Floor Statements

Mr. President, I am going to give a recap of where we are and then note the absence of a quorum as we sort through our amendments.

This is the second day of the Senate's consideration of S. 1086, the child care and development block grant reauthorization on which 1.5 million American children depend, including 20,000 children from the State of Maryland. We have been working on this bill for over 2 years, and now it is our second day of moving this legislation.

We have made an impressive amount of progress. Yesterday the Senate agreed to nine amendments--three by rollcall vote and six by voice vote. We had a great group of bipartisan amendments. Of the nine amendments that were adopted, three were sponsored by Republicans, two were sponsored by Democrats, and four amendments were bipartisan. The amendments yesterday improved the underlying bill. They streamlined Federal early learning programs; made sure tribes get the funding they need; required States to develop childcare disaster plans; and ensures that CDBG, as it is known, also

serves an often much-overlooked population--foster care.

We also had a healthy debate on the floor in which women Senators came down to show their support for this bipartisan bill. Today we hope to continue our due deliberation of amendments.

Last night we identified approximately 29 to 30 amendments that remain. It is the hope of the chair and ranking member that sometime today--around 11:30 a.m., before the lunch--we will move to votes. We expect to have voice votes, possibly a rollcall vote, and I will give a further progress report. The timeline for all amendments is closed. We are now sorting through those amendments to see which we can adopt by agreement or adopt by a voice vote so we can move ahead.

I also say to my colleagues, there are many who have excellent ideas about childcare issues, and some are relevant to children but not necessarily relevant to this bill. As we wrap up the legislation, we hope to focus only on germane amendments to the bill today, and those other ideas, as meritorious as they are for consideration, that they either be withdrawn or find another vehicle for discussion and consideration.

We thank our colleagues for the quality of the amendments that have been brought forth. It shows that the Senate--on both sides of the aisle--has been thinking about children and has actually been listening to this compelling need around childcare and its availability and affordability, its safety and helping children get their education. Not all of the amendments--although they are focused on children--are relevant to the block grant, which is a voucher program to help low- income women qualify for childcare.

I will give further updates as the morning progresses and we sort through this. In the meantime, we invite Senators to come to the floor and talk about this very important topic facing American families.

I note the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, we are in the process of sorting out the amendments that are pending, again, to see what we could accept by UC, what we could accept by voice vote, and those that might require a rollcall vote. The chairman and the ranking member of the committee, Senator Harkin and Senator Alexander, are discussing this, and we are looking forward to some type of votes on or about 11:30 a.m.

But I see there are a lot of amendments out here about streamlining this and duplicating this and others--very thoughtful--but I wish to clarify exactly what is the Child Care and Development Block Grant Program. This is a program that meets a particular need to help people have access to childcare, and we are strengthening the quality requirements. It does not solve all of the childcare problems in the United States of America.

The overall need of childcare for both poor women and middle-class women or families is well known. It is one of the agonizing choices families need to make.

The Child Care and Development Block Grant Program--and this is why we are looking at a variety of other issues. We have on the books the childcare tax credit bill, where many of us hope to expand the deduction. Senator Gillibrand has others. But today we are focusing on the child care and development block grant. It is the primary Federal grant program to provide childcare assistance for working families.

It was passed originally in 1990, under George Herbert Walker Bush. Before 1996, there were four childcare programs for low-income families. All of them had different eligibility criteria and work requirements--exactly what we have talked about here, the need to streamline. Three were targeted to families in or at risk of being in the welfare system. One was targeted to low-income families outside of welfare.

But in 1996 under welfare reform, on a bipartisan basis, we created one unified program to serve low-income families with one set of eligibility criteria and work requirements. It was then streamlined. The overarching purpose of the childcare bill in welfare reform was to give parents aid, substantial assistance, so they could go from welfare to work or get the training to go to work.

It has been a very successful program--a very successful program. One and one-half million children in America benefit from it; 20,000 in Maryland alone--a substantial waiting list if we had more vouchers.

What we are doing in this bill is reauthorizing, following the spirit of 1996, streamlining and taking now what we know--new knowledge and best practices of how to help children in childcare be able to be safe, have a sense of security and stability, and then also enhance their ability to learn. We know now--all the research shows--from infancy to age 5 is one of the greatest growth spurts for brain development in a person's life. Vocabulary development and so many other things occur.

So what our bill does is help improve that, but we do not so overmandate to the States that we do not allow for local flexibility. So we are trying to streamline the bill, have a better emphasis on quality, without stringent new Federal mandates, and at the same time streamline this legislative process by moving through our amendment process.

I now look forward to conferring with my colleague. Members should stay tuned. If they would like to speak on this or the matter of childcare, we welcome them. We have had an open amendment process. We have had an open dialogue. We have had an open floor. I think this has been very constructive.

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

Mr. BURR addressed the Chair.

Yes.

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

I want to give an update. We had originally thought we would be voting around 11:30. We are going to delay that until on or about 12:15--nothing fixed, nothing mandatory. People have said: Well, what are you all doing? Look at the Senate floor. Where is the action? This is a compelling issue.

Actually, there is a lot of action going on in the sense that we are reviewing over 20 amendments that are still outstanding to see what could be accepted by unanimous consent, what could be accepted by a voice vote, and what requires a mandatory rollcall vote. So there is a lot of discussion going on, and Senators and their staffs are talking.

It is not to be debated; it is to be discussed right now. I think it is so healthy. This is one of the first times in a couple of years where we have had an open amendment process. In some ways we are getting adjusted to how that actually works. This is terrific. So just because you do not see Senators in intense debate, there are intense conversations about how we help children, how to not create new bureaucracies, how we have the sense that all this is child focused and yet not creating lots of new mandates or whatever.

So this has been really very good. I compliment Senator Harkin, who is the chair of the full HELP Committee. It is under his leadership that Senator Burr and I held some hearings. His advocacy for children is so well known. If we can move this bill today, we will have accomplished two major goals. We would have reauthorized the Child Care and Development Block Grant Program, made improvements and new reforms, and refreshed the program.

At the same time I think we have improved the process in the Senate to show we can govern by moving bills, by offering amendments, by discussion and by debate. But we could not have done it had Senator Harkin not been willing to establish such a great tone with Senator Enzi and Senator Alexander while Senator Burr and I did this.

This is the way the Senate ought to be. There were differences. But differences do not mean that you have to be filled with rancor and ranting all the time. At the end of day, when all is said and done, people want us to get more done and less said.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Oh, I am sorry, I thought the Senator from Oklahoma was involved in a conversation with the Senator from Iowa.

No way we want to inhibit the Senator's ability to speak.

Will the Senator yield to me before he offers his amendment?

Well, actually, I want to comment on how I want to work together with the Senator. Go ahead and offer the amendment, and then I would like to comment and not engage in klutzy conversation by asking questions. I think we are on the same broadband.

Before the Senator from Oklahoma leaves the floor and we proceed to a voice vote, et cetera, I wish to thank him for his steadfast advocacy in getting more value out of the taxpayers' dollar for the taxpayers' contribution to the Federal Treasury. He has been a well-known advocate for the consolidation and streamlining of existing programs, and I salute him for that.

Going back to 1996, we actually started this with streamlining childcare bills. In 1996, because I was here during the welfare reform debate and passage, we had four different childcare bills, with four different eligibility requirements, with four different levels of bureaucracy. So the money was going into the bureaucracy's determining eligibility rather than into childcare. In the 1996 welfare reform bill, we consolidated so that we have the child care and development block grant. That is how we got to where we are.

The Senator from Oklahoma talks about how he has data that cuts across eight different Federal agencies. I pledge to him, as the chair of the Appropriations Committee, to actually sit down and look at this data, to put our heads together. And really, with money as tight as it is, the stringent budgets we are under, particularly when it comes to funding the kinds of compelling human needs that are in health and human services and education, we want to get more value for the dollar. We don't want to get more bureaucracy for the dollar.

So I say to the Senator from Oklahoma that we appreciate his withdrawing his amendment. We know the Senator from Wyoming Mr. Enzi has offered an amendment to get a report as well. But as we look at our appropriations for this year, I invite my colleague, with the greatest sincerity--and I pledge to him my word as a Senator--to sit down and review these documents and see how we can put this suggestion he has into action. I look forward to it, and, quite frankly, I am eager to see what we can get done.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Madam President, I want to first and foremost express my thanks to the chairman, and his colleagues, for this bipartisan bill--a long overdue effort that clearly is the result of a painstaking, patient effort by the committee to reauthorize the Child Care and Development Block Grant.

I wanted to discuss very quickly one provision, section 8(b), that I feel needs additional clarification.

Given that the overall priority of all of us to increase quality while ensuring that States can effectively navigate the federal standards--while maintaining their authority to set their own standards--would the Senator agree that the intent of this law is not to rewrite other existing Federal laws or evade requirements of other Federal laws that might diminish services for children?

I thank the chairman.

HHS Rulemaking

Madam President, if the Senator will yield, as we close into the final minutes of this bill, I just want to say that today will be a great victory for America's children because we will pass the child care and development block grant. I think it is a great victory for the Senate to show that we could govern ourselves with an open amendment process. We could do it diligently, we could do it deliberatively, and we could do it with courtesy and civility. This is the way the Senate should be. Within 2 days we have arrived at a great bill, with cooperation and civility on both sides of the aisle. I hope this becomes a model for the way the Senate will conduct itself for the rest of the session.

I have been very proud to be part of this bill. I thank Senator Richard Burr of North Carolina, my Republican counterpart on the children's committee, with all of the due diligence we did for a year and a half. I also thank Senator Lamar Alexander for his steadfast leadership and input, and of course I thank Tom Harkin, our leader, who, as he wraps up his Senate career, will never wrap up his advocacy for America's children.

I thank all of our staff for the great work they did in the 100 meetings with stakeholders and the 200 meetings with us.

Madam President, I am ready for the vote and yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 13, 2014, at 9:30 a.m.

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 March 13, 2014, at 10 a.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 13, 2014, at 11 a.m. in room SR-253 of the Russell Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled, ``The U.S. Aviation Industry and Jobs: Keeping American Manufacturing Competitive.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 13, 2014, at 10 a.m. in room SD-215, Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled, ``Innovative Ideas to Strengthen and Expand the Middle Class.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 13, 2014, at 11:15 a.m., to hold a hearing entitled, ``Keystone XL and the National Interest Determination.''

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 March 13, 2014, at 9:30 a.m. in room SD-430 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled, ``Protecting the Public Health: Examining FDA's Initiatives and Priorities.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 13, 2014, at 10 a.m. to conduct a hearing entitled ``The Homeland Security Department's Budget Submission for Fiscal Year 2015.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 13, 2014, in room SD-628 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Tribal Transportation: Pathways to Infrastructure and Economic Development in Indian Country.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 13, 2014, at 9:30 a.m., in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 13, 2014, at 2 p.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Emergency Management, Intergovernmental Relations, and the District of Columbia of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 13, 2014, at 2:30 p.m. to conduct a hearing entitled ``The Federal Emergency Management Agency's Budget Submission for Fiscal Year 2015.''

Madam President, I am so pleased to bring to the floor this very important bipartisan legislation, the Child Care and Development Block Grant Act of 2014. I am standing here today to speak on behalf of families and children across this Nation.

