i came to know somebody who worked diligently and looked at the budget with a critical ievment when jack lew announced her nomination, he said she was known for her dedication to sound public policy in a makes a difference in people's lives. health care, technology, poverty, education, infrastructure -- every single one of these priorities she will look at them to determine whether the current policies are working, whether there are ways we could do thing more effectively, whether or not the american taxpayer is getting what they deserve in return for their investment. and for all of those efforts, i think jack lew could not have chosen a stronger or more competent deputy. i hope my colleagues will support her nomination.

the presiding officer: under the previous order, the senate will proceed to executive session to consider the following nomination, which the clerk will report. the clerk: nomination: executive office of the president. heather a. higginbottom of the district of columbia to be deputy director of the office of management and budget. the presiding officer: under the previous order, there will be two minutes of debate equally divided and controlled in the usual form. mr. kerry: mr. president, i yield back my time. mr. president, i reserve my time then. i understand -- unless there -- ms. collins: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from maine is recognized. ms. collins: mr. president, i'm going to yield back the time on this -- no, i'm sorry. it looks like there is a request to use time on our side. so i would reserve the time that we have. mr. kerry: mr. president, it is my understanding, under the order, this is the time for the debate, is that correct? the presiding officer: the senator from massachusetts is correct. mr. kerry: so if time is not

about to be used, it would be -- the presiding officer: the senator is correct. mr. kerry: so i suggest we yield it back mutually or somebody speaks. ms. collins: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from maine. ms. collins: mr. president, senator sessions is on his way to the floor. he does have reservations about the nominee. i think it would be courteous, since we know he is on his way, to just delay for a couple of moments so that he could make his comments. the presiding officer: is there objection to senator collins' request? mr. kerry: no, i'm always in favor of extending courtesy to senators. so i think it is important to do that. but i would just reserve, if i can, therefore, that we might wait until the senator is here and have those four minutes used at that time. so i'd ask unanimous consent that we -- i'll suggest the absence of a quorum until the

senator is here, at which time we'll have four minutes equally divided -- two minutes equally divided. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. mr. kerry: i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: the presiding officer: the senator from massachusetts. mr. kerry: i ask proceedings of the quorum call being dispensed with. officer without objection. mr. kerry: mr. president, with the consent of the other side, all time will be yielded back. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. kerry: i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is

there a sufficient second? there appears to be. there is. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: any senator wishing to vote or change their votes? hearing none, on the confirmation of heather higginbottom of d.c. to be the director of office of management

and budget, the nomination is confirmed 64 yeas, 36 nays. under the previous order, the motion to reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table. the president will be immediately notified of the senate's action. the senate will resume legislative session. under the previous order, there are now two minutes equally divided prior to a vote in relation to the amendment 769 as modified offered by the senator from louisiana, mr. vitter. who yields time? who yields time? the senator from louisiana. mr. vitter: mr. president, i urge -- the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. mr. vitter: mr. president, i urge support of the next amendment. this amendment is bipartisan, and i thank the bipartisan co-authors of this. the presiding officer: take your conversations out of the well. order in the chambers. order in the chambers.

the senator from louisiana. mr. vitter: this amendment would allow the reimportation of small personal use quantities of safe, f.d.a.-approved prescription drugs from canada only. it's a very modest amendment, personal use only, no large quantities, no wholesalers, canada only, no biologics, no controlled dangerous substances. it is essentially identical to an amendment that we passed on a bipartisan basis in the last senate, and i urge a strong vote in favor of this again. ms. mikulski: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. the senate is not in order. the senator from maryland. ms. mikulski: mr. president, i along with the chairman of the subcommittee on agriculture, we oppose this amendment -- excuse me. i oppose this amendment.

and let me tell you why i oppose it. firs it's a budget buster. to enforce this will take enormous amounts of resources. you cannot be sure that that drug coming from canada is not a counterfeit, lethal death drug. you don't have any enforcement procedures in here, you don't have the money to enforce it. and we have a history of phony drugs coming in through rogue web sites, through counterfeit countries. if you want-to-a drug that's been made in a country that we view as predators towards the united states, when you take your coumadin, when you want your wife to take her breast cancer drug, when your daughter make take that birth control bill, then you want the vitter amendment. but if you want safety, defeat the amendment. the presiding officer: the senator's time has expired. the question is on the amendment.

