Floor Statements

Mr. President, before I begin my remarks on immigration reform, I would like to acknowledge the diligence and leadership of my colleague from Alabama Senator Sessions, who has spent a lot of hours on this floor and in the committee before this on the issue of immigration. I commend his relentless efforts to bring to light many of the problems and questions surrounding the legislation before us, some he has been talking about in the past few minutes.

As a Member of the House of Representatives in 1986, I opposed the Simpson-Mazzoli Act, which granted amnesty to nearly 3 million illegal immigrants. Supporters of that law then promised that it constituted a one-time fix to our Nation's broken immigration system. Instead, the promise itself was broken. At least four times as many illegal immigrants now reside in the United States some 27 years later.

Despite this failure, the Senate now tonight is considering legislation that repeats the mistakes of Simpson-Mazzoli. The provisions are different, but I believe the results will be the same. Still, supporters of this legislation before us promise border security in return for amnesty, just as proponents of Simpson-Mazzoli did.

In light of these facts, here is a more credible promise: I believe the child of Simpson-Mazzoli will become the mother of all amnesties. You can call it what you want.

Compounding the mistakes made a generation ago will ensure that the problem of illegal immigration revisits generations to come on a much grander scale. Therefore, I rise to urge my colleagues to reject this deeply flawed legislation.

The subject of border security has been talked about in the Senate. During consideration of the Simpson-Mazzoli Act in 1986 in the Senate, my former Senate colleague and coauthor of that legislation stated the following: ``The American people, in my mind, will never accept a legalization program unless they can be assured this is a one-shot deal.''

The assurances to which he referred were border security and tough enforcement of immigration laws. Specifically, Simpson-Mazzoli called for 50 percent more Border Patrol personnel for 2 years and new penalties for employers who hired illegal immigrants. Unfortunately, as we know, the former proved insufficient and the latter was hollow. But it was too late. Nearly 3 million illegal immigrants had already been granted amnesty by the time most lawmakers figured out that the assurances were basically a sham.

Despite the drastic increase in illegal immigration in the intervening years, supporters of the bill now before the Senate make similar assurances of border security in return for a form of amnesty. They say there will be a surge in Border Patrol and a fence along the southern border. We have heard it before, but they claim two main distinctions between their promise and the one we heard in 1986.

First, the supporters of this bill say this bill does not contain amnesty but a tough path to citizenship. Second, they say this bill will secure the border before legalization occurs. But will it? I believe neither claim holds water.

Under this legislation, once the Secretary of Homeland Security notifies Congress that the Department has begun to implement a so- called comprehensive southern border security strategy and a southern border fencing strategy, she can commence processing applications for registered provisional immigrant status. In addition, the Secretary must begin implementing these plans within 180 days of enactment of this legislation.

I will clarify the legal talk: No later than 6 months after this bill becomes law, those who came here illegally will be allowed to stay legally.

I will clarify that further: That is amnesty.

The sequence is also noteworthy. No fence must be built before amnesty is granted. No surge in Border Patrol must occur either. Those things come after, not before.

So I return to the fundamental question: Will these measures as structured stop illegal immigration? The Congressional Budget Office, CBO, says no. Instead, CBO provides only a vague and uninspiring assessment that the legislation will slow illegal immigration by some amount greater than 25 percent--if, and only if, the dubious promises of this legislation are fulfilled.

Perhaps that is the more salient point: We don't know what the impact of this will be. We don't know what we are doing. We only know that even the best outcome will not be nearly enough.

I believe we should know what we are doing. We should know the border is secure before any discussion of legalization begins in the Senate.

But there are economic consequences to all of this too that people need to think of. What we do know is that the economic consequences of this massive amnesty will make struggling Americans struggle even harder. By some estimates, this legislation will produce a surge of more than 30 million immigrants in just the first decade after enactment. Some people believe more.

CBO projects that passing this legislation brings grim news about what this will mean for working Americans as well as those looking for work.

For example, the unemployment rate, according to CBO, will accelerate over the next 6 years; average wages for Americans will drop over the next 10 years; meanwhile, average wages will rise for those granted amnesty or legalization; economic output per capita will decrease over the next 10 years; and the on-budget deficit will increase by more than $14 billion over the next 10 years.

In short, this legislation is projected to increase Americans' difficulty in finding a job and then reduce their paycheck when they get one. In my judgment, that is reason enough to oppose any legislation like this.

I understand that supporters of this legislation point to better economic projections in the so-called outyears. However, even if those projections prove accurate--which we don't know--we should never put the economic well-being of Americans on hold.

Finally, I am deeply concerned that this legislation will further strain our overcommitted entitlement and welfare programs. Our Nation, as we all know, is over $17 trillion in debt. We should be working on a long-term plan to put our Nation back on sound fiscal footing, not adding to the burden.

There is also the issue of competitiveness. Long-term thinking would also aggressively promote American competitiveness. Real immigration reform presents a golden opportunity to advance that cause. Unfortunately, this legislation misses the mark.

By some estimates, China and India together graduate nearly 1 million engineers each year from their universities. The United States, by comparison, graduates approximately 120,000 engineers. In addition, the Manhattan Institute estimates that 51 percent of engineering Ph.D.s and 41 percent of physical sciences Ph.D.s who are foreign born are forced to leave the United States once they get their degree.

I believe if we care about immigration reform, if we want to continue to lead the world, we must attract and retain the best and the brightest minds. Yet this legislation would cause a tectonic population and labor market shift in the opposite direction.

Specifically, CBO projects that among the tens of millions of immigrants who will come to America under this legislation, there will be seven low-skilled workers for each high-skilled worker. It is little wonder then that CBO projects that Americans' wages will fall.

Two provisions in the legislation will effect this change. First, the current cap on family-based visas will be removed. This will create an unlimited influx of low-skilled workers. Second, the cap on visas for high-skilled workers will be increased, though not nearly enough to meet the demand.

