastructure bank. Yes, we want to build roads and bridges. I would like to take broadband to every part of America. But we also need to look at home building, and Maryland's has come to a screeching halt, even in a robust State such as Maryland. Everybody I talk to in the Maryland business community says: Unless you crack the housing situation, you cannot crack the economic situation.

By having access to the American dream, which has now become an American nightmare, this American dream created jobs, whether it was people who built them, the real estate developers who developed them, or the people like Senator Isakson who made a career of selling them. This was about building a home, and in many instances it was about building community.

I think that where we are, if we agree to the Menendez amendment, that will go a long way in being able to help people. We have to really deal with this. Quite frankly, I have been disappointed. Just about every darn thing we have done to ``help with the housing mortgage situation'' has been a bust. It has been an absolute bust. We spent millions and so on. We had this program. We had catchy little titles. But nothing catches on to solve the mortgage crisis.

I believe the Menendez amendment, supported by someone who really understands business and housing and community--I think this amendment is a winner. I am happy to put my name on it. I will look forward to voting for it when the time comes.

We have set aside the motion to recommit offered by the Senator from Utah; however, I wish to rise in opposition to his motion. This is all about budget-speak. It is really hard to follow between budget authority and expenditures, et cetera. But let me just say this in plain English.

This bill is $500 million less than we spent in 2011--$500 million less than we spent in 2011. Now, this is not the chairperson of the CJS bill kind of making up numbers. This is confirmed by the Congressional Budget Office. It has been certified by the chairman of the Budget Committee. The CJS bill is nearly $500 million less than last year.

Now, am I doing fuzzy math? No. I do not do fuzzy math. The CJS bill is consistent with something called the

Budget Control Act. The Budget Control Act requires appropriations to cut $7 billion for our fiscal year 2012. When we got our allocation, the CJS subcommittee allocation was $500 million below 2011. I am going to say it again--$500 million below what we spent in 2011.

This allocation required the CJS subcommittee to take stern and even drastic measures. I eliminated 30 programs. Yes, Senator Barbara Mikulski, a Democratic, a liberal, I cut and eliminated 30 programs: 4 in Commerce--I think you objected to 1; 20 in Justice; 1 in Space; 4 in the National Science Foundation. I could not believe it, but that is what we had to do.

We cut the Deep Underground Science and Engineering Lab by $1 billion. That was a $1 billion project the National Science Foundation wanted. We said we would like it too but not in these austere times. There were other programs that we were able to do. And we were not happy about it. We absolutely were not happy about it. We cut the Baldridge Program. We cut the public telecommunications facility planning and communications. I mean, we did what we had to do.

So while the Senator looks at I am not sure what, I can tell you we are $500 million below 2011. The Congressional Budget Office says it. The numbers were reviewed by the Budget Committee itself. The chairman signed off that we were $500 million below, to help the overall Appropriations Committee reduce its expenditures by $7 billion.

So that is for 2011. Now let's look at 2012. I mean, the President came to Congress and gave a dynamic State of the Union speech. It touched America deeply when he said: I want to outbuild, outeducate, outinnovate anyone in the world. And he proposed his budget.

When you look at what we are doing here, my appropriations, my Commerce-Justice appropriations, is $5 billion--that is ``b'' as in ``Barb''--not $5 million, like ``m'' in ``Mikulski.'' We are $5 billion below what the President said he needed in Commerce-Justice-Science, technology, the innovation subcommittee, to help outeducate and out- innovate anybody else in the world. So I am $5 billion less than what the President of the United States said he needed to have to accomplish national goals.

Now, we talk a lot about that we want America to be exceptional. Well, you have to spend money to be exceptional, and when you put your money in science, technology, and education, we can come up with new ideas, new products that we can make and sell around the world, and our children know they have a future in this new global economy.

I do not want to be nickel-and-dimed here. I have already been nickel-and-dimed to be able to comply with this bill. You know, I am back to where Obama was in January, that cold day, and now here we are. So when we talk about cutting, we have cut. We have absolutely cut. We cut discretionary spending at an incredible level. And do you think it is has helped create one job? Do you think the market is going ``hoorah, hoorah, look at what they are doing''? No. Do you know why? Because the private sector knows that if we are going to be a 21st- century nation, if we are going to be America the exceptional, we must educate.