I am excited to bring forward this bill for two reasons; one, the content it represents--a reauthorization framework for the childcare and development block grant, one of the most important tools families have to be able to afford child are so they may go to work. It is a childcare development bill and it is a work assistance bill.

I am also proud of the process by which we are undertaking this bill, the process by which we arrived at and brought this bill to the floor today.

This legislation has not been reauthorized since 1996. Senator Richard Burr of North Carolina and I serve on the HELP Committee, of which the Presiding Officer is a member. We once shared the Subcommittee on Children and Families. Senator Burr and I, who have a longstanding professional relationship, said: Let's see what we can get done on that committee. Where can we find common ground? Where can we find that sensible center? How can we move things forward on a bipartisan basis where we add value to our country but don't add to our debt?

We put our heads together, and by looking at the childcare needs in our country, we began a regular order process. We held three hearings, lots of meetings with stakeholders, over 50 organizations, as well as meetings with our staffs and each other, characterized by three factors: mutual respect, focusing on national needs, and how we could be smart in terms of our policies yet frugal in terms of the way we went about the money. We didn't expand the vouchers the way some of us would like, but we looked at how we could expand value by focusing on quality. Because of the tone we set with each other, we were able to do this.

This is how the Senate should operate. We should have mutual respect, talking with each other and not at each other, listening to the experts, listening to the grassroots, and paying attention to the bottom line. We were able to accomplish what we set out to do.

Today, as we come to the floor, this is an open amendment process. We talk a lot about regular order. There are very few Members of the Senate--particularly those who have been elected since 2006--who know what regular order is. A quick thumbnail of it means legislation is brought to the floor, we offer an open amendment process, debate, deliberate, and vote. This is how we hope to be able to proceed today.

There will be no strong-arming, no stiff-arming, no heavy hand, just regular order, regular debate, with every Senator having the opportunity to have their day and their say. This is how the Senate should operate.

What also excites me in coming to the floor is not only being the Senator from Maryland, but also, as the Presiding Officer knows, I am a professionally trained social worker. I have a master's degree in social work. I was a foster care worker for Catholic Charities, and I was a child abuse worker for the Department of Social Services. One of the reasons I came into politics was to be able to take the value of a social worker and bring it to the floor of the U.S. Congress to make sure we looked at families and their needs. This is what I think this bill does.

We are looking at childcare. Every family in America with children is concerned about childcare. They wonder if it is available. They wonder if it is affordable. They worry if it is safe, and they are also concerned about whether it will help their children to be ready to learn.

We all say that children are one of our most important resources, which also means childcare is one of our most important decisions. Families will scrimp and save to make sure they have adequate childcare. If you are a single parent and working a double shift, you wonder if childcare is safe and sound. If you are a student working toward a degree, you want to make sure that while you are in school, your children are in a good preschool or daycare program. These worries weigh heavily on the shoulders of parents everywhere, and our bill lifts that burden. This bill gives families and children the childcare they need.

This bill, as I said, is the product of a bipartisan effort. Childcare is something all families worry about, regardless of income or ZIP Code. This bill ensures that all children get the care they need and deserve. What we did was focus on those needs.

Childcare has not been evaluated since 1996. At that time the program was solely a vision as a workforce aid. What we know today is that this is also the time of the most rapid period of brain development, and that is why it is imperative we ensure our young children are in high- quality childcare programs. We need to make sure that childcare nurtures their development, prepares their minds, and prepares them for school.

The current program is out of date. It doesn't go far enough to promote health and safety and also make sure that the staff is ready to meet emergency responses and take care of the needs of those children.

When we worked on this legislation, we focused on quality. I will elaborate on that in more detail.

Way back when this bill was first signed into law, it was under George Herbert Bush. It was so women could go from welfare to work. President Clinton came in, and part of the welfare reform was to be able to do that. Now it is a new day, and we want to make sure that childcare not only helps the parents but it also focuses on the children. We want to ensure that when parents leave their children at daycare, they know their children's providers are trained, that the environment is safe, and their program will

help their children prepare for their education.

We know there are differences in North Carolina compared to Maryland. We know there are differences in Utah compared to Maine. So what we have provided is the ability to make sure there is incredible State flexibility. I will go into that in more detail.

I hope my colleagues will join Senator Burr, Senator Alexander, Senator Harkin, and myself in passing this bill. I look forward to further debate and discussion.

Madam President, I know we will be offering amendments throughout the afternoon, and we look forward to ample debate and discussion on them.

I want to reiterate my appreciation to Senator Burr for the way we have worked together on this bill. He was very generous in his comments to me and about me, and I appreciate it. But what I so appreciated in working with him is that his whole focus was: How do we protect these children? And his work to ensure that the children are safe when they are at the daycare, regardless of the size of the provider, was important. So, yes, we have good background checks. At the same time, we were looking at health and safety standards, making sure the staffs are at least trained in the elements of first aid, so that if the children needed help because they swallowed something--until the 911 responders could be there--they would have that training. That is really important.

Yet we had to look at it in a way in which we did not overregulate. So we wanted quality standards, but we did not want to have so many rules, so many regs--exactly what Senator Alexander cautioned us about: Let's not overregulate so that we then stifle or end up shrinking the pool. So we, again, worked on what--the phrase ``sensible center'' comes from Colin Powell: that if we work hard and listen to each other, we can find that sensible center. So it was the balance between Federal standards but also local flexibility on the best way to achieve those standards, and also to help States pay

the bill for the training. One of the aspects of our bill is to set aside 3 percent of funding to expand access to improve the quality of care, especially for infants and toddlers--the most vulnerable populations because they cannot tell you things. They cannot tell you where they hurt or some of these other things.

In addition, the amounts States set aside for quality improvement also must be at least 10 percent within 5 years of enactment. And States must say what they choose to invest in. We hope not only to have reporting and accountability but to get an idea for best practices that we can circulate among providers. We think this will be important.

The other area we focused on was in the area Senator Burr talked about, providing protections for children who receive assistance. That is exactly what I heard in Maryland. This is all income based; in other words, your voucher. This is a means-tested program. But if your means change in the program, you could lose your daycare. So it was an actual disincentive from improving yourself or maybe taking a seasonal job. So if you had the opportunity perhaps to work in retail during the holiday season--exactly for your own family's holiday celebration--you were going to be tremendously disadvantaged because it would be a boost, it would look like you were going up, when actually your income might be the same if you have taken that part-time job.

We want to reward work. We want to reward personal responsibility. So we were able to provide that flexibility that when parents redetermine their eligibility, they will give them ample opportunity to do so. So if your child is in daycare, and you take that part-time job or your income goes up, you will not lose the daycare you have for that year or that determination. We thought that was important.

The other was meeting the needs of children with disabilities. This is a strong passion of Senator Harkin, a well-known advocate for people with disabilities, and I know he will speak to that. But it will require States to examine: What are they doing to coordinate with the IDEA programs, again for preschool-age children with disabilities. Often a child who faces a disability is at a disadvantage because the daycare they are in does not promote learning.

I have a constituent in Maryland. She spoke at our press conference yesterday. Her name is Cathy Rivera. She is the mother of two children, ages 7 and 2. She is also a resource person working at the CentroNia family center, which is information services and also focuses on early childhood education.

Her little girl was born without an ear. That is rough going. So imagine being an infant, then a toddler, trying to learn a language, your family is bilingual--that could be a great asset, but when you cannot really hear, and the doctors are doing the most for you to help you, you still need to be in an environment that acknowledges that and is helping with the learning in childcare, at your pace, your way, so that your language skills are also developing because language and brain development are tied together. So without the proper environment, this little girl would have been doubly disadvantaged--one, with the physical situation from birth, but then the learning situation because of where she was.

Well, fortunately--with her mother working in the field of daycare, working at an agency that provides information and resources, with the help of the childcare subsidy--this little girl could be in the daycare that she needs, to not only look out to see that her physical needs are being met but that her learning needs are being met.

Isn't that a great story? But here is a mother who is working, a bit strapped financially, but with her own sense of motherhood and personal responsibility, she found what she needed. The childcare subsidy was able to help her pay for the daycare, and now this little girl has a chance. It is going to be a challenging future for her, but she is up for this challenge.

That is what this is. This is not only about numbers and statistics. So when we talk about improving quality, we have really tried to take into consideration these needs.

Daycare is expensive. In Maryland, the Maryland Family Network tells me that they had--with all of the licensed daycares--over 23,000 children who were on the wait list for this program--not for daycare-- that is even larger--but for this program.

So this is why we want to pass this bill and really be able to move forward on it. But, again, I am going to come back to this bipartisan effort of focusing on safety, security, and also learning readiness.

Madam President, I yield the floor, and I will say more later.

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

Madam President, I reiterate Senator Burr's request. People wanted an open amendment process. We are open. Come on and amend. We are looking forward to it. While we are waiting for our Members to come careening to the floor to offer amendments--by the way, 20 have been filed, so here we are.

I wish to comment on something else.

Girl Scouts

You notice I am dressed in green today. I also have on a Girl Scout pin. Do I not look like a Girl Scout standing here? I feel like a Girl Scout. I was a Girl Scout. Once a Girl Scout, always a Girl Scout.

Today we are celebrating the 102nd anniversary of Girl Scouts in America. What started out as a group of 18 girls in Georgia, organized by Juliette Low, has grown into an organization of 3.2 million girls and women.

As a Girl Scout, I knew firsthand about what it was like learning, about leadership and service. I loved working on my badges. I liked the camaraderie of working with other girls on the various challenges we had. I was a child during World War II. The Girl Scout program run out of our parish was very important. It provided important activities for girls after school. There were comparable Cub Scouts and Boy Scouts, just like we had the Daisies and the Girl Scouts.

These were important activities because in my community women were working as ``Rosie the riveter.'' So these afterschool programs were critical so we could be in a safe environment. We learned wonderful skills. We learned about our responsibilities.

I cannot think enough about Ms. Helen Nimick, who was my Girl Scout leader. I wanted to grow up and be like Ms. Nimick, who seemed to know how to do 43 things with oatmeal boxes. I do not know if they did it in the days of the Presiding Officer; there is a little bit of an age difference between us.

But you know what I loved the most were our pledges. I will just say today, first of all, you know the Girl Scout promise: ``To serve God and my country, to help people at all times, and live by the Girl Scout law.'' Pretty good. But here is the Girl Scout law. I actually carried this in my wallet. I will tell you why. Because if you follow the Girl Scout law, you are in pretty good shape. By the way, I think over 90 percent of the women in the Senate were either a Daisy or a Girl Scout, but the Girl Scout law says this: ``I will do my best to be honest and fair, friendly and helpful, considerate and caring, courageous and strong, and responsible for what I say and what I do, and to respect myself and others, respect authority, use resources wisely, make the world a better place, and be a sister to every Girl Scout, and a sister to every Boy Scout.''

I think this is great. To Girl Scouts everywhere, whether they are Daisies or senior leadership, we say congratulations on the 102d anniversary. But I want to do a particular shout out to the leaders, people who give of their own time and their own dime to help young women learn about their country, the world they live in, working collegially and in comradeship, camaraderie with others.