The legislation will also impose onerous new restrictions on employers seeking to hire such workers. The authors of this legislation claimed that it contains a merit-based approach, which will ensure that more high-skilled immigrants receive visas. They emphasize that their point system emphasizes higher education, consistent employment, and English proficiency. Yet closer examination of the details reveals that points would also be awarded on the basis of nonmerit factors,

such as family ties and civic involvement. In effect, this dilutes not only the point system but also claims of a merit-based approach that will promote American competitiveness.

I think we have some of the best universities in the world. They attract a lot of the most gifted individuals from around the globe, deepening our country's vast pool of talent. This, in turn, attracts companies here and abroad, seeking the brightest minds in math, science, and engineering. Graduates will go onto attain high-paying jobs or even create jobs themselves if they are allowed to stay here.

I believe we must do more to allow such talent to stay, especially in light of an increasingly global and competitive economy.

In closing, I would quote Mark Twain, who once cleverly observed: ``History does not repeat itself but it does rhyme.''

In the context of immigration reform, the promises we hear today sound a lot like those we heard in 1986, but this time the amnesty will be much bigger. I believe the consequences will be many: undermining the rule of law, failing to secure the border, increasing economic difficulties for American workers and job seekers, eroding our Nation's finances, and weakening our competitive position internationally.

I believe one of our fundamental responsibilities as lawmakers is to support policies that foster the conditions for job creation and economic prosperity in America. I believe we must remain a welcoming nation, but we must always put Americans first.

In my judgment this legislation fails in many corners, and it fails most tests. Accordingly, I will respectfully but firmly oppose it, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I wish to pay tribute to Andrew Downs who, at age 15, has been named to the first ever National Youth Orchestra of the United States. Andrew is a native of Irondale, AL, and is a sophomore at the Alabama School of Fine Arts. He is the principal bassist for the Alabama Symphony Youth Orchestra.

The National Youth Orchestra of the United States of America is an initiative of Carnegie Hall's Weill Music Institute that brings together 120 of the most promising and talented young musicians from across the country to play together across the Nation and the globe. This year marks their inaugural session.

Andrew was selected out of a pool of 2,500 applicants from all 50 States, and is clearly one of Alabama's most talented young musicians. He is a member of the National Junior Honor Society and also plays the violin, cello, and piano. He hopes to one day pursue a career as a bass player for a symphony orchestra.

This talented young man will be the only Alabamian in the orchestra, as well as one of only 10 bassists selected. I am proud to represent a State that is home to promising young individuals such as Andrew, who are committed to displaying excellence in their education and the arts.

Further, I wish Andrew Downs all the best as he embarks on his journey playing with the National Youth Orchestra. This is a true honor bestowed upon a very deserving student.

Mr. President, this afternoon I, rise to defend the Second Amendment to our Constitution. Recent mass killings, such as those in Connecticut and Colorado, are the impetus for the gun control legislation we are discussing before the Senate now.

I mourn the victims of these senseless acts of violence carried out by serious and disturbed individuals. Unfortunately, this legislation, I believe, would do nothing to prevent such tragedies going forward.

The harsh but unavoidable fact is no amount of government intervention can prevent irrational people from doing terrible things. Therefore, we should not react to these tragedies in an irrational manner in the Senate which would erode a fundamental right of every citizen in the United States.

The Second Amendment states, as you well know, unambiguously, ``The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.'' It makes plain to criminals their targets have the right to defend themselves, their families, and their property.

Since criminals do not follow the law and never will follow the law, new restrictions will hinder only the law-abiding among us, I am afraid. Make no mistake, this is only the first assault on the Second Amendment. More background checks today, gun registration

tomorrow, who knows what will follow after this. Congress should reject it all now.

My opposition to the legislation before the Senate is not abstract. Gun control laws have proven ineffective in reducing violent crime. As gun ownership in the United States has increased over recent years, nationwide crime rates have decreased. Nonpartisan studies, however, show no correlation between the now-expired assault weapons ban and the decrease in crime rates. Still, violence has spiked in certain parts of this country.

In Chicago, for example, murder rates are soaring. Yet Chicago has among the most Draconian and restrictive gun laws in the country. These trends have developed not because of gun control legislation but in spite of it.

Despite this failed record, the legislation before the Senate pushes more of the same. This so-called compromise amendment would do nothing but compromise our Second Amendment rights.

First, it would drastically expand background checks for gun purchases in an inconsistent and unenforceable manner. The legislation mandates background checks for all firearms purchases at gun shows between two nonlicensed parties. Yet it is unclear whether the same buyer and seller would have to run a background check if they meet at a gun show but wait until it is over to execute the sale.

The legislation also mandates background checks for any gun purchase pursuant to an advertisement by a buyer or seller. This would be extremely difficult to enforce under a narrow definition of what constitutes an advertisement. Under the extremely broad definition provided in this amendment, enforcement would be virtually impossible.

Will determined criminals not simply avoid gun shows and advertisements? We can bet they would. I believe we should not restrict transactions between law-abiding citizens, especially when we will not prevent such transactions between criminals.

This amendment would also allow health care providers to place a patient in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System database. I believe this would violate patients' privacy and remove their Second Amendment rights based on subjective judgments and without any clear guidelines or due process.

It is unclear whether a patient must be informed of the health care provider's decision to submit his or her private health information to authorities. This provision could very well discourage those who need mental health services from seeking them for fear their constitutional rights may be abrogated. We should not put doctors and patients in this position.

In addition, the FBI estimates enforcing these background checks would cost approximately $100 million annually. At the same time, this amendment would prohibit the FBI from charging federally licensed firearms dealers to run these background checks.

To carry this out if it were to become law, the money must come from someone. Will it be gun buyers or taxpayers? Either way, I oppose it.