is there a sufficient second? seeing a sufficient second, the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: any other senator wishing to vote or change their votes? on this vote the yeas are 45, the nays are 55. under the previous order requiring 60 votes for adoption, on this amendment, the amendment is not agreed to. under the previous -- under the previous order, there are now two minutes equally divided prior to a vote in relation to

amendment 750 as modified offered by the senator from virginia, mr. webb. who yields time? the senator from virginia. order in the chambers. order in the chambers. mr. webb: mr. president, i -- the presiding officer: order in the chambers. senator webb. mr. webb: mr. president, this bill is the result of four and a half years of work and outreach and listening to the other side incorporating recommendations from across the political spectrum. it is paid for. it is sunsetted at 18 months. it is balanced philosophically and politically. contrary to some of the comments that were made earlier. the presiding officer: will the senator yield. order in the chambers. the senator from virginia. mr. webb: this does provide for equal participation from both parties. it has been endorsed by more than 70 national organizations, including almost all of the law enforcement organizations in

america. the international association of chiefs of police, national sheriff's association, fraternal order of police, national association of counties, national league of cities, u.s. conference of mayors. it is time for us to move forward to get the comprehensive advice of the best minds in america in terms of how to fix our broken criminal justice system. i urge a yes vote, and i reserve the balance of my time. mr. coburn: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. coburn: i have talked with senator webb. some of what he wants to do in this is probably fine, but we're absolutely ignoring the u.s. constitution if you do this. we have no role unless we're violating human rights or the u.s. constitution to involve ourselves in the criminal court justice system or penal system in my state or any other state. the association of district attorneys is against this. there is a lot of times interest groups are for something, but we have no business deciding from a

central committee in washington whether oklahoma is meeting the requirements of its constitution rather than the u.s. constitution. i would urge a no vote against this and honor our constitution. mr. webb: mr. president. mrs. hutchison: is there time left on our side? the presiding officer: the senator from texas, there is nine seconds. mrs. hutchison: mr. president, this is the most massive encroachment on states' rights that i have seen in this body. it is $5 million on a priority that we should not have. i will work with the senator from virginia to pare it down to federal commission and look at the federal system. the presiding officer: the senator's time is expired. the senator from virginia, you have seven seconds. mr. webb: this is not an encroachment. i wouldn't support an encroachment. it actually convenes the best minds to get recommendations. the presiding officer: the senator's time has expired. the question is on the amendment. is there a sufficient second? there is. the clerk will call the roll.

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: on this vote, the yeas are 5r7bgs the nays are 43. under the previous order, requiring 60 votes for the adoption of this amendment, the

amendment is not agreed to. mr. kyl: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. kyl: mr. president, would it be in order for me to speak as if in morning business for up to five minutes at this point? the presiding officer: without objection. mr. kyl: thank you very much, mr. president. it's been said that with one is indispensable and that may be true, but next week we'll test that theory after the departure of my chief of staff lisa walski. lisa has been on my whip staff since january of 20036789 she started as tax counsel in my personal office because i serve on the finance committee and then moved to the whip office in late-2007. she's more than -- you know, we refer to people around here as staffers. that name doesn't begin to encapsulate what we think of those people who work with us every day and provide us with all of the thanks we need to try to be successful, and that

certainly is lisa walski. she is and always has been one of my most trusted advisors. she is the gold standard of expertise and professionalism. everything i've asked her to do she's done and done well. but, more importantly, she brings to me the things that she thinks that i should be thinking about and more often than not that's exactly what i end up doing. she knows what she's talking b she knows what i want and what i need. those who work with her know she's smart. she's articulate. and through her mastery of complex policies and political savvy, she's accomplished great things in my whip office during the time that i've been whip. and i can't tell you the number of people who've told me over the last several weeks since they learned that she would be departing how much they're going to miss working with her. other than her extraordinary competence and work ethic, one of the many reasons i'll miss her is because, as i said, i think she and i think a lot