I believe the values I learned as a Girl Scout, though I smile about it today, were the lessons of a lifetime. Quite frankly, if I can live up to the Girl Scout law, I think I will be a pretty good Senator. So hats off to Girl Scouts everywhere, a big thanks to the leaders who do it, and let's eat those cookies, even if you are on a different kind of program than they are often called for.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, now, for the next hour, you are going to see the women of the Senate, on a bipartisan basis, speaking up on the issue of childcare. We have worked long and hard together.

I am going to withhold my time and turn to the Senator from Nebraska. What you need to realize is we are not a caucus. We disagree on many things, but on childcare we are united that this bill is a good bill. It could be improved through the amendment process. We recognize that.

So here we are, as a force trying to change the tone, trying to change the tide, and really help America's children.

I yield to Senator Fischer.

I now yield 5 minutes to the Senator from New York, another cosponsor of the bill, Senator Gillibrand.

Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Michigan, also a sister social worker and a real advocate for good nutrition for children.

I yield the floor to Senator Baldwin of Wisconsin, one of our newest Members but not new to this issue. Her record in the House on advocacy for children is well-known and respected.

I ask unanimous consent to make pending Landrieu amendments No. 2813 and No. 2814.

I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendments be dispensed with.

Mr. President, I note that on the floor are three outstanding Senators who wish to speak on this bill: Senator Cantwell, Senator Murkowski, and Senator Collins. They come as the deans of the Republican women. I ask unanimous consent that they each be allowed to speak for 5 minutes in the order in which I stated: Senator Cantwell, Senator Murkowski, and then Senator Collins.

Mr. President, I thank the Senators from Maine and Alaska for their comments, as well as the Senator from Washington State. Wasn't it impressive that for the last hour, from both sides of the aisle, the women of the Senate have spoken out. Yet this bill is not a woman's bill. This is a family bill, where the men and women of the Senate came together on a bipartisan basis and have developed a framework for a sensible, affordable reauthorization of the Child Care and Development Block Grant Act.

I am so pleased to be a part of this with Senator Harkin, chairman of the health and education committee, Senator Lamar Alexander, and Senator Richard Burr, my counterpart on the subcommittee, where we worked so hard to do this.

We the women of the Senate often joke, but it is no laughing matter when we say we work on the macro issues of our economy and of our national security. But we also work on the macaroni and cheese issues affecting America's families, and there is no bigger macaroni and cheese issue than general education, and of course early childhood education, which occurs both in the home--remember, the first teachers are always the family--and then childcare. With now more than 40 percent of American women in the workforce, childcare is indeed a compelling issue.

Childcare is one of the most important decisions a parent can make in raising their child. Yet when one asks who is worried about childcare or when there is a single mom working double shifts because she might make the minimum wage and she is trying to hold body and soul together or a married couple where the wife is working in the marketplace as a lab technician and the father has a job which might have him commuting more than 2 hours a day one way, they need to be able to have affordable childhood care. What about the police officer who works the night shift? When we say ``police officer,'' it could be female or male.

Our bill helps lift the burden, giving families and children the childcare they need. This is why I am so proud the Senate women have joined me to support this bill. Many families want childcare which is reliable, undeniable, safe, affordable, and accessible. This bill does just that.

So how does it work? The Federal Government provides States and Indian tribes with funding. This funding is used to help lower-income families afford childcare while their parents work or train for work. Families are given vouchers based on their income level to help cover the cost of care. These vouchers can be used by parents for care in a childcare home, care in a relative's home or in a child care center.

Every month the CCDBG Program helps more than 1.5 million American children. In my own home State of Maryland, 20,000 children are served monthly; 20,000 families benefit from this.

So why is the program important? Childcare is expensive. Even when parents are contributing to childcare, it is often one of their highest expenditures. On average, Maryland families spend 20 percent of their family income on child care. Maryland has 54,000 working moms with infants under the age of 1 year. The childcare for this is $13,000 a year. We have 148,000 single moms with children under the age of 18. We have 200,000 working moms with children under the age of 6. Childcare for them for a 4-year-old is about $9,000 a year. This is more than what it costs to go to a community college. This is what it costs to go to more than some of the campuses at the University of Maryland.

Childcare is expensive. Taking care of children who are preschool is expensive because in order to do the right thing they have to have trained staff who not only provide a safe environment for the children, but the kind of environment which nurtures their development, develops their mind, and prepares them for school. This is why we focused on high-quality childcare.

Safeguarding their health and safety, ensuring children have a continuity of care, making sure their nutritional concerns are also addressed. We have done this, again, on a bipartisan basis to make sure when we provide childcare, and we also provide local flexibility.

The needs in a rural State like Utah or Montana are different than Maryland or New York. Look at the lead sponsors of this bill: Tennessee, North Carolina, Iowa, Maryland. So we provide the local flexibility which is so important.

This bill will make sure we have strong background checks to make sure the children are safe. We are going to make sure they meet certain basic health requirements where the staff knows basic first aid. We are also going to make sure there is money for training and curriculum development so each child benefits in a safe learning environment.

There is much more I could say about this bill, but the most important is this. Let's get our amendments done and let's move it. I am proud of what we have done, and I really think that if we work together, we can offer our amendments and be done by sometime tomorrow.

So I again reach out to all of my colleagues. We have a good bill. It is a bill which helps families and, at the same time, it does not really increase bureaucracy.

I yield the floor and look forward to a continuing debate on the bill.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 12, 2014, at 9 a.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 12, 2014, at 2:30 p.m.

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 March 12, 2014, at 9 a.m. in room SD-430 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``From Poverty to Opportunity: How a Fair Minimum Wage Will Help Working Families Succeed.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 12, 2014, at 9 a.m. to conduct a hearing entitled ``Management Matters: Creating a 21st Century Government.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 12, 2014, at 9:30 a.m., in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Nominations.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on on Rules and Administration be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 12, 2014, at 9:45 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Election Administration: Innovation, Administrative Improvements and Cost Savings.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Veterans' Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 12, 2014, at 10 a.m. in room SD-G50 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Veterans' Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 12, 2014, at 2 p.m. in room SR-418 of the Russell Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs subcommittee on Economic Policy be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 12, 2014, at 2:30 p.m. to conduct a hearing entitled ``The State of U.S. Retirement Security: Can the Middle Class Afford to Retire?''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Subcommittee on Housing, Transportation, and Community Development be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, March 12, 2014, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Superstorm Sandy Recovery: Ensuring Strong Coordination Among Federal, State, and Local Stakeholders.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of

the Senate on March 12, 2014, at 2:30 p.m.

Madam President, I rise in support of S. 1917, the Victims Protection Act of 2014, and S. 1752, the Military Justice Improvement Act of 2013.

I have worked on this issue for years, and I am tired of lip service and empty promises of zero tolerance policies. Sexual assault in the military and service academies continues to rise. The data speaks for itself. Roughly 26,000 sexual assaults took place in the military last year.

I am so proud of the seven women on the Armed Services Committee who led this effort. And I appreciate the fine men who supported them, especially Chairman Carl Levin.

We are now 20 women total in the Senate. We disagree on some issues, even the bills before us. But we agree on the goal of providing more prosecutorial tools to punish criminals, ensuring fairness in the process, and getting help to victims.

The 2013 National Defense Authorization Act, NDAA, included more than 30 reforms addressing sexual assault in the military. They include: 13 prosecutorial reforms, 5 reforms to improve reporting of crimes, 10 reforms to improve victims services, and 2 reforms to expand the training of first responders.

This is a historic piece of legislation that takes a serious and significant step towards addressing this issue.

However, our work is not done. That is why I support Senator McCaskill's and Senator Gillibrand's bills to further reform our military justice system.

Senator McCaskill's bill builds on the provisions included in the 2013 NDAA by providing additional support to victims. It prevents defendants from using a good military character defense unless it is relevant to the crime. And it ensures these improvements also apply to the service academies which are also dealing with the epidemic of sexual assault.

I also support Senator Gillibrand's bill which would take the job of deciding which crimes to prosecute out of the hands of commanders and, instead, give it to independent military prosecutors with expertise in these crimes.

This approach has value for victims, commanding officers, and the accused. Victims are assured of a fair process. Commanders are given an independent source on an issue that they might not have expertise or experience. And those accused of sexual violence get legal protections through the process.

These two bills take another step towards cracking the code on addressing sexual assault in the military. Our men and women in uniform face enough stresses on the battlefield. We can't allow sexual violence to be another one.

I urge my colleagues to support these bills.

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

Mr. President, I rise to join my colleagues to bring attention to the important issue of climate change. It is time to wake up and take action--we owe it to our planet, to our country, and to generations to come. I thank the organizers of this event, Senator Boxer, Senator Whitehouse, and Senator Schatz, for their leadership on this issue. This is a problem that must be addressed, and this call to action is long overdue.

Maryland is one of the most vulnerable States to climate change. Our expansive coastline is greatly affected by rapidly rising sea levels that are eroding our shoreline and causing flooding. We are also starting to see the effects of more frequent extreme weather events, such as flooding, heavy precipitation, heat waves, and droughts. This will cause environmental damage to our shoreline, the Chesapeake Bay, and our water and air quality. It could impact our health by increasing respiratory illnesses. And this will cause economic damage by costing our coastal cities billions of dollars in lost tourism, our farmers heavy losses from droughts and heat waves, and many Marylanders property damage from flooding.

Maryland is leading the way in responding to the dire problem of climate change. Maryland has developed a Climate Change Plan that will reduce greenhouse gases 25 percent by 2020, contribute $1.6 billion to Maryland's economy, and create 37,000 jobs. I am very proud of my State for setting an example and tackling this problem head-on.

The Environmental Protection Agency is also moving forward with its efforts to put forth commonsense rules for curbing greenhouse gas emissions. This has included standards to promote a new generation of clean vehicles, which are expected to save more than 6 billion barrels of oil through 2025 and reduce more than 3,100 million metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions. It has also included an effort to limit emissions from new powerplants, and the EPA has pledged to hold listening sessions as it develops rules for existing plants. I support the EPA's actions--they are offering tailored solutions to a complex problem, and working within the Clean Air Act to protect public health.

Even though Congress hasn't been able to agree on a long-term solution to combat climate change, I have worked hard to fund the research that informs us about climate change and will help us develop solutions. As the chairwoman of the Appropriations Committee and the Commerce, Justice, and Science Appropriations Subcommittee, I funded over $3 billion for climate-related research in the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2014.

This includes $226 million for NOAA, which uses peer-reviewed research initiatives and partnerships with universities to study regional climate data and make climate predictions. It includes $1.85 billion for NASA's Earth Science program, which examines the Earth on a global scale and develops data that is used for climate prediction models. It also includes $958 million for climate-related research at the National Science Foundation within the Geosciences Directorate and the National Center for Atmospheric Research. I commend the employees at these outstanding institutions who are working every day to develop long-term solutions for climate change, and I will continue to fight hard for robust funding for these agencies.

Climate change is an enormous problem, but it is not enough for us to just recognize the problem. When it is a problem of this magnitude, we must truly rise to the occasion. The science is sound, and the reasons to act are numerous. Let's move it on climate change--the time is now.

Madam President, I come to the floor today in support of S. 1982, the Comprehensive Veterans Health and Benefits and Military Retirement Pay Restoration Act of 2014.