Again, this legislation is just the first step. It would lay the groundwork for even more Draconian and ineffective gun control measures. As one of the Justice Department's leading crime researchers has stated, the government's ability to implement near-universal background checks would rely, at least in part, on ``requiring gun registration.'' I oppose that.

Mr. President, there are as many guns in this country perhaps as there are people, according to some estimates. That is more than 300 million people, and there are probably over 300 million guns. The bureaucracy we have today cannot track all of the people illegally residing in this country, why then would anyone believe the bureaucracy could track all of the guns illegally possessed in this country? And who would pay for that? Would gun owners again be subject to still more fees or taxes for exercising their Second Amendment rights?

Who would have access to this so-called registry? Would the public know who owns guns and who does not? Who would ensure this sensitive information is protected and not used for political purposes, and how?

We do not know the answers to these questions, but we do know that such restrictions will not prevent the next tragedy. We should not start down this dangerous road. What should we do instead? I have a few suggestions.

Instead of undermining the Second Amendment, Congress should focus its attention on three areas: First, I believe robust prosecution of violent criminals is the best deterrent to violent crime. Prosecutors should punish to the fullest extent of the law individuals who misuse guns, knives, or anything else to commit violent crimes. There should be no leniency whatsoever for the commission of such crimes.

Secondly, we should examine and address any deficiencies--and we have them--in our mental health system. Time and again we have seen a strong connection between mental illness and violent crime. We should not fall prey to the delusion government can prevent all bad things, nor should we assume simply throwing money at the problem will solve it. We should, instead, do a better job of helping those with mental illnesses before their problems spiral out of control.

Third, I would suggest we should weigh the impact of violence in the entertainment industry on violent crime in this Nation. Many video games, movies, television shows, and songs contain graphic depictions of violence. Common sense tells us that glorified violence can distort impressionable minds, particularly those afflicted with mental illnesses or mental challenges. Still, many in Hollywood defend the First Amendment to the Constitution with the same wild-eyed zeal they trash the Second Amendment to the Constitution.

I stand here to defend the Bill of Rights in its entirety.

In closing, let me mention that since January 1 of this year I have held public meetings in each of my State's 67 counties. Overall, my constituents are deeply concerned about any infringement upon their Second Amendment rights. They are concerned about their ability to protect themselves, they are concerned about their ability to protect their families, and they are concerned about their ability to protect their property.

They are concerned that the activities, traditions, and way of life they have long and peaceably enjoyed, and which are protected by the Constitution, could possibly be outlawed. They are concerned they may unknowingly run afoul of a new gun control law because the proposals before us are so illogical and inconsistent and contrary to common sense.

I believe this bill is an overall legislative misfire. I have outlined what I believe would constitute a clear-eyed response to the situation at hand. I will continue to vigorously oppose gun control legislation, and I will continue to stand firm in defense of the Second Amendment.

I yield the floor.

I will be glad to yield for a question, but my time is up.

May I respond?

I would tell the distinguished Senator and my friend from West Virginia, for whom I have a lot of respect, that I totally disagree. This is the first step in the erosion of our

rights under the Second Amendment. That is why I oppose this legislation. I totally and fundamentally disagree with the author.

Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Dr. Gordon Moulton in honor of his retirement after 46 years of service to the University of South Alabama. Gordon dedicated his life to the success of the university and its surrounding communities and served as university president for 16 years. I am honored to call this remarkable man my friend and fellow Alabamian.

Gordon received his B.S. in Industrial Management from the Georgia Institute of Technology and an M.B.A. from Emory University. He was also awarded an honorary doctorate from Spring Hill College in 2006.

He began his service at the University of South Alabama 3 years after its founding in 1966 as a business faculty member and went on to launch the School of Computer and Information Sciences as its first dean. He was named president of the university in 1998. Gordon's numerous successes at the university include increasing academic programs and scholarships, securing grants for cancer research, expanding student opportunities, development and renovation of various facilities, and the creation of the USA Research and Technology Park which has provided many jobs and opportunities for high-tech industry partnerships in south Alabama.

During his tenure as President, the University of South Alabama was able to launch ``Campaign USA,'' a highly successful fundraising effort that has raised millions for the university. He also worked to form a critical partnership with Infirmary Health System which has been instrumental in making improvements in area health care. For his work in the area, Gordon was named ``Mobilian of the Year'' in 2002.

Over the years, Gordon and his wife Geri have donated generously to the University of South Alabama, most recently presenting the University with $3 million in order to fund cancer research at the USA Mitchell Cancer Institute. Their generosity, compassion, and dedication to finding a cure for cancer is both admirable and humbling. In addition to funding for cancer research, they have given millions to fund Moulton Tower and Alumni Plaza, Geri Moulton Children's Park at the USA Children's and Women's Hospital, and various scholarships and athletic endeavors.

Today, it is rare to see an individual so invested in one institution for the larger part of his career, but the work that Gordon Moulton has done at and for the University of the South will forever be remembered by its students, faculty, board of trustees, and the communities in and around Mobile that have benefitted from the University.

I congratulate him on his retirement and thank him for his decades of service to one of Alabama's great educational institutions.

How much time?

I will try to be careful and quick. I wish to thank the distinguished Senator from Washington for yielding the time.

I rise today to once again express my concerns about the fiscal problems facing our Nation. Thus far this year I have held public meetings in 61 of my State's 67 counties. Without exception, my State's top concern is our Nation's unsustainable debt and its effect on job creation and economic growth.

Alabamians know the Federal debt currently stands at nearly $17 trillion. Yet they see that the Democratic budget before us does not balance--not in 10 years, perhaps not ever. They know the Federal debt has increased by $6 trillion under President Obama. Yet they see that the Democratic budget proposes to pile on $7 trillion more.