aloik and that's not because she accommodated her views to mine, but because she came to her views separately from a basis of understanding and reason and experience and knowledge, and it happens that our views generally coincide. that is a happy coincidence for a member and staff. and in my case to have a chief of staff who shares that -- those views with me has made my job much, much easier, and it makes work much more comfortable to be able to work in great harmony with someone on whom you're relying. she instinctively knows what i will think about a particular issue and she's always about there with good counsel and advice. and i just want to conclude by saying that lisa walski leaves behind i think a great example for all of the other staff people who work here, as well as the legacy of achievement and professionalism. i know that she will be a great success in her new job. she doesn't need good luck. her new employer will be very

for the into the have her wise counsel. undoubtedly more than they even know at this point but i do know here in the senate we are going to miss lisa walski very much. thank you very much, mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: i would ask the chair, would you please inform me when i have spoken ten minutes and for other people -- the speaker pro tempore: the chair will notify you at ten minutes, sir. mr. grassley: thank you. my amendment numbered 860 is a good-government amendment i hope we can get broad support. now, there are special interests here in washington making the rounds opposing this amendment. these groups have argued that this adam will unduel -- amendment will unduly purchased the justice department, take away grant money for worthy causes and erroneously ban grantees from future funds. well, these special interests

are prying to protect their income stream of federal grants and don't want somebody looking over their should to make sure -- shoulder to make sure they're spending taxpayer money wisely. this amendment is a response to the lack of oversight, accountability and responsibility for how american taxpayers' dollars are spent by grant recipients. it is a response to my work in the judiciary committee uncover frauds, misappropriation of funds, off-shore bank accounts by nonprofit organizations. now, can you understand that? nonprofit organizations in america have off-shore bank accounts, and many other shenanigans occurring in grant programs administered by the justice department. to fix this, my amendment includes an accountability and fraud prevention package for grants administered by the department.

i'm glad to report that the national taxpayers union, an independent, nonpartisan advocate for taxpayers, support the amendment. for the last decade, the inspector general has continuously labeled grant management at the department of justice a top management and performance challenge. that's from the inspector general. despite the large sums of money the department provides the grantees, the inspector general has repeatedly found inadequate controls on spending, inadequate oversight and general fail to ensure that taxpayers' dollars are spent by grantees in accordance with the programs. each year, the inspector general audits only a small fraction of grants awarded by the department. in fact, last year the inspector general has audited 21 grant recipients. now, keep that figure 21 in

mind. the inspector general questioned more than one quarter of all the taxpayer dollars these grantees received. these questions cost -- occurred on a random selection of grantees and represent less than 1% of the total grants. so we only audit -- go over 1%, but that 1%, 25 of them were found to have a waste of taxpayers' money or not proper accounting. perhaps the most concerning part of these audits is that they are randomly selected. if the inspector general's random selection of grantees universally uncovers unauthorized expenditures in other areas, then you can -- and other errors, then you can easily see why we have a much, much larger problem if the findings of the audit from 2011

were extrapolated through all the grants, that would mean nearly $500 million in questionable costs annually. my amendment requires the inspector general to audit 10% of the grants. it also requires the attorney general to ban grantees for two years if they're found to have serious problems that have gone unremedied for longer than six months after the inspector general makes a negative finding, by requiring this remedy within six months, it ensures that there is enough time to fix inadvertent mistakes but also ensures that truly bad actors are taken off the government rolls. my amendment also requires the a.g. to reimburse the federal treasury from the justice department budget if funds are given to an excluded entity and then requires the department to recoup lost grant money from those grantees. it also includes a limitation on

conference spending at the department. now, just a few weeks ago the inspector general issued an audit on conference spending at the department. we all heard about this audit, which revealed $16 muffins, $32 crackerjack snacks, $5 cans of codeas, the beef wellington appetizers and other uses of taxpayer money by the justice department. what we haven't heard is how under this administration conference spending at the justice department increased from $47 million in fiscal year 2008 to one year later, $73 million, and now, two years later, $91 million. despite the biggest federal deficit in history, the justice department under this administration has doubled spending on conferences in just two years. this is unacceptable, and it is why my amendment requires the deputy attorney general to sign