I believe we must keep the promises we have made to our veterans. We can do this by giving them the same quality of service they gave us, and by providing them with the care they deserve. That is why I support this bipartisan bill.

The bill contains a number of provisions that will improve the lives of the men and women in uniform and our veterans by:

Restoring the full cost-of-living adjustment for all

military retirees;

Reforming the system for processing veteran's disability

claims to reduce the existing backlog;

Providing in-State tuition assistance for post 9/11

veterans pursuing a college degree;

Expanding programs designed to help veterans find a job;

Requiring new services for survivors of sexual assault: and

Improving health care services related to mental health,

traumatic brain injury and other conditions.

In addition to supporting this bill, as the Chairwoman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, I have put money in the Federal checkbook to improve the veteran's health care system so that wounded and disabled warriors get the care and benefits they need. I have worked to ensure veterans suffering from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, PTSD, or a Traumatic Brain Injury, TBI, receive better diagnosis and treatment through the Defense Department and the VA.

I have also led the charge to reduce the backlog in processing veteran's disability claims. I brought Secretary Shinseki to Baltimore to create a sense of urgency to end the backlog by 2015. I used my power as Chairwoman of the Appropriations Committee to convene a hearing with the top brass in the military and members of the Committee to identify challenges and get moving on solutions. I cut across agencies to break down smokestacks and developed a 10-point Checklist for Change enacted as part of the FY2014 Omnibus Appropriations bill. This plan includes better funding, better technology, better training and better oversight of the VA.

We made a sacred commitment to honor those who served by giving them the benefits they've earned. This legislation is a significant step in the right direction, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. President, I come to the floor today in support of S. 1963, a bill to restore the 1 percent COLA cut for military retirees.

We must honor the sacrifices our military men and women--and their families--have made at home and abroad. We can do this by making sure that they have a government on their side and that promises made are promises kept.

Our men and women in uniform face specific challenges when it comes to their own financial security. It can be difficult to save for retirement while serving abroad or to build equity in a home when relocating every few years. Having a COLA you can depend on and plan for is crucial to building financial security.

That is why I fully support restoring the 1 percent COLA for all military retirees. As chairwoman of the Appropriations Committee, I included a provision in the fiscal year 2014 omnibus spending bill to cancel the COLA cut for working-age disabled veterans and survivors of departed members. This provision was an important downpayment toward restoring COLA for all military retirees.

Today we must finish the job to ensure that no military retiree has his or her COLA reduced. There are smarter and fairer ways to save money than reducing COLAs for men and women who served in uniform. We can start by closing tax loopholes for businesses sending jobs overseas or canceling outdated Dust-Bowl farm subsidies.

Rather than targeting veterans for budget savings, we should be working together to make sure they and their families are supported medically, financially, and emotionally.

Today is the day to right this wrong, and I encourage my colleagues to support this legislation.

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

Mr. President, I rise in support of the bipartisan farm bill conference agreement before us today. This 5 year bill provides certainty to both the producer and the consumer. It's a jobs bill supporting 16 million jobs across the Nation. It also is a reform bill that cracks down on fraud and abuse and ends direct payments.

Agriculture is the No. 1 industry in Maryland. We have 12,800 farms and 350,000 Marylanders employed in the industry. Poultry is Maryland's largest agricultural industry followed by nursery grown plants and dairy.

Maryland's Eastern Shore is home to a $1.4 billion poultry industry responsible for over 5,000 jobs. There are nearly 1,000 chicken farms and three processing plants. In fact, one in seven jobs on the Eastern Shore is poultry related.

For poultry growers, this bill continues the supplemental agriculture insurance assistance which provides disaster aid. This program lapsed in 2011, and this bill makes the program retroactive to 2012. This means Maryland's chicken farmers will continue to get disaster payments. The bill also continues to allow farm operating loans for poultry growers who do not qualify for operating credit at other lenders.

This farm bill requires country-of-origin labeling, which I have long supported. Every consumer has the right to know where their food comes from on their dinner table. I acknowledge there are some in the poultry industry that oppose these requirements. I think it is the right thing to do.

For Maryland's 500 dairy farms, the bill creates two new price and income support programs. The Dairy Production Margin Protection Program takes into consideration the high price of feed costs. This is a first for dairy programs and a win for dairy farmers struggling to survive with escalating variable and fixed operation costs. The premium cost to participate in this program will be very low for Maryland's small dairy farmers. The Dairy Production Donation Program will guarantee a profit for dairy farmers when the market becomes over saturated.

This legislation is important to the Chesapeake Bay conservation efforts. It includes the Regional Conservation Partnership Program, a new competitive program. The bill provides $100 million annually for this program. The Bay Watershed will compete with eight other regions for these critical conservation dollars. This bill also ties farmers' conservation compliance to crop insurance. This means if your land is not compliant, you will not receive a premium subsidy.

For sugar producers and refineries, the bill continues the existing Sugar Program. The U.S. Sugar Program supports over 140,000 American jobs, including 500 jobs at Domino Sugar located at the Port of Baltimore. Significant reforms to this program will put these jobs at risk and they may be shipped overseas.

This bill helps Maryland's growing specialty crop and organic farmers by gradually increasing specialty crops block grants from $55 million a year in 2014 to $85 million in 2018. Maryland receives more than $1.7 million from this program. The bill also increases organic research funding to assist farmers transitioning to organics.

The bill makes modest reforms to the food aid program following a similar path as the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2014. I support the reforms in the bill and believe this is another step in the right direction to allow more locally purchased food.

Finally, I would like to address food stamps, now called SNAP. I am for food stamps and always will be. We have approximately 800,000 Marylanders receiving food stamp benefits. In November, I visited the Maryland Food Bank with my House Democratic colleagues. We announced that we were standing up for SNAP and opposing the House's harmful cuts to the program.

During my visit, I met Tracey Coleman, a hard-working Marylander whose husband was laid off through no fault of his own when the steel plant in Baltimore closed last year. Tracey has three kids, including a daughter with special needs. She shouldn't have to choose between her son's asthma medication and a family meal. Tracey had nowhere else to turn. She signed up for SNAP benefits to keep food on the dinner table for her family.

I personally thank Senator Stabenow for working so hard to protect SNAP families in this bill. She fought off the House Republicans that wanted to gut the program, cutting $40 billion from SNAP and axing SNAP benefits for 4 million people, including putting 77,000 Marylanders at risk. I am happy to report no American will lose their benefits under this bill--not one. Most important to me, no Marylander will see their benefits reduced from the reforms in this bill.

I know some of my colleagues are going to vote against the bill because of the changes to the standard utility allowance calculation that will reduce benefits for their constituents. I understand. But what we all have to understand is that a compromise is a compromise and Senator Stabenow fended off the worst. I was recently in her shoes negotiating the appropriations bill with the House. It is tough.

I commend Senators Stabenow and Cochran for their hard work on this bill. I urge all my colleagues to support this bill. It is good news for American farmers and consumers.

Mr. President, today I come to the floor to recognize an important anniversary. Five years ago today, President Obama signed the Lilly Ledbetter Act into law. This important law has kept courthouse doors open to allow women to address pay inequality by correcting a misinterpretation by the Court on the statute of limitations when women seek redress. But the fight for equal pay continues, and we need to take action to fix the pay gap, which is what I want to discuss today.

On June 10, 1963, President Kennedy signed the Equal Pay Act into law. This landmark legislation prohibited discrimination on the basis of sex in the payment of wages by employers. The goals of the legislation were groundbreaking. It was the first time Congress acted on this issue, addressing what was a real and growing problem as more women entered the workforce. But it has been over 50 years since the Equal Pay Act became law, and since then, a lot of things have changed.

A recent Pew Research study found that women are the primary earner in 40 percent of households today. Additionally, many of these women are the sole earners. But what is often missed in the discussion about equal pay is the impact the pay gap continues to have on these households who are dependent on the salaries of women.

The pay gap results in $4,000 less per year for working families, and $434,000 less over a lifetime. Imagine what these families could accomplish if they simply got what they were owed. With the rising costs for child care, medical care, and filling up the family car, these families are held down by unfair and unjust pay policies.

While these are the day-to-day impacts of the pay gap, there are also even greater consequences over a lifetime. The pay gap affects your income, your pension, and your Social Security. Women's Social Security benefits are only 71 percent of men's benefits. The average income for women from private pensions is only 48 percent of men's. The consequences of our inaction on pay equity are following women out of the workplace and further impacting their lives down the line.

For years I have fought for a solution to this--the Paycheck Fairness Act. The Paycheck Fairness Act builds on the Equal Pay Act to help close the pay gap. Under the Paycheck Fairness Act, employers will no longer be able to retaliate against workers for sharing information about wages. Right now, if you ask someone what they get paid you can get fired. For years, Lilly Ledbetter was humiliated and harassed because she tried to find out what she was making compared to her colleagues. Women will also no longer be able to only seek back pay when they are discriminated against. Under this legislation they are also able to seek punitive damages.

Under the Paycheck Fairness Act, employers will no longer be able to use almost any reason imaginable to justify paying a woman less than a man. And under this legislation, women will no longer be on their own in fighting for equal pay for equal work. This bill includes education and training so women can strengthen their negotiation skills and learn about wage discrimination.

In this country, they say: Work hard, play by the rules, and you will get ahead. We work hard every day but we find the rules are different for women and men. In 1963, women made 59 cents for every $1 made by men. And more than 50 years later, we have made an 18-cent gain. In 2012, women made 77 cents for every $1 earned by men. Fifty-two years and 18 cents--that is not rewarding hard work, and it is certainly not playing by the rules.

Today, on the 5th anniversary of the Lilly Ledbetter Act, I call on my colleagues to join me in stepping up to the plate and fixing the pay gap by supporting the Paycheck Fairness Act. Let's end pay inequity and end the policies that keep women uneducated and unequipped to fight for their fair share.

It is not just for our pocketbooks--it is about the family checkbooks and getting it right in the law books. It is also about the generations of women to come. Let's finish what we started, and let's make sure it doesn't take another 50 years to end pay inequity.

Mr. President, I come to the floor today as the chairperson of the Appropriations Committee--a committee I am honored to chair--to support the Consolidated Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2014. This bill passed the House on Wednesday with a stunning and amazing vote of 359 to 67. The purpose of this agreement is to fund the operation of the Federal Government for the remainder of fiscal year 2014.

The vote in the House, which I hope will be paralleled here in the Senate, shows what working together based on civility, listening to each other, being willing to compromise but not capitulate on principle, negotiating on what are the appropriate fiscal levels--this shows we can get the job done.

In today's era of shutdown, slowdown, slamdown politics, where negotiating occurs on cable TV rather than in committee rooms, we worked together. Setting aside partisan differences, working across the aisle and across the dome, we looked to find how we could put together a bill both sides of the aisle and both Houses could agree upon.

This is what the American people deserve: Us doing the business of the country, legislating in due diligence and regular order. They want a government that works as hard as they do, and working under a very stringent deadline, we were able to do this. After 3 years of damaging cuts that have hurt our efforts to help people, this agreement turns the corner.

We recognized that we needed to focus on growth in jobs and lower the unemployment rate but not increase our debt or our deficit. We worked very hard to do that, to increase the kinds of public investments the American people would approve of--keep America strong, keep our economy strong--and to do the diligent work we need to do.