My constituents know that excessive taxes are choking job creation in this country. Yet they see that the Democratic budget costs $1.2 trillion of new job-killing taxes. They know the stimulus package was an abject failure.

My constituents understand that the more we borrow, the more we must pay back in interest. Yet they see that under the Democratic budget, we will pay more in interest on the debt--$791 billion--than we will spend on national defense. They know that fiscal reform without entitlement reform is meaningless. Yet they hear no mention of entitlements in the Democratic budget.

It has been 1,423 days since the Senate passed a budget. My constituents waited that long for this. There is little wonder that trepidation over our Nation's future is so prevalent. No dominant power in world history has remained strong with a weak economy--not the Persians, not the Greeks, not the Romans, not the British, not anyone. Under the Democratic budget, our Nation would learn that lesson the hard way.

Thank you, Madam President. I yield the floor.

Mr. President, this amendment would create a deficit- neutral reserve fund for legislation that requires financial regulators to perform rigorous cost-benefit analysis of their proposals. If this analysis determines that a proposed rule's cost exceeds its benefits, the rule should not be implemented. Given the far-reaching scope many new financial rules will have on our markets, I believe it is imperative that regulators conduct thorough cost-benefit analysis to fully understand how these rules will affect our economy.

Independent final regulators operate under a patchwork of Federal laws that require varying degrees of economic analysis and provide too much discretion to regulators. As a result, American job creators are under siege from capricious rulemaking activities. Regulations should be based on solid evidence and supported by robust economic analysis, not the arbitrary preferences of bureaucrats.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, we have just voted, as everybody knows, on the Mikulski-Shelby substitute. Our next vote is a cloture vote. Then, assuming cloture is invoked, we will have final passage. It is my understanding that the House is waiting on this bill. I hope we can get it to them as quickly as we can.

I yield back the remainder of my time.

We know we are ready to vote. I urge everyone to support this bill. It needs to go to the House. The House, I think, is ready to act on it. This will fund the government through September 30. It is the first big step toward regular order.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, to some extent, I want to repeat what Senator Mikulski just said. No. 1, this would avoid a government shutdown. That should appeal to everybody. I think it appeals to the American people. It should appeal to everybody in this body tonight.

No. 2, it enforces the Budget Control Act and sequester levels. I will say it again. It enforces the Budget Control Act and sequester levels. Granted, perhaps not everything is ideal, but what is here? There will be ample time to address some of the issues. Some of the issues that have been raised are bona fide issues that we were unable to address for one reason or another in this process. But I assure my colleagues--and I have been working with my colleagues and with Senator Mikulski's Democratic colleagues--that if we do not move forward, I am afraid there may be no future appropriations bills, which is not good for anyone in this legislative process.

We have lurched from crisis to crisis. The CR is running out. What we are asking to do is to fund the government until September 30.

I urge my colleagues to support cloture and move this process forward.

I thank the Chair.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I wish to take a few minutes this evening to thank the majority leader, Senator Reid, and also the Republican leader, Senator McConnell, for helping us come together, being where we are thus far. I also wish to thank Senator Mikulski, the chairperson of the full Committee on Appropriations. We have been working and we have made some progress. We would have liked to have finished this bill tonight. There are a lot of amendments--I think 90-something that Senator Mikulski said. I hope people will try to work this weekend and try to get through this.

We need to pass this bill. This is one of the cleanest appropriations bills I have seen since I have been up here. We said no to the Democrats, Senator Mikulski has, and I have said no to the Republicans on some things. We have a continuing resolution--I call it a hybrid-- with five appropriations bills. We can do this. This would take care of the government--in other words, not go from crisis to crisis--until the end of this fiscal year, September 30, where we can get on the budget and other things.

America is watching us. We are trying to respond in a bipartisan way. I hope we can make a lot of progress this weekend. Our staffs are going to be here working. We are going to be here working. Come Monday, we need to move this bill.

Absolutely.

Because of both of them. I thank the Senator.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, I would be remiss, while we are on the Senate floor, as I was thinking about Senator Harkin, Senator Mikulski, both senior Members--she is the chairperson of the Senate Appropriations Committee where I have had the privilege to serve a number of years. We all go back to our House days. That is where I first met Senator Harkin. He was a couple of years younger then, and so was I. Senator Mikulski and I were on the same committees over there. Senator Harkin came to the Senate a couple of years before we did. We have been involved together on the issues and against each other and so forth, but we stayed friends. And I think Senator Harkin is absolutely right. Senator Mikulski is very on point on regular order; that what we are trying to do on the Appropriations Committee--and this is a big start here--is to go back to the way we used to do things--regular order. We would have our spirited debates--and they were spirited--in the subcommittees of Appropriations, the full committee would come to the floor, and we would debate it, vote on it, and go to a conference with the House, work it out, come back, and live with it. We haven't done that in a long time. What we are trying to do now is get back on that track, and this is a big first step.

Having said that, I would like to take just a few minutes to speak on Chairman Harkin's amendment. I believe there are three critical points my colleagues should understand about this amendment. First, the draft omnibus that has been talked about was never finalized. There were more than a dozen significant items not agreed to at the time negotiations ended in December. A lot of those negotiations were done at the staff level. Critical decisions regarding health care, education, and labor policies and billions of dollars in funding decisions at that point remained undecided. They were never finalized.

I think these provisions have been decided and put in this amendment without consultation by Senator Harkin. These items included such critical issues as conscience protections for health care providers and provisions limiting the job-killing rules by the National Labor Relations Board. Those were critical issues for us.

Second, the Harkin amendment replaces a bipartisan continuing resolution which the distinguished chairperson has been talking about here for 2 days which includes key provisions in this bill we filed which would support research at the National Institutes of Health and emergency operations at the Centers for Disease Control with a 160-page bill that no Republican has approved. I believe the Harkin amendment both begins new programs and makes authorization changes to programs.