We also must invest in scientific research so that the private sector can take that basic research we do, value add to it, and with the genius that is America, the ability--that intellectual property you can own and be protected, that you are going to develop a product, and you have the National Institute of Standards to come and help you develop the standards so that you will be able to sell it in America in every State and sell it around the world in every nation.

So come on. If we want to be America the exceptional, stop nickel- and-diming. One of the ways you deal with debt is a growing economy, restoring consumer confidence, restoring citizen confidence, No. 1, that we can govern ourselves and that we can govern ourselves in a smart fashion. Yes, we do need to be frugal, but we sure do not need to be stupid.

I am going to oppose this amendment, and I sure hope the people pass my bill.

I yield the floor.

Does the Senator wish to offer an amendment?

I am seeking clarification.

Does the Senator wish to comment on the Moran amendment?

We are alternating back and forth, so we will go to Senator Sessions and then Senator Udall.

Then we will go to the Senator from Colorado for his comments.

We have an order that has been established. I can understand the Senator from Michigan wanting to rebut. How long does the Senator from Michigan wish to talk?

OK.

No objection.

Mr. President, this is a very interesting bill on the floor. It is really three bills. It is the Agriculture appropriations, Commerce-Justice-Science, and the Transportation-Housing bill.

Our colleague, Senator Herb Kohl of Wisconsin, spent a good part of yesterday managing the bill. He chairs the agriculture subcommittee. I am doing it today. Senator Kohl is tied up on other matters.

He is adamant in his opposition to the Moran amendment providing $8 million for the Watershed Rehabilitation Program. While he is not opposed to the Watershed Rehabilitation Program, he wanted to make it clear that we had to make very difficult decisions. He does not support Senator Moran's amendment as it would offset funding in the departmental administration providing numerous essential services to USDA. These cuts would force USDA to impose a reduction in force and would have a detrimental effect on the Department and its operation.

USDA has initiated buyouts to several thousand employees across many agricultural agencies. The level for the Department administration is over $13 million and $7 million below the request. Secretary Vilsack has reached out to the agricultural subcommittee and has concerns with overall staff reductions at the Department. Senator Kohl echoes Secretary Vilsack's concern.

Senator Kohl opposes this amendment, and on his behalf, I urge other Senators to oppose it as well.

He also opposed the Crapo amendment because, in a nutshell, says that dictating that funds cannot be used unless the rulemaking agenda and implementation schedule meet with congressional approval or constraining the regulatory process of defining terms just goes too far and is a veiled attempt to roll back critical Dodd-Frank reforms, particularly in the derivative area.

Again, on behalf of Senator Kohl, he urges all Senators to reject Crapo amendment No. 814.

I note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise to comment on the amendment of the Senator from Texas.

I am chair of the Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, and Science, and we fund the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms. I will comment on the amendment.

Before I comment on the amendment explicitly, I compliment the Senator from Texas for raising the issue on the floor and, second, for his fierce defense of the southwest border and his devotion to Federal law enforcement and for always being concerned when we send them into harm's way, and where we, in any way, could have contributed to either their injury or their death. I compliment the Senator on that.

My ranking member, Kay Bailey Hutchison, also from Texas, has spoken eloquently, diligently, and unflinchingly about the need we have to be serious about what is happening on the southwest border. I say this to the Senator and those of us concerned about our country: We support the effort to control our border and stop the growing violence that is occurring there.

I believe America is in four wars--Iraq, which is winding down; Afghanistan, which ultimately will; the southwest border; and the cyber war. We have now two enduring wars.

I say to the Senator from Texas, I wish to work with him. When I look at what happened with Operation Fast and Furious, I was fast to be furious about the bungled, botched occurrences that happened.

For those who might not be familiar with it, this was when Federal law enforcement, trying to combat illegal gun trafficking, allowed guns to knowingly ``walk'' into Mexico so we could track what was happening. It was poorly planned, poorly executed, had flawed leadership, and it was definitely of questionable strategy and value.