This bill is something called an omnibus bill which includes all 12 appropriations bills. That means we have 12 subcommittees--defense, health and human services, labor and education, energy, water, financial services--and each one has to do their funding work. Ordinarily, we would bring one bill up at a time, but that was not to be. So where we are is this is a consolidated bill of all 12.

We have been working on this since the President sent his budget to us this spring. We held over 50 hearings, listened, did due diligence, and marked up our bills. We were ready to come to the floor in the fall, but it was not to be. We had to wait for the Budget Committee to do its work to give us a top line so we could get to our bottom line.

On December 18, just before Christmas, Congress gave us that cap on discretionary spending. We knew what we wanted to spend, but, again, we know we have to be a more frugal government. We know we have to be smart not only about spending but about saving, getting rid of dated, duplicative, and dysfunctional programs, and we were able to do just that. On December 18 we were given a cap on discretionary spending of $1.02 trillion. We met that cap. We worked nonstop over the holidays, resolving differences in both money and in certain policy areas.

What we do today is we come here with an agreement that is bipartisan. I emphasize that. The agreement is bipartisan. It is bicameral; that means both sides of the Capitol. It has also been one of compromise but not, on either side, capitulating on principle.

I am proud to say this agreement meets our national security needs and ensures the readiness of our troops and keeps us safe at home. It also meets the compelling human needs of our middle class and our most vulnerable. At the same time, it also invests in America's future by strengthening our physical infrastructure and also supporting research and development to save lives, spur growth and innovation and everything from lifesaving biosciences to aeronautics. And we want to make sure we are looking not only at jobs today but jobs tomorrow.

Before I give more detail about this agreement, I will highlight one of the reasons I am very proud of something we have done in this bill. Our legislation pending before the Senate restores the full cost-of- living adjustment for our working-age disabled military retirees and survivors of our departed servicemembers. Their COLAS were mistakenly reduced by 1 percent in the recent budget agreement. This agreement fixes that error.

I wish to make this note: It is limited in scope. It fixes the error for disabled

military retirees and departed servicemembers. It is not the comprehensive pension reform necessary. We will await the Presidential commission which will come before the Senate, and we will be able to implement and work on their recommendations in due time.

I encourage my Members that to vote for this bill is to support the fix that helps our most vulnerable patriots. It is limited in scope but an important downpayment to restoring full COLAS for military retirees of working age who are either disabled or are part of the departed servicemembers.

This agreement provides for our national security. It has $11 billion more than current levels for operation and maintenance, $1 billion for the National Guard and Reserve so that our units are ready for missions overseas and/or at home. The resources also support the Defense Department's 3 million Active-Duty, Reserve, and civilian employees. This bill, if it passes, eliminates the need for civilian furloughs in 2014, and it also prioritizes readiness.

The agreement funds important areas in other protections of national security--an area I am very keenly interested in. An increasing threat to our people and our economy is cyber security. One need only look at the headlines. From Target to Neiman Marcus, 40 million Americans or more were hit by hackers whom we expect came from a non-NATO member country. There is a growing nexus between organized crime and those who have other predatory intents to the United States. We have $11 billion in here for cyber security for the Department of Defense, the FBI, Homeland Security, and important research agencies.

This agreement also keeps its promises to veterans in terms of health care, and we pay particular attention to the VA disability backlog. We believe that if you were on the frontlines over there, you shouldn't face a long line here when you have applied for your disability benefits. Working with the relevant authorizing committee, we believe we have been able to come up with it.

This bill also makes important investments in America's human infrastructure and meets compelling human needs in health care, education, and childcare. We have increased our investment in Head Start by $1 billion, making sure 90,000 more kids across the Nation are part of early childhood education programs that improve their school and reading and math readiness. We have also increased the childcare development grants by $154 million, meaning 22,000 more lower income families will be able to afford childcare--about 24,000 children in Maryland alone.

In our committee, we believe welfare should not be a way of life but should be a way to a better life. Childcare development grants enable women to move from welfare to work.

Also, for those who are working at a minimum wage where often full- time work means full-time poverty, if you are going to work, childcare should not eat up half of your already modest income. The child care development grant is a tool, along with the child care tax credit, to enable people to be able to work and make sure work is worth it.

We are also very conscious, on both sides of the aisle, of the need of Federal support for special education. We do not want a continued unfunded Federal mandate, where we require certain programs for special needs children but do not meet the Federal responsibility for paying for it. We have money in the bill for this.

Energy assistance and help with food and housing we have been able to do here. But we believe the best social program is a job. There is no doubt about it. To be able to work at a full-time job that supports a person's family and let's them get on the opportunity ladder for the American dream is what we hope to do. We believe, many of us, that with jobs helping build America's infrastructure we meet two needs. We have an aging, decrepit, sometimes even dangerous infrastructure. The money in this bill will go to important programs such as the harbor maintenance trust fund and also TIGER grants to help with transportation, so we can rebuild America's infrastructure and at the same time put Americans to work on rebuilding our infrastructure.

Also, at the same time we believe we need to look at the jobs of tomorrow, where we fund the kind of basic research that only government can do, that leads to new ideas, that will lead to the new thinking in the private sector that will create the new jobs tomorrow. That means, for example, for the National Institutes of Health, we increase it $1 billion. It means they will be able to do 400 additional studies. It will also deal, not only with our cures for cancer but also the brain initiative will help speed along finding a cure or cognitive stretchout for Alzheimer's. This is good public investment.

When we look at Medicaid funding, a cure for Alzheimer's or cognitive stretchout will not only save families the awful consequences of Alzheimer's--my father died of that--but it will also help our budget. When we look at Medicaid, 80 percent of the beneficiaries on Medicaid are children, but 80 percent of the money goes to long-term care for people who have either Alzheimer's or other neurological impairment diseases such as Lou Gehrig's disease, Parkinson's, and so on. When we can find a breakthrough on Alzheimer's, it will also help lower the cost of Medicaid, and we will be able to put it in other programs.

There is much more to be said about this bill and I will say it later. I see my vice chairman is on the floor and he will want to speak and there are others who are also present. I will speak during the day, but I want you to know I am proud of this bill. We did the job that was given us. We played the hand that was dealt us, and what we have come up with is a good deal for the American people. We tried to be smart about where we spent the money and we tried to be very smart in how we saved money.

I yield the floor and look forward to continued debate and passage of this bill.

Mr. President, if I might respond to the very generous comments of the Senator from New Mexico about the work of the committee, I would also like to respond to his comments about PILT. The Senator from New Mexico has spoken very eloquently, as have other Senators from the West, about the need for this Payment in Lieu of Taxes.

The Presiding Officer is a newcomer. I am sure he finds that we speak a different language and our constituents say: We use TILT and PILT. They wonder if we are tilting in the right direction. But to use plain English and plain needs of States that have a large amount of land that is held by the Federal Government, PILT stands for Payment in Lieu of Taxes.

So there is tremendous land owned by the Federal Government in New Mexico; am I correct?

But they have not been paying?

I think this is an issue of fairness and justice. I know the Presiding Officer comes to the Senate as a mayor. I came through the route of starting on the city council. We are local government people. We know how we had to struggle with unfunded mandates. Many of us have large Federal institutions in our State that we love, such as the U.S. Naval Academy in my district.

That does not pay taxes, but, my gosh, we are happy to have them. I think we have to resolve this PILT issue. I would say to the Senator from New Mexico, who has spoken to me frequently about this issue, and to all of the Senators from the West on both sides of the aisle: Let's work on this.

I pledge to you that as we move on fiscal year 2015, if it is appropriate to be in appropriations, we will be doing it. But I will also work with other relevant authorizing committees. We have to crack this problem. It has been languishing far too long. I think it is a justice issue, that if the Federal Government owns land on which it doesn't pay taxes, prohibits it then from being placed in other developmental use that could be taxed, we have to in some way pay our fair share.

Isn't that the Senator's perspective?

As the Senator's colleague and also someone who comes out of local government who knows the challenges local governments face, we have worked on this, again, on a bipartisan basis.

I have spoken to Senator Stabenow and believe she is willing to proceed on how we could do this as well.

I thank the Senator for his comments. I think we have a path forward to talk with Senator Stabenow, with others who are involved in the farm bill, and to move forward, and yet move forward on this bill and lay the groundwork for 2015 so we don't have this recurring problem.

If I could respond to the Senator.

Municipal government is usually in a different fiscal year. Baltimore City Council began January 1, the Federal Government, of course, is October 1, and we are finally getting settled on January 16. We are a little behind the schedule, but we are not behind the eight ball. We are going to work on this.

I thank the Senator for his work, along with Senator Johanns, a former Agriculture Secretary and Governor, I might add, and the way the Senator worked on the Subcommittee on Financial Services.

The Presiding Officer, a Senator from New Jersey, took the seat of the late and beloved Senator Frank Lautenberg, and Senator Udall took Senator Lautenberg's seat as the chair of the Financial Services Subcommittee. Senator Lautenberg would be very pleased to see this today. Although he would want to be here, the fact that the two Senators are in the Senate is very good.

Senator Udall essentially had a battlefield promotion. The Senator proceeded with such diligence and had constantly in his mind the mission of the agencies, enormous controversy at IRS, and had to step into some very complicated issues. The Senator's faithfulness to duty, the way he went about it with such diligence and verve, is indeed to be commended. I know Senator Lautenberg would believe that his gavel passed into very competent hands. We thank the Senator. We also wish to thank Senator Johanns because he helped to carry the momentum.

This is the way the Senate ought to be. Even in a time of great sadness we were able to do our job.

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

Will the Senator yield for a question?

First, I thank the Senator for the work she did in the Budget Committee, because that budget she worked so diligently on on a bipartisan basis with Paul Ryan has enabled us to have the allocation for discretionary spending that has enabled our coming here today to make sure the government will function, that it will work as hard as the taxpayers who pay for it, and that we will have no government shutdown and no crisis environment. So I really want to thank the Senator for that.

The question I have for the Senator is in regard to her role as the chair of the Subcommittee on Transportation and Housing, Urban Development, and Related Agencies. Has the Senator had a chance to look at what she thinks will be the positive job impact of what she has been able to do? Because the Senator funds transportation for the United States. There are TIGER grants that are so important to Maryland and the Port of Baltimore, and also the issues related to housing. In my own hometown the renovation of housing for the elderly--most of it built in the 1970s and 1980s under Carter and Reagan--needs to be rehabilitated. They need to be reformed so they meet new ADA standards, all of which would put men and women to work where, in my State, the job rate among construction workers is enormously high. So building bridges and building homes would sure go a long way. Has the Senator had a chance to look at any of that?

I thank the Senator for her tireless effort.

I want to comment on the work the Senator from Washington State did in her role chairing the subcommittee on transportation and housing. What a bipartisan effort that subcommittee put forth. Senator Murray and the Senator from Maine Ms. Collins worked on a bipartisan basis on transportation, which is what the committee funds, and on housing.

When I speak of housing, this is housing that is primarily related to meeting compelling human need. It also has the money for Community Development Block Grants.