In addition, any program that did not receive an increase in funding during negotiation on the draft omnibus that he has talked about is cut in an across-the-board cut. These reductions hit critical job-training programs and funding for hospital preparedness.

Finally, if the Harkin amendment is agreed to, it will undo a very fragile consensus and poison the entire continuing resolution we have put before us, putting our government at the risk of a shutdown. None of us want that. House leadership has already stated they cannot and will not support the inclusion of the Harkin amendment, and I don't believe we should risk funding the entire Federal Government to do so.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, first of all this morning I would like to thank Chairwoman Mikulski for her willingness to work together in good faith and to introduce the bill that keeps the government running for the rest of the fiscal year. The chair and I have had what I would characterize as a long and productive working relationship. I think this bill is a very clear signal that we intend to continue that relationship for the good of the legislative process and the American people.

I believe Congress must learn to deal with the spending constraints that have become a necessary reality for all of us. Much more work remains to be done to secure our fiscal future, including fixing entitlement programs and reforming our Tax Code. However, today we have taken the first step to show the American people Congress can come together on important issues. My hope is we will continue to do so.

I am pleased to say Chairwoman Mikulski and I have accomplished three shared goals in this proposed legislation. First, this bill will prevent a government shutdown. Nobody in America wants that. Moving from one continuing resolution to the next only delays our problems and creates added uncertainty. I hope we can return to the regular order of producing budgets and appropriations bills to avoid the threat of a shutdown in the future.

Second, this bill will provide more flexibility for the remainder of the year so that government agencies can deal with the reality of the sequester which remains fully in place here.

Third, I believe this bill is a product both parties in both Houses can support. It prioritizes spending and aims to steer clear of divisive issues.

In addition, discretionary spending is subject to the caps put in place by the Budget Control Act, and this bill complies with those levels. As noted, spending cuts made by the sequester will come on top of these constraints.

I support moving forward with this bill, and encourage my colleagues to join together to do the same. Many Americans have lost faith that Republicans and Democrats can work together on anything. I believe this bill demonstrates it is possible, and I hope it will pave the way for a more productive relationship in the future. And while we are sure to disagree on many issues, I remain positive we can restore regular order in the Congress and deal with pressing fiscal matters in a timely bipartisan manner.

I think I speak for both of us when I say we are committed--yes, we are committed--to putting the budget and appropriations process back on track. We look forward to working with our colleagues who share that goal and are willing to join us in this effort. This is a new beginning.

Madam President, I just want to follow up on some of the comments the Senator from Louisiana has made--very positive comments about research and the role of the Federal Government in all aspects of research. She is a very hard-working member of the Appropriations Committee and she has been involved in a lot of this.

Whether it is research on health issues--the National Institutes of Health on cancer or you name it--information technology, energy, which the Senator from Louisiana referenced--there are so many good things that come out of this, and I believe, overall, the Senate and the House, on both sides of the aisle, realized this. But with all the breakthroughs in information technology we have had, we have only to go back to the research and development the Federal Government did that basically brought us our Internet to realize that didn't just happen. It was built over many years, with many ideas and research. Look at it today. We have all benefited from this overall.

There are threats to this information technology, in everything we use today dealing with energy; for example, our power grid, because a lot of that, as we all know, is computer driven and operated, our banking system's information technology, our military, our traffic

control systems we rely on every day, and I am sure our trains and other vehicles we run. There are threats to this today. A lot of us know it as cyber security threats, and they are real.

So as we do research in this area, as we continue our research, we cannot forget that. That is a job we all have to work together on, and I believe, on the Appropriations Committee, this is a good start today for challenges in our future to the security of our information systems--our grid, our banking system, our Federal Reserve, and I can go on and on because it affects everything in our everyday life, and we shouldn't forget it.

I think we are off to a good start today. Senator Mikulski, the chair of the committee, and I believe this is the first time in a few years we have come to the floor trying to work together on appropriations, and we are determined to make this regular order work. I believe the majority of the Senators on my side of the aisle--the Republicans--and those on the Democratic side of the aisle will, in a few days, bring this to a head and we will do something good for the American people and bring forth some certainty and some good legislation.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Madam President, I have been listening to the remarks of my colleague from Maryland, and as we say down South, she is spot on. Before she became chairperson of the Appropriations Committee, she was a member of that committee for many years. We worked together when I was chairman of the subcommittee and she was the ranking member and when she was the chairperson and I was the ranking member. We both came from the House. We were on the same committee in the House. We worked together. We struggled with each other from time to time, but in the end, we knew we had to come up with a product, and that is what we are trying to do here today.

I was hoping we could bring this bill to the floor. As the Senator from Maryland has been saying, there are a lot of Members who want to offer amendments. We could offer some amendments and debate them tonight and perhaps even vote on them tonight. We know we have this deadline. At the end of March the CR expires, along with the funding of the Government of the United States. I don't think any party--Democrat or Republican--is interested in any way of going to the brink again. It serves no purpose. It creates uncertainty in the marketplace; it creates uncertainty with the role we play in the Senate and the House.

As the Senator from Maryland has said, we have worked together. We have a continuing resolution which came from the House, with the Department of Defense and the MILCON-VA--military construction and VA-- in it to fund until September 30, which is the fiscal year. It is about 6 months from now. We have added to the legislation which we hope to bring before the Senate the Commerce, Justice, Science Subcommittee, of which she is the subcommittee chair and I am the ranking member. We have worked together on that. Agriculture, which affects everybody in this country one way or the other, and homeland security, which is the essence of the security of this country at home, have been added by the Senate.

We scrubbed these bills all weekend. Both sides scrubbed them. I have given up things I would personally like, and she has given up things, probably including some things from the Democratic leadership. We have done the same over here. We are doing this to show the American people that America comes first. We need to show we can work together. We need to pass these bills. The sooner they get up here, the sooner amendments can be offered by Republicans and Democrats, the sooner we get the process working and we get into the debates. That is what this legislative body is all about.