off on all conference spending. my amendment would prohibit the attorney general from providing any grant to a nonprofit charity that holds money in off-shore bank accounts for the purpose of evading federal taxes. now, is there anything wrong with not having a nonprofit organization -- if it's nonprofit, you think they'd be using their money for nonprofit purposes. this provision was the result of an investigation that i conducted into the boys and girls clubs of america, the national umbrella organization for thousands of local clubs in response to my inquiry the boys boys and girlss of america admitted despite closing hundreds of clubs nationwide it held nearly $222 million in investment of which $54 million was in off-shore investments and nearly another $54 million in smairns. when asked why this money was held off-shore, i was told it was held to, quote, "avoid issues with unrelated business

income tax generated by hedge funds that use leverage." end of quote. now i support the mission of the boys and girls clubs, truly i do. and it is true nothing they did here was illegal. however, gufn our current fiscal crisis i cannot support federal tax dollars being awarded as grants to those who hold millions of dollars off-shore, i should say tens of millions of dollars off-shore. finally i'll note my amendment includes a 25% matching requirement for grantees as i have heard the special interest lobbyists have been calling and sending panicked messages to many members in the senate opposing the matching requirement. arguing that it would shut off federal money to many grantees. this provision mirrors one recently included at a judiciary committee markup supported by all judiciary committee

democrats and some republicans. matching requirements are often required by grant programs that virtually all members have supported. the government accountability office even reported in a 2006 report on grant management that to strengthen grant management, congress should, quote, "ensure mechanisms are of sufficient value" when implementing grants. this is g.a.o.-speak for including a matching requirement so grantees are financially involved, not simply spending federal taxpayers' dollars. now, that said, mr. president, i wanted to modify my amendment and strike this provision. however, i understand that people on the other side of the aisle objected to that request so it would be easier to defeat my amendment. remember, this was an amendment that republicans and democrats accepted in the judiciary

committee. this is big money at stake with federal grants. and talk about special interests, the special interests have spoken. those who oppose my amendment oppose holding grantees accountable for how they spend taxpayers' dollars. those who oppose my amendment are supporting giving nonprofit charities with money in off-shore bank accounts taxpayer dollars. it will be interesting to see who opposes this provision especially given the fact that everyone should oppose giving taxpayer dollars to those who hold money off shore. my amendment is a commonsense way to ensure that taxpayers' dollars are protected. it is something we should have done long ago. i encourage all my colleagues to join me and send a signal that

waste, fraud, and abuse of taxpayers' dollars has no place in a federal grants program at the department of justice. that would include all of them. but particularly to organizations that hold money off shore to avoid taxes. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. merkley: mr. president, when our government spends money on infrastructure, core infrastructure, we should look first to american companies and american workers. but this doesn't always happen. in fact, recently there was a bid proposal in alaska to build a bridge with america's

taxpayers' money, and a chinese company employing chinese steel outbid the american company using american steel. and this was a big surprise in that normally there is a framework that helps ensure that american companies and american workers are able to do the projects -- infrastructure projects worth funding with our taxpayer dollars. so we're creating jobs here at home. well, it turns out that there's a loophole. whereas this basic framework covers highways, it covers commuting rail, covers passenger rail, it doesn't apply to freight rail. and this was a freight bridge that -- on tracks that don't always have passengers -- passenger trains on them. i don't know how many tracks in america only have freight and not passenger, but when

everything got sorted out through the appeals process, that's what it came down to. so this afternoon we'll have a simple amendment that makes this piece of the infrastructure world consistent with the rest of the infrastructure world. the industrial might of this nation was built on american rail roads made from american steel. now, we often say wow, there's a loophole you could drive a freight train through. in this case, you actually can drive a freight train through the loophole. so that is what we need to fix. at a time when americans everywhere are searching for jobs, we should be supporting american companies that employ and hire americans, use american steel, when american taxpayer dollars are employed. now, in the framework for infrastructure there are some exceptions, and those exceptions are in -- in this

amendment are exactly the same exceptions that are provided in the rest of the infrastructure picture. that is, the secretary of transportation can waive this requirement for u.s.-produced steel, iron and manufactured products if the application is inconsistent with the public interest. that's a pretty broad grounds on which the secretary can make the determination. or more specifically, if the materials and products are not available in sufficient quantity or quality from the american manufacturer. or if the inclusion of the desk material would increase the cost of the project by more than 25%. this is a small change that fills in or eliminates a loophole that you can drive a freight train through and the bottom line is this: if we don't build things in america, we will not have a middle class in america.