Going back to the days when I referred to the Senator as ``Mr. Mayor,'' now ``Mr. President''--the Presiding Officer--we know--City Council Barb and formerly Mayor Booker--what Community Development Block Grant money means in our local communities. In my State, Community Development Block Grant money is key to local governments solving local problems without a ``one size fits all'' from Washington.

What I like about the Community Development Block Grant money is that its criteria for funding is it has to deal with blight, it has to deal with unemployment, and it has to meet compelling human need. And whatever they do, it also usually results in good-paying jobs in construction. But it is not decided by Washington: Thou shalt build such-and-such under such-and-such Washington rules. It is decided in Newark, in Baltimore, in Phoenix.

What is so important about the CDBG money in transportation and housing is money comes locally. There is Federal criteria--again, eliminate blight, deal with unemployment, and it has to meet a documented need--but it is decided locally by mayors and city councils, by county commissioners, or whatever the form of local governance.

So this is what they did. They worked on a bipartisan basis for adequate funding for CDBG to meet compelling need in the area of housing, particularly housing for the elderly--the so-called section 202s, many of which were built a long time ago and now need to be retrofitted and remodeled. Again, this meets need--coming up to the compliance of what we now know in things such as universal design to keep people out of long-term care or assisted living. This is a wonderful way to meet human need and also generate jobs. So they have done a great job.

I wish also to comment on the leadership they provided, and it was across all of the appropriators in this committee. We are not a committee that makes a lot of fuss; we are not usually a bunch of chest-pounders harrumphing about a policy. We were once referred to in a major historical work about our work as the quiet guardians of the purse. We are not quiet while working with each other, but the work is not well known or well noticed because we have done it in a tone of solving problems and keeping the problem the problem, and not making personalities the problem. That has been done by every single subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee in the Senate. I am proud of them. I think transportation and housing has been an exemplary one, but we will hear this today from others who will be coming up to speak about it. We have done a good job, and I hope other Senators will come to the floor to talk about the work of the committee. If they have any questions, if they want to debate or comment, we are open to those discussions.

I do hope we can move the bill along. I know cloture doesn't expire until tomorrow, but, gosh, if we all come and everyone could have their say, I think we could finish it today. It might be late, but I think we could finish, and then go on with other pressing Senate business. So I urge those who wish to speak on the bill to come to the floor.

I know other Senators will be coming, but until then, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, again I rise to compliment a subcommittee chairman. The Senator from Arkansas took over this committee for the first time this year, so he is a new chairman, but he was not new to the issues. I thank him for the work he did and the bipartisan tone which he set. Again, he has done an excellent job, working with the Senator from Missouri Mr. Blunt. What was impressive-- when we say agriculture, that is one word, but agriculture in this country is very diverse. Am I right that the Senator handles everything from artichokes to catfish?

I also thank the Senator for what he and the Senator from Missouri did, what Mr. Blunt did, in terms of food safety. I believe when we did the continuing resolution we were--and also when we were shut down--food safety faced the need for inspectors. We both share, in our States, chicken. Chicken is a $2 billion industry over on the Eastern Shore. A lot of good people have good jobs because of good chicken. But without those inspectors, our poultry industry would have been halted.

What were the consequences in those days and what has the Senator done in this bill?

The Senator from Arkansas as well as his ranking member, the Senator from Missouri Mr. Blunt, has done a great job. Sometimes Congress gets the rap when we grow the deficit, but here in agriculture, the subcommittee grows good jobs and they grow them by making sure we have a solid approach to agriculture itself, where farmers and producers and distributors are able to do their job. And the work of the FDA, through food safety, has not only kept America safe, but it enables those who produce food in our country to have the right inspections so we have the right confidence to go out to the supermarket.

We are very proud of what they do.

I yield the floor.

Will the Senator from Connecticut yield for a question?

First, let me thank my colleague for his generous words about the work of this committee. What is on the Senator's desk? I am drinking water.

I say to the Senator from Connecticut: I have been in the Senate for 25 years, and I have seen a lot of Senators try to put a lot of different drinks in those glasses, but I have never seen milk on the Senate floor. Is that permissible?

For all of us who just yearn for a calcium-rich diet, it is refreshing to see that. We salute Connecticut and its strong agricultural presence in our economy, and I thank the Senator for bringing a nutritious beverage to the Senate floor that is allowed under the rules. If it is not allowed, I am sure we can have the appropriate committee of jurisdiction allow it.

I think what the Senator is saying is we have a lot of people in our country who work in agriculture, and agriculture is not one field. Agriculture in the United States of America is diverse, and we can't let these small farmers fade away.

I am seeing new, emerging farmers in my State--whether it is for dairy or beef, and so on. With the so-called farm-to-fork movement, this could be the dawn of a new age in agriculture while we preserve that which has been traditional and fed America during good times and bad. So I thank the Senator for his work and his advocacy, and I look forward to working with him.

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

Mr. President, I see the Senator from Arizona is on the floor, and I would inquire of the Senator if at 12:30 he is planning to speak on the War Powers Act.

I say to the Senator from Arizona, I think this is an important discussion. We will do it any way the Senator from Arizona wishes. If my colleague wishes to proceed, that would be fine with this side of the aisle. Whatever way the Senator from Arizona wishes to proceed on this important topic is fine.

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

Madam President, pending before the Senate is something called the consolidated appropriations bill. It is consolidated because it consolidates the work of 12 separate subcommittees. As the chair of the full committee, I also chair a subcommittee called commerce, justice, science. I would like to say that what we did in our bill advanced, really, the protection of the United States in terms of Federal law enforcement, important domestic violence programs, but also we promoted trade and new ideas in science. I would like to share what we did. Before I do, I want to explain--many people do not understand, at this point, the Budget Committee and the Appropriations Committee.

The Budget Committee gives us the macro picture, what should be spent on discretionary spending, mandatory spending--spending for veterans benefits, which I believe ought to be mandatory--and also what our tax policy should be. Senator Murray of Washington State led that effort. We passed that bill in April. We tried to go to conference, but there was objection to it. Finally, after 3 weeks of shutdown, we were able to get a budget.

This committee was given the job, after the budget was passed, to do the work of the Appropriations Committee. The Appropriations Committee takes the work of the Budget Committee and puts it in the Federal checkbook, line by line.

I would like to elaborate on that, but I know the Senator from New Hampshire has come to the floor--one of our newer members of the committee, but she is not new to good government. She comes to the Senate with an incredible background of serving New Hampshire, particularly in the executive branch as Governor. She brings a sense of what government can do--that Yankee frugality for which New Hampshire is known.

I yield the floor.

The Senator from New Hampshire is very generous with her remarks, and I want to respond by saying a few things.

First of all, the way the Senator speaks about New Hampshire is the way I also speak about Maryland. When people think about government spending, they think it just goes out in the ether and doesn't generate anything. As the Senator has said, what is spent by the Federal Government really creates jobs in the private sector.

She spoke about prisons. First of all, we appreciate New Hampshire's willingness to accept a prison. Many States don't want them, shy away from them or are afraid of them. New Hampshire has really met a national need, and we know that the staffing that will be provided by the exceptional, patriotic work ethic of the people of New Hampshire will keep our country safe.

Those same guards and administrative staff will be out in their community spending money on housing, at the local grocery store, maybe needing a wedding planner or whatever. So that is one area.

In terms of New England fisheries--for those of us who are coastal Senators, we know what that means. Fishing and seafood is part of our history, and it is actually part of our State's identity. For us in the Senate, the coastal Senators have kind of an affinity with each other for it.

We thank the Senator from New Hampshire for what she has done.

I also want to comment that the subcommittee on legislative affairs that you chair also--it is not like it funds legislators. It funds things such as the Capitol Police, who are sentry here doing their job.

I thank my colleague for her work, and we are so pleased to have her on the committee.

I thank the Senator from Florida. It is wonderful for both me and Senator Shelby. Senator Nelson is an astronaut Senator. To hear an astronaut Senator say he thinks we are doing the job right means a lot.

The Senate has been blessed by having three astronaut Senators: Senator Jake Garn, a Republican from Utah, Senator John Glenn of Ohio, and Senator Bill Nelson.

Some of us have been in orbit a long time, but Senator Nelson actually knew what he was doing. So I thank my colleague very much. We are trying to add gravity to this bill.

Madam President, I thank the Senator from South Dakota for all the great work he has done at the subcommittee level. He has an enormous responsibility in that subcommittee. It is all about military construction--over there and here.

Many don't realize our military bases are really towns, and they need roads and water supplies. If you talk to a garrison commander, such as those in Maryland, they are small cities. Fort Meade employs over 35,000 people in Maryland--that is a lot of people--from those who work in the commissary to some of our most sensitive national security projects.

So he has done a great job. But what he has really thrown his heart into is veterans. His son is a veteran. One of the things early in my chairmanship we discussed was this issue of the veterans' disability backlog. Senator Johnson led the way, along with Senator Mark Kirk, his ranking member, on extensive hearings and due diligence, where we don't throw money at the problem, but we really work on solving the problem. There are very specific line items here that should help with this review process. But, as Senator Johnson has said, also accuracy, because if they are not accurate then they present other problems, either for the veteran or for the taxpayer.

He has done a great job. In another way he chairs the Banking Committee as the authorizer, of which the Presiding Officer is well aware, and his wise counsel for many of the aspects we needed to deal with on financial services was most welcome.

I must say to the Senator he is a great Member. The way he and Senator Kirk worked was outstanding. Senator Kirk himself is a veteran, a Naval Reserve officer. They knew just how to tackle the problem, and tackle it they did. I think veterans all over should know we are going to meet their health care needs. We are going to deal with the disability backlog area. We are also going to make a downpayment on this working-age military COLA for both the disabled and the survivors. And we are going to say: Promises made, promises kept.

I thank the Senator and his counterpart Senator Kirk. We appreciate what they have done. I think it has been an enrichment to the overall bill to have done what has been done in the Military-VA.

Madam President, we are waiting for other Senators to come to the floor. I have to talk about my own subcommittee.

I chair the Commerce, Justice, Science Subcommittee, and my ranking member is also the vice chairman of the full committee, Senator Shelby. We worked very hard on this bill, also with our counterparts in the House, Chairman Frank Wolf and Ranking Member Chaka Fattah. The CJS bill we agreed upon provides $51.6 billion in discretionary spending. It focused on community safety, on our jobs and our economy. We used those priorities to guide funding decisions, from Federal law enforcement to space exploration. What could keep America safe? What could make America great? We cannot have vital communities unless they are safe.

The CJS bill has money in here for key grants to help State and local police departments. The legislation we worked on adds money toward the COPS Program that will put cops on the beat.

We also want to deal with the prevention of violence as well as the prevention of crime. This bill includes money for the Violence Against Women Act, $29 million more than sequester. What it will mean is more help to local enforcement to prosecute, more money to help with prevention for those who are victims of domestic violence and to be able to provide lifesaving shelters and then transitional housing. We are very proud of that.

As we add more police to the streets and neighborhoods in our communities, we want to make sure the police are safe, and we were able to have funding in here to provide a grant program to buy bulletproof vests. We are often disturbed when we talk to our local police chiefs that the crooks and drug dealers and bums have better equipment, technology, better guns, more rapid guns, or they have bulletproof vests while our police officers are out there defending us without vests. We wanted to make sure our officers have what they need.