The CR we are bringing up--or the hybrid CR--is funded at the fiscal year 2012 levels, and it is consistent with the Budget Control Act. It would leave the sequester in effect. It gives some leeway--some but not unbridled--to enable the situation with sequester to maybe work a little better. I think it is good policy and bad procedure.

We are going to have to cut because we cannot sustain deficits of $1 trillion. We cannot continue to go down the road we are on. We have to change the trajectory of this country. We cannot sustain ourselves if we have a $20 trillion or $25 trillion debt. Whether you are a Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, or whatever you are, you should want a strong monetary policy and a strong economic policy.

We have a few more years left, and this is a good start here in the Senate. If we can get this bill up and pass it, then the House will do something. We will fund the government until September 30, which is what we are supposed to do. If we do that, then we can start on the 2014 budget. From there we can perhaps go to regular order. That is what we wish to do in the appropriations process so we are not going from crisis to crisis.

What we have done in the House and the Senate--and the White House is involved in this too--in recent years is we have been lurching from crisis to crisis, and then we come up to the deadline and people say: Oh, we have to have certainty. So we kick the can down the road a few more yards. That is not the way to do business. This country is too important. The business community needs certainty, people in government need certainty, and I think this is a good first start. I hope we can get this process moving.

I thank the Chair.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I think today has been an interesting day here in the Senate. We have been trying--the Senator from Maryland and I--to get the bill we have been talking about to the floor so people will have an opportunity to offer their amendments, to debate their amendments, and we in the Senate will be able to vote them up or down. That is what this process is about.

Although I know it is getting late in the evening, I am hoping we can lock in some time agreement with the leadership. I am sure Senator Reid and Senator McConnell are working on that, as well as Senator McCain and Senator Coburn. But if we could get started on this tomorrow and have a healthy debate, there are some issues that ought to be brought up.

I wish to take a few minutes to review a few of the outlines of what we hope to accomplish this week--what is in this bill and what is not.

What this bill would do is allow agencies the additional ability to address priorities in light of sequester cuts. We all know they were Draconian--good policy, as I said, but bad process. The proposed legislation the Senator from Maryland and I are bringing to the floor, hopefully, is in full compliance with the spending caps required by the Budget Control Act, and it brings, with the sequester, the total to under $1 trillion. So we are doing some serious cutting, but we ought to do it wisely by what we do.

Both sides have given in to get to where we are. There is no new funding for ObamaCare, no new funding for Dodd-Frank, no State-specific earmarks.

The bill enables the Department of Defense--and we all care about security--to better implement sequester, and it increases the DOD transfer authority for reprogramming, thus mitigating a portion of the national security impact of the sequester and other across-the-board cuts.

The bill also ensures that veterans programs receive adequate funding--$2.5 billion above the fiscal year 2012 levels--for VA discretionary spending. So that is a good increase.

The bill requires greater accountability of government employees attending conferences, including associated expenses, so that we don't read these horror stories of people going to conventions and living high off the hog while people are struggling to make ends meet.

The bill also prohibits the transfer of Guantanamo prisoners to the United States, among other things.

The legislation would provide additional funding for worldwide diplomatic and facility security in the post-Benghazi environment. When we send somebody overseas, we want to make sure, whether it is an Ambassador, an employee, or somebody going temporarily, that they are as safe as we can keep them. We know we live in a dangerous world, and some parts of the world are more dangerous than others.

This bill provides over a $3.1 billion increase over fiscal year 2012 in assistance to Israel. Israel is the only democracy--I believe a real one--in that area and is a great friend of ours.

The legislation keeps in place the pay freeze for Federal employees for the remainder of this year, the fiscal year ending September 2013.

The bill prohibits distribution of any funds to ACORN, its subsidiaries, or successors.

It rescinds $50 million from the EPA to restrict its ability to implement certain environmental regulations.

It rescinds $10 million from the ObamaCare, as we call it, Independent Payment Advisory Board, which is the rationing board, some people call it.

The bill continues a provision to clarify the prohibition of Federal funds being used to lobby State and local legislative and executive authorities.

These are just some of the provisions in here, but I think tomorrow we will talk about more. Overall, I think we have put together a worthy and credible package, and I hope the Senate will soon get a chance to start debating it seriously.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, had we been able to move to this bill, we could have probably debated already and voted on a number of amendments because this is very essential legislation. There is a lot in this bill, a lot of good in this proposed legislation.

I hope that reason will prevail and that people, even if they have some amendments, will come to the floor, as I said earlier, and offer them. Let's debate them, and let's get to regular order, up or down. That is what it is about. But I think the essentials of this bill are solid and good. We have gone into this, and we will go into it more and more. We want the process to work, but the process is not going to work if we don't get the bill up so we can go to the regular order.

So I hope tonight that things will work out and we will get going. This is important legislation.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I wish to take a few minutes this afternoon to explain why I will be opposing the nomination of Carol Galante and why I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to do the same.

This nomination is not one of the many ``go along to get along'' nominations we do so often in the Senate; this is a nomination that will have a direct effect on our constituents' pocketbooks and it demands, I believe, our serious attention today.

Carol Galante has been the Acting Assistant Secretary and Federal Housing Commissioner at the Department of Housing and Urban Development since July 2011. Therefore, this nomination vote, in a sense, will serve as a referendum of sorts on the current management of the Federal Housing Administration.

Ms. Galante, in her role as Acting FHA Commissioner, has failed to take serious actions to shore up the solvency and prevent a taxpayer bailout of the Federal Housing Administration that we know as FHA.