I wish to work with the Senator from Texas on some slight modifications to the bill--some tweaking and more precise definitions-- over the next hour or so, if we can look at it. I would like to be able to accept his amendment. He is on to something. I would like to work with the Senator's colleague from Texas also and those others from the Southwest to get the answers they want from the Attorney General. They are all entitled to them.

People at the local level who put local cops on the ground should at least have answers from their own government about what they are doing. Operation Fast and Furious was one of many strategies along the U.S./ Mexico border, in Arizona, targeting illegal gun and drug smuggling-- the offshoot of Project Gunrunner. There were teams of ATF agents and investigators who increased our coverage, disrupting firearm traffic in corridors. That Project Gunrunner has been operating since 2006.

Fast and Furious went too far. It went beyond the normal Project Gunrunner strategy and allowed assault weapons to be sold to suspected straw buyers who transported them to Mexico and then the ATF lost track of the weapons, which was the point of what they were trying to do.

Fast and Furious was brought to an end but with terrible problems. There is no doubt ATF has done good work. They have seized tens of thousands of guns. There is the issue of allowing the selling of guns across the area. But hundreds of Mexican citizens have died, our own law enforcement people have died, and we have to do something about it.

I understand from the Attorney General that when he heard about it, he did take decisive steps to clean it up. He immediately asked the DOJ inspector general to conduct an investigation and examine the facts of what happened. He made it clear to all Federal prosecutors and law enforcement that they should never knowingly allow guns to cross the border--long time Justice Department policy. He changed the leadership at ATF and the U.S. Attorney's Office in Arizona and has complied--he tells me--with congressional requests for thousands of documents.

If the Senator feels he is not getting answers, I will join with him. He deserves the answers. We need to make sure we are giving law enforcement the tools they need--hopefully, we have it in the bill--to fight those drug cartels and gun crimes, which are violent, grim, and ghoulish.

We have listened to the concerns of our colleagues who have spoken. The Senators from Texas and our two colleagues from Arizona, Senators Kyl and McCain, are well known in their advocacy.

We have made a major investment in 2009 and another close to $2 billion is in this bill--it is $1.9 billion--to safeguard our southwest border. We are putting resources in it.

Fast and Furious has ended. We need better leadership, a better strategy. I wish to work with the Senator on his amendment.

If we could, I think it would be great if we could just accept it. We all have to be in this together. The southwest border is America's border. I don't live in the Southwest; I live in the Northeast. But anything that happens at your border affects us. That is the way we need to think about ourselves. We are all Americans. We need to look out for one another. We need to be able to protect our borders, those defending the border, make sure we get it right and that we don't contribute to the problem. I would sure like to work with the Senator on this.

Mr. President, I rise to oppose a pending amendment, the amendment offered by the Senator from Arizona, Mr. McCain, and that is amendment No. 740.

This amendment would eliminate any funding under the Economic Development Administration for trade adjustment assistance. Trade adjustment assistance, under the Economic Development Administration, is $15.8 million. This amendment would stop EDA from implementing the TAA for something called the firms program, which was just reauthorized last week by the Senate.

The Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms Program is the only program specifically designed to help small manufacturers hurt by import competition. Let me emphasize. It is the little guys. It is the machine tool shop. It is the small to medium-sized business that we go ``hoorah, hoorah'' for in the Senate all of the time. But when it comes to helping them when they have been hurt by trade imports or their intellectual property has been stolen, we are not going to give them help.

I oppose this amendment.

The Economic Development Administration is in the Commerce-Justice- Science Subcommittee. It was reauthorized by the Senate. Under the bill that was passed, it would have provided technical assistance and matching Federal funds to help develop and implement a plan to help them get back on

their feet. It is a competitive grant program, and the largest grant is $75,000.

The trade adjustment assistance for something called the firms program was created back in 1974, under Gerald Ford, to help small businesses and small manufacturers adjust to increased imports and increased international competition. The 2011 trade adjustment assistance bill passed last week authorized this program at $16 million and said the EDA should manage it. The CJS follows the authorizing direction, as we should.

The Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms Program, for small businesses, helps them adjust, retool, and stay competitive in an increasingly global economy. In 2010, this program enabled 330 firms to devise strategies to help get back on track. What did it help them do? It helped them identify new markets, improve efficiencies in their operation, and also helped them identify additional financing. Ninety- eight percent of the companies that participated are still in business after 5 years. Without the TAA for Firms Program, many of these companies would be out of business.