We also have money in here to deal with prevention. We have money for youth mentoring programs but also to tackle gang violence in our communities.

This is where bipartisanship really worked. Our colleague Senator Kirk of Illinois, who struggled with terrific gang problems in Chicago, acknowledges we have gang problems in every city. He worked very hard to present to the committee a gang violence program and we were able to put money in that so that there can be local solutions.

Acknowledging that indeed schools need to be safe, we also helped create a grant program, modest in funds, where local police departments working with the Department of Education and the parents can come up with ways to keep those schools safe.

This bill also has a strong focus on cyber security where we have money in here to fund the Department of Justice, to prevent attacks in case criminals, particularly organized crime, are behind the keyboard. Before it was Al Capone raiding banks. Now it is hackers, both in this country and around the world, stealing credit cards, stealing our identity. Over 46 million people were victimized. This provides money particularly to the FBI and the National Institutes of Standards to develop the tools and techniques and actually implement them to do it and to work with the private sector on advice and guidance on what steps they could take voluntarily to be able to protect themselves.

We also funded Federal law enforcement. In this legislation we have added more money for the FBI, the Drug Enforcement Agency, and the U.S. Marshals.

What is the U.S. Marshals? Is this the days of Wyatt Earp? Do they ride the range? Actually they ride our roads, making sure they are going after the most-wanted fugitives. When we have on TV the 10 most wanted, it is the marshals who are in hot pursuit, with the authority to go across State lines. They do it. They also have the legislative mandate to implement the sexual predator laws. They are the ones who are charged with actually finding, identifying, to make sure they are filing their registration, and keeping our children safe. Then they are charged with the responsibility of keeping our courthouses safe. You may recall a few years ago the terrible shootout in Atlanta. Many of our courthouses themselves could be in danger. Because of the violence when you have these types of prosecutions, they can also invite violence against the judges. These marshals do that job. We believe while the high profile agencies may be the FBI and DEA, and we recognize that, there is also the Marshals Service.

In the area of science, Senator Shelby of Alabama, my ranking member, and I also funded America's space program. This total funding will be $17.6 billion. Working with Senator Shelby, we wanted to have a balanced space program to assure America's premier leadership in human space exploration and in space science and also in aeronautics. We worked with the SLS rocket, which will take human beings beyond the Earth orbit. The bill has $1.6 billion for that development. But we also funded operations and research on the International Space Station.

The Presiding Officer might have read recently that NASA has extended the duration and operation of the space station. It costs a lot of money to build it and there was a lot of risk of human lives to go up there and assemble it. ``Gravity'' might win in the Academy

Awards, but we have real-life astronauts who keep that space station together, kept it operating, and now that we have been able to accomplish it, it is time to do the compelling research that could be done only by a lab in the sky in microgravity or no gravity at all, to be able to do this. We look forward to being able to conduct the research.

Also, because we are Americans and we believe in the private sector, we now will have commercially crewed vehicles going to the space station. It is going to be amazing.

We had the space shuttle. What a workhorse the space shuttle was. It took astronauts, researchers, up to the space station. That useful life came to an end. We depend on the Russians, with the Soyuz, to do that. We appreciate that, making the Soyuz available--I might add at a really hefty, hefty, hefty price. But we know we wanted to have our own way of getting up there. Thanks to the development of commercial crews--again the American way of competition for the best, most safe vehicle, at the best price--they are going to be able to do it.

I am very proud that a company based in Virginia but hiring Marylanders, Orbital, has a rocket being launched from Wallops Island that now takes cargo, an unmanned vehicle taking cargo--not risking the life of an astronaut, taking cargo to the station.

We also have funding for space science to understand and protect the planet. We think we have done a very good job in that.

Also in the area of science, yes, funding for the National Science Foundation and also in weather, what we have done in terms of weather. Most people think they get weather from the Weather Channel. I bet if they are from Boston, like the Presiding Officer, you are mesmerized by it. But the Weather Channel gets its information from the Weather Service that is operated by NOAA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. We want to make sure we have the best mathematical models and the best satellites working with international partners to make sure we make the best weather forecasts. It saves lives and it also saves money.

For every mile we can be accurate in the prediction of a hurricane, we save $1 million in evacuation costs. In Maryland, Ocean City, we are vulnerable. So every dollar we can save--and Key West--all of us, hurricanes, or a nor'easter--we will understand that. We have put money in there. And we have done other things to promote the economy. I am proud of what we did in Commerce, Justice to keep America safe, to do the jobs today and the jobs tomorrow.

I note the subcommittee chairman on Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education is here.

I yield the floor and such time as he may use.

I thank the Senator from Rhode Island for his comments. I appreciate them. They were well said. But the compliments should be reversed. This is a committee effort. What I am so excited about for this bill is that it is bipartisan, bicameral. It

was agreed upon in the House by an overwhelming vote of 359 to 67.

I look forward to this same type of vote in the Senate, but we did it because we listened to each other, we functioned with maximum respect, and saw where we could compromise without capitulating on principle.

I note that other Senators will be coming shortly.

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

I object.

I object.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, we are coming to the end of a long day and a really long journey. This journey began last year when this committee was dealing with a crisis situation in December 2012 when our beloved and esteemed chairman Senator Dan Inouye passed away. Simultaneously, we were dealing with the emergency legislation to fund Hurricane Sandy relief. At that time I was asked by my colleagues, based on our seniority system, to become the chair of this committee. It was my goal in taking over the committee that I wanted to continue the great tradition of Senator Byrd, of Senator Ted Stevens, of Senator Danny Inouye, of Senator Thad Cochran, that we would work on a bipartisan basis in the interests of the United States of America. Although we come from different places, different States, and have even different priorities, we are one country. It requires us to make sure we do our job.

An Appropriations Committee is one of two committees that are constitutionally referenced. When our Founders wrote the Constitution, they said that there should be a committee that has an annual Appropriations Committee for public review and public vote, and there should be a finance committee to raise the revenue. They didn't call it the finance committee, but a revenue committee to raise the money to pay the bills.

This bill meets its constitutional responsibility. This is the bill that funds the Federal Government for fiscal year 2014. We are a little late, but we have gotten the job done, and we have done that job with due diligence, starting with President Obama giving the Congress his budget.

Remember, the President proposes, the Congress disposes. We took the President's budget request, and we held our due diligence hearings. However, we faced a real problem. The Budget Committee, which sets the overall cap on discretionary spending, had not passed that. Many said you must have a budget. Thanks to the leadership of Senator Murray, through hard work, we voted on a marathon budget bill that overwhelmingly passed in March. I was so optimistic. I thought: Great, the Budget Committee is done. They have an April 15 deadline. They are going to go right over to the House and begin negotiations, and we will get our allocation with our cap. Remember, we have a cap on discretionary spending. We cannot be wild spenders.

However, it was not meant to be. There are those in the Congress, in the Senate, who did not allow the Budget Committee to meet. Some 22 times Senator Murray asked to go to conference. We were delayed. We missed our October 1 deadline. We did not bring up our individual bills. But we did have all our bills marked up in full committee in full view by August 1. That is what we operated on.

Then in the fall, when we did get our budget, we did get our discretionary spending and a very stringent deadline. On December 20 we began to move to work with the House to come up with an agreement.

We did. We worked across the aisle, and I thank the Senator from Alabama, my vice chairman, for helping me create the environment. Our mutual respect for each other enabled us to work in a mutual way to move our bill forward.

We reached across the dome to the House Members. We have worked together, and we have finished the bill. We brought to the floor what I think people could vote for. Yesterday it passed the House with 359 votes, with only 67 votes against it. I hope we have a successful margin today. These efforts show that we Democrats and Republicans can work together for the good of the country; that we can avoid drama politics with cliffhangers and fiscal cliffs; we can avoid shutdowns; we can avoid government on autopilot.

Most of all, those are process arguments. I did not come to be a member of the appropriations committee to be a process guru. Process gets you to the objective you seek, and the objective that I seek is to make sure that the United States of America is the best country in the world; that we lead the world in demonstrating American exceptionalism; that the greatest deliberative body continues to deliberate rather than delay; that the greatest country in the world, through American exceptionalism, knows how to resolve conflict, which we were able to do.

We compromised without any side capitulating on principles--give and take on money, give and take on policy. But that is what America is, give and take.

We were able to do that. At the same time, when I say the greatest country in the world, we ensured national security. We met compelling human need. We continued the opportunity ladder that enabled my family to rise as an immigrant family, and the family of the Presiding Officer to rise as an immigrant family. The Senator from Texas, he speaks so eloquently, often, and frequently about his father. We need an opportunity ladder in this country, and we have it in this bill.

We also wanted to make sure that we have jobs today and are looking for those investments in research and development for jobs tomorrow. But we will never forget our veterans. We have money in this bill for adequate funding for veterans health care, fixing the disability backlog. I know earlier in this debate the COLA for disabled military retirees and survivors of working age was raised. We have fixed that, waiting for a comprehensive solution later on in the year.

I think we have a bill that meets the test of working to ensure America's exceptionalism, protecting our national security, continuing that great opportunity ladder that made the United States of America great. At the same time, we made those public investments; we were a frugal committee that kept an eye on public debt.

I urge my colleagues to pass this bill.

There have been many accolades for me today. I thank you for them. This is a committee. This bill is not about a ``me.'' Behind a ``me'' there is a whole lot of ``we.'' Working on a bipartisan basis, I thank my vice chairman, the Senator from Alabama, Mr. Shelby, for being a gentleman of the old school, meaning courteous and civil. He was insistent, he was persistent on those priorities that he represented, and also on keeping that frugal eye that he is known for. But we were able to work together to create a climate in our committee where there was confidence that everybody could be at the table and everybody could have their say.

I thank his staff for their professionalism: Bill Duhnke, Dana Wade, Chris Ford, Jane Lee, and Shelby Begany.

My own staff were no slouches either, and I thank Chuck Kieffer, Gabrielle Batkin, Melissa Zimmerman, Brigid Houton, Vince Morris, Kali Matalon, and Eve Goldsher who helped.

But also, all of us had fantastic subcommittee staff, and that staff has backed those subcommittee chairmen. They worked every single day since December 20, with the exception of Christmas Eve and Christmas day.

Now we are at the end of this journey. As we conclude and vote on the omnibus, the consolidated appropriations bill, I hope the overwhelming majority of the Senate votes yes. Then, later on this month we will hear President Obama's State of the Union. He will give us his budget. We are going to start all over again with the same atmosphere of respect, openness, and due diligence.

Madam President, I know there are just minutes left before the vote. If there is no objection, I yield back the time and urge the Senate vote.

cloture motion

We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the

provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,

hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to

concur in the House amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R.

3547, Space Launch Liability Indemnification Extension Act

and the Omnibus Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2014.

Harry Reid, Barbara A. Mikulski, Benjamin L. Cardin,

Christopher A. Coons, Patrick J. Leahy, Brian Schatz,

Jack Reed, Tom Udall, Jeanne Shaheen, Tim Kaine, Patty

Murray, Richard Blumenthal, Jeff Merkley, Mark Udall,

Tom Harkin, Mark Begich, Mary L. Landrieu.

I move to reconsider the vote and I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, January 16, 2014, at 9:30 a.m.