The latest actuarial report shows that FHA has a negative economic value, and a taxpayer bailout is most likely. Despite these warnings, FHA waited until April 2012 to raise additional premiums, and Secretary Donovan, the Secretary of HUD, has testified to the Senate Banking Committee that it will wait until next year to increase premiums by a meager 10 basis points despite having statutory authority to do more to protect the taxpayers.

Ms. Galante has denied the true severity of the problems at the FHA. In a New York Times piece last year, Ms. Galante said: ``[there] is no evidence or widespread prediction that home prices are going to decline to the kind of levels'' that would require a bailout.

Really? Yet although some prices have risen slightly, the FHA's financial position continues to deteriorate. Several experts now conclude that a taxpayer bailout is simply a matter of time.

The 2012 actuarial report and the disastrous state of FHA's finances led the Washington Post editorial board to conclude:

Right now the critics are starting to look pretty

prescient. . . . Affordable possession of one's own home is

the American dream. Government support for excessive

borrowing has turned into a national nightmare.

The FHA's capital reserve is still well below the level determined by Congress to be the bare minimum to cover FHA's future losses. Even though FHA narrowly avoided a bailout this year, dangers remain in the years ahead due to its over $1 trillion exposure to risky loans and precarious economic conditions.

Most of the FHA's recent actions have only concealed these dangers. For example, instead of adequately raising insurance premiums over the life of the loan, FHA has increased upfront premiums to simply cover losses in the short term. Also, upfront premiums can be rolled into the mortgage principal balance, thereby decreasing equity for borrows who, in most cases, have little equity to begin with. Increasing the upfront premiums could make FHA loans even riskier for both the borrower and the taxpayer who stands behind the mortgages.

I believe it is time to face the reality that the Federal Housing Administration is dangerously undercapitalized, and because of the lack of serious reform FHA teeters on the brink of a bailout, as I have said.

Andrew Kaplan, a New York University economics professor said:

They [the FHA] are doing very badly . . . there's no two

ways about it. Over the next five years, there won't be

enough of an economic recovery to fix FHA's finances. Not a

chance.

A study by a Wharton professor estimates that an FHA bailout could cost between $50 billion and $100 billion and warned that only a ``quick and substantial economic and housing market recovery'' can avoid ``substantial losses for the American taxpayer.''

Data from the actuarial report shows that the serious delinquency rate for all FHA loans is 9.6 percent. The delinquency rates for loans originated in 2006, 2007, and 2008 are between 20 and 30 percent. Approximately 739,000 loans are seriously delinquent, an increase of over 100,000 loans from last year. If the borrowers of these delinquent loans all default on their mortgages, it would result in $57 billion in claims to the FHA. We hope that would not happen.

The FHA's latest quarterly report shows capital resources of $32 billion. It also states that cash flow from operations, which largely consists of premium revenues, covered only 80 percent of net claims last quarter.

The latest actuarial report in 2012 confirms that FHA's finances are dramatically worse than last year.

FHA's capital ratio has gone negative for the first time since 1991, and economic value is in excess of negative $16 billion. Last year the report projected a $9.4 billion value, representing a decline of $24.9 billion.

FHA's delinquencies continue to rise and continued high loan limits keep FHA's role in the market very broad. The projected loss on outstanding business is at an all-time $39 billion.

FHA is leveraged at 422:1--422:1--and has a sparse $2.55 billion equity cushion on its over $1 trillion portfolio. Think about it. FHA has underestimated its loan losses every year for the past 3 years.

In addition, since the Treasury Department already has so-called permanent and indefinite authority to provide funding for the FHA, a bailout of the FHA could occur without, as the Presiding Officer knows, any congressional vote. This is not a vote today to determine whether we support the President. This is also not a vote to determine whether we can vote in a bipartisan manner. I think this is a vote to determine whether we support the American taxpayer.

I believe Ms. Galante has demonstrated her inability to identify the multitude of problems at the FHA, and I believe it is incumbent upon us, on behalf of the American people--the taxpayers--to reject this nomination and demand real reforms at FHA and a nominee who represents and appreciates the urgency of this situation and a willingness to address it.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to discuss legislation that I introduced to make technical corrections to the Dodd-Frank Act.

Two and a half years ago, Congress rushed to pass the 2,300 page Dodd-Frank Act and, like any large and complex piece of legislation, it contains numerous technical errors.

For example, section 742(b) of Dodd-Frank amends the Gramm-Leach- Bliley Act by citing to section 206(e) of that act when, in fact, Gramm-Leach-Bliley does not have a section 206(e).

Another example is that Dodd-Frank abolished the Office of Thrift Supervision, but failed to take out references to the OTS in at least 20 statutes.

These are the types of errors that should be corrected.

While I strongly opposed Dodd-Frank and do not believe that it should have become law, I nevertheless believe that we should at least attempt to clean up the errors found throughout the legislation.

Accordingly, the legislation I have introduced focuses purely on technical corrections of non-substantive inaccuracies and omissions in the final Dodd-Frank bill.

The bill I introduced could have been many pages longer, but I sought to keep it to only those changes that were purely technical.

There are many other technical changes that could be made that also involve policy judgments.

I decided not to include those changes in my bill because I wanted to introduce a bill that could garner broad bipartisan support and serve as a starting point for forging additional compromises on other problems with Dodd-Frank.

If Congress is ever going to be bipartisan, this is the bill. We should at a bare minimum be able to agree that a law with numerous technical errors should be fixed at least to the extent of those technical issues.

While the issues addressed in this bill are technical in nature, they also take into account the realities with the ongoing implementation of Dodd-Frank.

For example, this legislation extends for one year the deadline for completing and issuing the regulations, studies and reports required by Dodd-Frank that have not been met by the date specified.

This provision does not aim to delay or undermine the rulemaking process in any way.