Since 2006, it is estimated that over 50,000 manufacturing jobs were saved because of this. Manufacturing is the backbone of America. One of the reasons we are in the economic turmoil we are in now is that we have lost so much manufacturing. We give all kinds of tax breaks to send jobs overseas. We also do bailouts to help the really big boys, such as the automobile industry. And we had to help them. I understand that. But these small to medium-sized businesses, some of which I have visited in my own State, need this kind of help when they are whacked by often subsidized imports. Many Maryland companies know how to compete with other companies, but they often feel they are competing with other countries. They know what to do, and we need to be able to help them do it. Trade adjustment assistance is important. If we don't invest in helping our manufacturers stay in the global game, we are going to lose out. So we would hope that we would defeat the McCain amendment.

During the Senate consideration of the trade adjustment bill, our colleague, the other Senator from Arizona, offered an amendment to strike the program then. It failed 43 to 54. I hope this amendment fails again. Let's use some of the Federal help to help those who are creating jobs. If we really want to talk about creating jobs and creating jobs in manufacturing, let's leave this program--modest, small. For $15 million, we could really help small businesses and medium-sized businesses learn how to get back on their feet after they have been whacked often by unfair and anticompetitive trade practices.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Madam President, I oppose the McCain amendment and OMB's recommendation. Trade adjustment assistance is an effective and modest program, and it is only $15.8 million. The average grant is $75,000. From 2006 to 2010, it has helped over 830 firms and created about 50,000 jobs.

I urge defeat of the McCain amendment.

Mr. President, I am pleased to present to the Senate the fiscal year 2012 bill to fund CJS appropriations; that is, the Department of Commerce, Justice, Science, and related agencies. I wish to thank Leader Reid and Minority Leader McConnell for bringing the CJS bill to the floor so we Senators have an opportunity to discuss and vote on this important legislation.

The CJS bill is the product of bipartisan cooperation. I stand here today with my ranking member, my colleague, my partner on this bill, Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison. At the outset, I wish to thank her and her excellent staff for working hand in hand to advance the cause and the goals we believe in--creating jobs, making sure our streets and our neighborhoods are safe, and, at the same time, funding innovation and technology so America continues to be an exceptional Nation. We have worked together, and I thank her for her support and her cooperation.

This fiscal year CJS totals $52.8 billion in discretionary spending. It is consistent with the subcommittee's allocation. That allocation is $491 billion below 2011. So everybody should hear this. We are almost $\1/2\ billion below where we were in 2011, and we are $5 billion below what the President wanted in 2012. When the President said he wanted to outbuild, outeducate, and outinnovate, he had a different budget than what we have today because of the substantial cuts that were made in other legislative initiatives.

These agencies promote jobs. They also promote security and they promote, as I said, American innovation. Let's talk about some of the agencies that promote jobs. Let's start with the Department of Commerce.

I am very proud of the Department of Commerce and its funding for the International Trade Administration which enforces our trade laws and promotes small businesses overseas and also our Economic Development Administration, creating economic growth in our communities and in our small towns. The National Institutes of Standards works with the private sector to set the standards for those new products and those new technologies. In the Patent and Trademark Office, we have done a lot in innovation. We believe if one invents it, they should be able to keep it. Then, of course, we have our Census Bureau, which makes sure every American counts and every American should be counted--or every person who lives in the United States.

We have the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which predicts our weather and also protects our marine resources.

Then this committee funds the Department of Justice, keeping us safe from violent crime and terrorism, prosecuting criminals, and also funding State and local police departments, the National Science Foundation and NASA, which, again, promote our innovation. This agency also funds the Commission on Civil Rights, upholding citizens' rights, along with the Equal Opportunity Commission, ensuring fairness particularly in the workplace, and the Legal Services Corporation, which represents the poor. This agency has broad scope, but, again, it is America's job to promote jobs, security, and innovation.

Within our ever-shrinking funding levels, the CJS bill has priorities to save lives, promote jobs, and protect the safety of our citizens.