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 Thursday, January 16, 2014, at 10 a.m. in order to conduct a hearing entitled ``Progress Report on Public Transportation Under MAP-21.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to hold a meeting during the session of the Senate on Thursday, January 16, 2014, at 10:30 a.m. in room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building. The committee will hold a hearing entitled ``Locating 911 Callers in a Wireless World.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate in order to conduct a Business Meeting on Thursday, January 16, 2014, at 9:30 a.m. in room 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Environment and Public Works be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on January 16, at 9:15 a.m. in room 406 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building to conduct a hearing entitled ``Review of the President's Climate Action Plan.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, January 16, 2014, at 10 a.m., in 215 Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Advancing Congress's Trade Agenda: the Role of Trade Negotiating Authority.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, January 16, 2014, at 2:30 p.m. to hold a nominations hearing.

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 in order to conduct a hearing entitled ``Strengthening Federal Access Programs to Meet 21st Century Needs: A Look at TRIO and GEAR UP'' on Thursday, January 16, 2014, at 10 a.m. in room 106 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 January 16, 2014, 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 Committee on Veterans' Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, January 16, 2014, at a time to be determined during first vote of the day in S-219 to consider pending nominations before the Committee.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on January 16, 2014, at 2:30 p.m. to hold a closed hearing.

Madam President, what is the pending business before the Senate?

Which is?

Madam President, I rise in support. This is a simple short-term extension of the continuing funding resolution we passed some weeks ago. This is Washington-speak and budget-speak for saying, as of today, the money that keeps the Federal Government in operation expires. However, being debated in the House this afternoon we have a consolidated appropriations bill which will fund the government through fiscal year 2014 and will come to the Senate either late this evening or will be on the floor tomorrow morning.

I ask the Senate to pass the short-term extension because it is a technical situation. This isn't the usual delay, drama, and fiscal cliff situation. When the Budget Committee acted, and we passed the bill on a bipartisan, bicameral basis, we, the Appropriations Committee, were given a very stringent deadline of January 15 to produce an appropriations bill for fiscal year 2014. We have worked all the way through the holidays and all the way up to Sunday evening, and we have completed our work. It is now before the Senate and the House to be reviewed. It is on our Web site and so on. We just need a couple of hours to complete the job now.

I can assure my colleagues this very short extension is status quo. It makes no changes in funding levels. It makes no changes in conditions for the operation of the government. The Appropriations Committee worked over the holidays. The agreement was made public on Monday. The House will vote on the agreement this afternoon. As soon as the House completes its work, it will come to the Senate.

This is a short-term CR. It is for 72 hours. It will provide the time needed for the Senate to consider the agreement, for the paperwork to be prepared, and for the President to sign it. This is a very short- term extension which will enable us to complete our work and not even have a temporary shutdown. I urge my colleagues to allow the short extension to pass the Senate expeditiously so we can move on to the diligence we need to provide in debating the appropriations bill.

We will have a vote at 12:15. The vote at 12:15 is on the short-term extension of the current continuing funding resolution. It will be for 72 hours. It takes us through Saturday. I hope we are done before Saturday.

This is not a vote on the appropriations bill itself, nor should it be viewed as a proxy vote. It is just simply a technical time bridge to enable us to have adequate debate in the House and adequate debate and review in the Senate to do this.

I really hope my colleagues support this 72-hour extension so we do not have the usual drama we have of fiscal cliffs and shutdowns and so on. My colleague, the Senator from Alabama Mr. Shelby, who is my vice chairman, is involved in other duties in the Senate, but he too supports this 72-hour extension. We have been working so diligently on our bill through the holidays so we could have a bill before the Senate, and I must say it has been characterized by diligence, determination, and courtesy. But it takes time. It takes time to review, and it takes time to scrutinize. Quite frankly, it took time to discuss the issues involved in the appropriations.

All 12 subcommittees are represented. But I will say more about it when we bring the actual bill to the floor.

Madam President, I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

I ask now for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lie on the table was agreed to.

I note the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I rise today to speak on the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2014. But before I make those comments, I wish to associate myself with the remarks of the Senator from California Mrs. Boxer and also the Senator from Rhode Island Mr. Jack Reed and also all of those who voted to move forward where we continue to provide an economic safety net for those people who have lost their job and are actively looking for work, and to continue this economic and social contract which has been part of the way Americans respond to help other Americans at a time when they are down but they shouldn't feel as though they are out. I hope we could put party rancor aside and look at commonsense ways to move this bill forward.

In terms of the so-called pay-fors, I have been here a long time. I have never seen this pay-for before on unemployment compensation, particularly for a 90-day bill. We are talking about 90 days, and we are already in the middle of January. I hope the two leaders can come together and we can resolve this.

On another topic, I wish to report to the Senate some very good news. I rise today as the chair of the Appropriations Committee, and I wish to announce that the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2014 has completed all its work in the committee process. We have completed our conference and it has been filed in the House and should be considered in the House and Senate this week. What does that mean?

First of all, our Appropriations Committee has met the test of the Constitution. Article 1, section 9 of the Constitution directs that there be an Appropriations Committee, although it is not referred to by name, and that every year we review the annual spending of the Federal Government and vote upon it.

We also followed the law. By following the law, the law is the bipartisan Budget Act forged by Chairpersons Ryan and Murray. We meet the requirements of the Budget Control Act.

The Budget Control Act looks at total spending for the Federal Government--mandatory spending and then discretionary spending. We who are appropriators handle all of the accounts for discretionary spending. Guess what. The Budget Committee puts a cap on us, and that is great. It is a way that we actually have a cap on spending that everybody knows and everybody voted for.

So we have a cap by law on discretionary spending of $1.012 trillion for fiscal year 2014. The work of our 12 committees stayed within that cap, and yet we spent the money to meet certain areas. We met compelling needs. We certainly preserved national security. We looked out for our human capital, particularly our children in terms of education, and also invested in physical capital--improving infrastructure--and also the long-range needs of our country by putting public investments into important research and development by $1 billion more in NIH.

We also met the mandate of the American people who told us: Work together. Be bipartisan. Work across the aisle and work across the dome. And we did it. They also said: When the bill comes up, don't do it with brinkmanship and don't do it with showmanship. Get the job done in a commonsense way which promotes growth in our country but yet at the same time looks at reducing debt.

They said: Don't do showdown politics. And we won't. We will pass it because we have met our deadline.

They said: Don't put government on autopilot with something called those continuing funding resolutions. We don't do that either. Every one of our 12 subcommittees is in this comprehensive bill.

We dealt with difficult and divisive policy issues, but we did it with diligence and determination. And, I must add, we tried to promote an atmosphere of civility as we did it. It was tense and it was intense. But at the end of the day, we did work pinpointing how to do the job rather than finger-pointing at each other. As I said, negotiations were conducted that way.

Our House Appropriations Committee chairman--Mr. Hal Rogers, the gentleman from Kentucky--and I forged this agreement, along with ranking members, my vice chairman Senator Shelby of Alabama and in the House Congresswoman Lowey of New York. We didn't do it alone. There was bipartisan agreement of all the subcommittee chairs and over 50 Members of the House and the Senate.

We met a very stringent deadline. When we left here on December 20, we had to produce a bill by January 15. That is tomorrow. That is when the

continuing resolution expires. We are asking for a 72-hour extension, not to finish the job, but so we can do our deliberations on the floor in both the House and the Senate.

We worked day and night. I jokingly said during the deliberations: I wish I were as thin as I am stretched, because we really worked at it. Over the holidays our staffs and our subcommittee chairmen worked. The only time they took off was Christmas Eve and Christmas Day. So we thank each and every one of them for their dedication.

As I said, this bill required very difficult choices. It meant give and take. It meant more giving on both sides, because there were no big takes.

We worked under a very tight budget, $1 trillion. It sounds like a lot of money, and it is. But of the $1 trillion, $600 billion was in the Department of Defense. The other $300 billion was in discretionary spending for all of the domestic agencies. It comes out to like 620 and 380, but those are the rough numbers.

So we did meet our national security needs, but we also were very mindful. I was particularly mindful of the social contract with the American people. I wanted to have a bill to help create jobs in this country, not make-work but real work, in rebuilding our physical infrastructure on roads and bridges and clean water. I also wanted to look ahead to the long-range needs of our country, in research and discoveries, and not only win the Nobel prizes but win the markets. We expanded our commercial service office to help us promote exports overseas, accelerating manufacturing institutes where government could work with this new emerging dynamic, small-scale manufacturing. I have lost over 12 percent of manufacturing in my State, so manufacturing is important.

We wanted to make sure that families felt they had a government that is on their side--first of all, helping with school safety--and we have a bipartisan program in here to promote school safety--but at the same time to promote quality childcare and early childhood education. We then made those kinds of investments, all with an eye to getting value for taxpayers.

Our colleagues were very clear, and so were the American people: We have to have a more frugal eye. I instructed my colleagues on the Senate side: Let's look at those programs which are dated, duplicative, or dysfunctional. They get a D: dated, duplicative, and dysfunctional. We were able to eliminate many of them, and we will be back at it next year doing a scrub. If you notice, there is no atmosphere of crisis.

The other thing that I am proud of in this bill is that we avoided contentious policy riders. I think we have been able to deal with those in a way where they would not be a problem for the other side of the aisle.

However, there was one item wrong or one technical mistake in the Budget Committee that I am proud that we were able to fix. This was really at the very top of our agenda, when Mr. Rogers and I met. We were deeply concerned about the cost-of-living issue related to military retirees of working age who were disabled or survivors. Their COLAs were mistakenly reduced by 1 percent in the recent budget agreement. This bill, the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2014, fixes that problem.

It is limited in scope. It is limited to disabled military retirees and survivors of departed servicemembers--the neediest of the needy. We hope, as time moves on, there is a Presidential and DOD commission on pension reform at DOD, and we will have a comprehensive approach and do it. But I want our colleagues to know we were very mindful of these veterans. So we did this fix for military retirees of working age who were disabled or survivors of departed servicemembers, but we also did something else.

If you go to the Web site in the House, which has the most detail because it is pending there--it will come up in the Senate when it moves here tomorrow--we really put money into veterans health care. We put money into fixing the veterans disability backlog. I know the Senator from Massachusetts believes that when you are on the front lines you should not have to wait at the back of the line if you are a wounded warrior to get your disability benefits determined. So we pushed for those reforms, and we put the taxpayers' dollars behind them because we knew that is the way they would want us to spend their money.

We also maintained the veterans education budget because many of our young men and women coming back home who served so well over there need to brush up on education here to move them to jobs here.

I hope in voting for this bill people realize it is a vote to support our most vulnerable patriots, to make sure we keep our promises to our veterans, and that we also look at the comprehensive bill that we have moved ahead without rancor, without roar, and we stayed within the budget parameters given to us on a bipartisan agreement.

The House will consider this agreement this week. They have sent us over a 3-day extension so we could complete our work. I hope we pass it. I would like it to pass tonight or certainly tomorrow. We will be on the floor for ample debate on this bill, and I look forward to answering some questions.

But at the end of the day, when all is said and done--in this institution often more is said rather than done--you will know we did get it done. I will have more to say about it when the bill comes to the floor.

I yield the floor.