On the contrary, it is meant to address the flawed rulemaking process stipulated by Dodd-Frank, which directs financial regulators to complete an unprecedented number of rulemakings in very short time frames.

Presently, our financial regulators are in violation of the law because they have not completed scores of rulemakings by the times prescribed by Dodd-Frank. This is not how the world's leading democracy should function.

Congress's laws should be followed, especially by the agencies it has created. Congress should either hold regulators accountable for not making statutory deadlines or should grant regulators more time so that they are not in violation of the law.

In this case, extending deadlines is the appropriate and reasonable approach.

While I offer this bill to technically improve Dodd-Frank, my views about the substantive provisions of Dodd-Frank have not changed.

I continue to believe that it is a flawed and poorly conceived piece of legislation. It expanded the scope and power of ineffective bureaucracies, created vast new bureaucracies with little accountability, and seriously undermined the competitiveness of the American economy.

Moreover, Dodd-Frank did all that without accomplishing what it set out to do--make our financial system safer.

Instead, Dodd-Frank preserved and codified preferential treatment for large financial institutions.

It solidified the close relationships between regulators and big banks by maintaining their pre-existing prudential regulators.

Dodd-Frank also protected the big banks from bankruptcy by creating a new resolution mechanism to ensure that large financial institutions do not fail.

In addition not one regulator was held accountable in the wake of the crisis. To add insult to injury, the very same regulators that missed the warning signs were then closely consulted on how to draft Dodd- Frank.

Accordingly, many provisions in Dodd-Frank should be reexamined and replaced with language which would actually address the serious problems in our financial regulatory system.

This bill, however, does not address any of my substantive concerns with Dodd Frank. In fact, I made a conscious effort to avoid any substantive recommendations, and to focus exclusively on technical corrections.

My hope is that this bill will form the foundation for a more comprehensive debate on Dodd-Frank in the next Congress. Therefore, I intend to reintroduce this bill when we return in January.

By working together to revise Dodd-Frank, I believe Congress can not only

make our financial system safer, but also foster economic growth and job creation.

One would think that we could reach a bipartisan consensus on that.

Mr. President, I rise today to discuss legislation that I introduced to make technical corrections to the Dodd-Frank Act.

Two and a half years ago, Congress rushed to pass the 2,300 page Dodd-Frank Act and, like any large and complex piece of legislation, it contains numerous technical errors.

For example, section 742(b) of Dodd-Frank amends the Gramm-Leach- Bliley Act by citing to section 206(e) of that act when, in fact, Gramm-Leach-Bliley does not have a section 206(e).

Another example is that Dodd-Frank abolished the Office of Thrift Supervision, but failed to take out references to the OTS in at least 20 statutes.

These are the types of errors that should be corrected.

While I strongly opposed Dodd-Frank and do not believe that it should have become law, I nevertheless believe that we should at least attempt to clean up the errors found throughout the legislation.

Accordingly, the legislation I have introduced focuses purely on technical corrections of non-substantive inaccuracies and omissions in the final Dodd-Frank bill.

The bill I introduced could have been many pages longer, but I sought to keep it to only those changes that were purely technical.

There are many other technical changes that could be made that also involve policy judgments.

I decided not to include those changes in my bill because I wanted to introduce a bill that could garner broad bipartisan support and serve as a starting point for forging additional compromises on other problems with Dodd-Frank.

If Congress is ever going to be bipartisan, this is the bill. We should at a bare minimum be able to agree that a law with numerous technical errors should be fixed at least to the extent of those technical issues.

While the issues addressed in this bill are technical in nature, they also take into account the realities with the ongoing implementation of Dodd-Frank.

For example, this legislation extends for one year the deadline for completing and issuing the regulations, studies and reports required by Dodd-Frank that have not been met by the date specified.

This provision does not aim to delay or undermine the rulemaking process in any way.

On the contrary, it is meant to address the flawed rulemaking process stipulated by Dodd-Frank, which directs financial regulators to complete an unprecedented number of rulemakings in very short time frames.

Presently, our financial regulators are in violation of the law because they have not completed scores of rulemakings by the times prescribed by Dodd-Frank. This is not how the world's leading democracy should function.

Congress's laws should be followed, especially by the agencies it has created. Congress should either hold regulators accountable for not making statutory deadlines or should grant regulators more time so that they are not in violation of the law.

In this case, extending deadlines is the appropriate and reasonable approach.

While I offer this bill to technically improve Dodd-Frank, my views about the substantive provisions of Dodd-Frank have not changed.

I continue to believe that it is a flawed and poorly conceived piece of legislation. It expanded the scope and power of ineffective bureaucracies, created vast new bureaucracies with little accountability, and seriously undermined the competitiveness of the American economy.

Moreover, Dodd-Frank did all that without accomplishing what it set out to do--make our financial system safer.

Instead, Dodd-Frank preserved and codified preferential treatment for large financial institutions.

It solidified the close relationships between regulators and big banks by maintaining their pre-existing prudential regulators.

Dodd-Frank also protected the big banks from bankruptcy by creating a new resolution mechanism to ensure that large financial institutions do not fail.

In addition not one regulator was held accountable in the wake of the crisis. To add insult to injury, the very same regulators that missed the warning signs were then closely consulted on how to draft Dodd- Frank.

Accordingly, many provisions in Dodd-Frank should be reexamined and replaced with language which would actually address the serious problems in our financial regulatory system.

This bill, however, does not address any of my substantive concerns with Dodd Frank. In fact, I made a conscious effort to avoid any substantive recommendations, and to focus exclusively on technical corrections.

My hope is that this bill will form the foundation for a more comprehensive debate on Dodd-Frank in the next Congress. Therefore, I intend to reintroduce this bill when we return in January.

By working together to revise Dodd-Frank, I believe Congress can not only

make our financial system safer, but also foster economic growth and job creation.

One would think that we could reach a bipartisan consensus on that.