We face two very pressing funding challenges that are critical to life and safety. One is the next generation of weather satellites. It is our weather satellites that not only say whether we are going to have stormy weather, but our weather operations also give us early predictions for everything from tornadoes to hurricanes. Also, we have a growing and explosive prison population. Together, looking at just those two, the issue related to an exploding population in prisons, meaning more prisoners, more density in prisons--they require $350 million more in our budget, and we needed almost $400 million for our weather satellites. Meeting their obligations caused us to set other priorities, but we did meet our priorities. We provided $2.3 billion to support our police officers, to keep them safe with bulletproof vests, and to make sure they had funds for the latest crime analysis and forensic tools. We also funded the Byrne formula grants, which are the important tools for State and local police operations, at $395 million. Regrettably, it is $35 million below last year. We also funded our COPS hiring grants but, again, at a reduced level.

Then there is Federal law enforcement. Aren't we proud of our FBI? Look at what they have done in the last 2 weeks with the take-down of the plot to assassinate the Saudi Ambassador. But the FBI is on the job every day in every way, going after organized terrorists, organized crime, and even predatory lenders and mortgage fraud. They are on the job looking out for us. And look how they work hand in hand with DEA, our Drug Enforcement Agency.

We have the Marshals Service, which, in effect, guards our judges and so on at our courthouses, but they are also the guys who go after sexual predators. Under the law we have, they are enforced with any runaway or rogue sexual predators.

This means we did what we could, but unfortunately we had to cut these agencies by 2 percent. It was with enormous regret that I had to do that, but we are where we are. Cuts do have consequences. I say to my colleagues, cuts do have consequences.

Then there is the area of innovation. We have worked hand in glove with the authorizers on the America COMPETES Act. Senator Hutchison is a member of that committee and one of the promoters of that. The America COMPETES Act recommends that we increase funding for NSF and other science agencies by 7 percent every year. Well, we would settle for 3 percent every year. This is to come up with the new ideas for the new jobs, for the new products. But what did we have to do? We didn't raise it by 7 percent; we didn't raise it by the amount we want; in fact, we had to reduce it by 3 percent.

All those who would like to pound their chests and go ``hoo-ha hoo- ha'' on American exceptionalism have to realize that cuts have consequences. But we did work to ensure the fact that we have funded the national space agency at $17.9 billion. It is $1.5 billion below the authorized level, which, again, Senator Hutchison is one of the lead authorizers. We did preserve a balanced space program, human space flight, space science, also aeronautics, and the development of a reliable space transportation system. This means, though, that NASA will be asked once again to do more.

We did fund the James Webb Space Telescope, which is the successor to Hubble. By funding the James Webb Space Telescope, we will ensure America's lead in astronomy and in physics for the next 50 years.

I am very proud of the fact that a Marylander at Johns Hopkins and the

Space Telescope Institute, on the Hopkins campus, just won the 2011 Nobel Prize for physics--Dr. Adam Riess. When he accepted the Nobel Prize, do you know what he said. He said: I could not have done my Nobel Prize without the Hubble telescope. All my research is based on the Hubble. Then he said: I want to thank the American people for supporting the political leadership that funded the Hubble and kept Hubble in space during very dark times. We won that Nobel Prize. It is going to reveal secrets of the universe and secrets of physics that are going to help us again invent new kinds of things.

So our bill does focus on jobs, safety, and innovation. We would have liked to have done more, but regrettably we could not. So, Mr. President, we bring this bill before you.

I want to close by saying this. There are many who like to wring their hands about China, and China is surging ahead. We can't stop China, but we can stop ourselves. And the question is do we want to stop ourselves in what we need to do? We need to promote commerce, trade, patents to protect our intellectual property, make sure we have a standard-setting agency, so if you invent it, you create the standard, so you can sell it around the world. We need to be able to save lives so we can save them not only at NIH in finding cures but also throughout Maryland, the Plains of the United States or in my own community. You know when a hurricane is coming, you know when a tornado is coming. But right now the Chinese are taking what is our National Science Foundation and they are replicating it, and we are, unfortunately, forced to keep it at a very modest funding level.

So if you want America to continue to be great and you want America to continue to be exceptional and you want to create jobs, support the passage of the CJS bill.

I yield the floor.