our taxpayer dollars should go to create good, living-wage jobs for our workers here at home in these core infrastructure projects, not to create jobs in china. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment. thank you . mrs. -- thank you, mr. president,. and i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. kirk: mr. president, i am unaware of the procedure. i think in the house i would be striking the last -- the presiding officer: tbher a quorum call, sir. mr. kirk: then i would ask unanimous consent to vitiate the dwoark speak as if in morning business for three minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. kirk: mr. president, we all saw the news that -- yet to be confirmed -- that general qadhafi is dead. this is a victory for our men and women in uniform, for the united states, for the administration, but most importantly for the people of

libya. senator mccain, senator graham, senator rubio and i had the privilege 20 days ago of traveling to tripoli. i was quite surprised what the i saw. being in other war zones, tripoli did not appear to be one of them. the rebels took the capital largely in tafnlgt only the qadhafi compound was blown away. anti-qadhafi graffiti obviously spantainious everywhere. some of the most popular people in the city were united states citizens. while many people in libya did not fully know the position of senator mccain, they knew he was an american leader. and throughout our visit they came up to thank him for the aircraft that they saw overhead, that they felt equalized, the battle, between them and their government, between the professional army of moammar qadhafi and the people of mizar a.

t anchts the people of triply, the people of benghazi. millions of libyans right now are very thankful for the united states. they feel that the aircraft overhead that equalized this battle were almost all american. in reality, much of those aircraft were british and french from our nato allies. but because of that pro-american feeling, the new government there is likely to be overwhelmingly pro-american. as we look to a now-secure post-qadhafi environment, we have to make several points. first, when we were there, leaders were obviously fraid that as long as he lived -- were obviously afraid that as long as he lived, qadhafi could make a comeback. that no longer looks possible. the prime minister there, jabril, wanted to call early

elections. we should help him call early elections because right now the rebel t.n.c. government is overwhelmingly popular and would be elected. next we have to unify military authority with the new rebel government. we were briefed that there are 28 separate militias in tripoli. we should unify military command under them to make sure that any sectarian violence does not break out with the victory that has come at hand. libya is a unique country which does not need foreign assistance from the united states. we've seized $3 4 billion of their dollars, over $100 billion is seized worldwide. they need assistance, medical backup, training for their army, support for their elections. but they can pay for it all. one thing they asked that we should spry hospital ship. u.s.s. comfort should be allowed to go to libya to care for those who were wounded in this battle.

we were told 25,000 citizens of libya died in this revolution. 60,000 were wounded. the united states should help care for them, and the libyan government should reimburse us for that effort. when we look to the future, we also have a couple of key challenges. we were briefed at qadhafi's chemical weapons stockpile -- that qadhafi's chemical weapons stockpile is secure, and i think it is, but we need to keep it that way. we were also briefed that the arsenals of libya were looted, including thousands of handheld surface-to-air missiles. it should be a top priority of the united states to buy or gain custody of those missiles again before they become a threat to civil aircraft around the world. in the end, as i said, this is a victory for the administration, for the men and women of the u.s. military, but especially the people of libya. and if we take the steps i just outlined, security for the

chemical weapons arsenal, recovery of the surface-to-air missiles, support for early elections and medical care with the provision of a u.s. hospital ship, i think we will lock in the winning of a new very pro-u.s. ally in the middle east. and with that, mr. president, i yield back the time. the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. brown: thank you, mr. president. i rise to speak on amendment 874, my amendment on housing discrimination. my understanding is when we assemble for a series of votes at 2:00 this vote will be voiced and i particularly appreciate the work of senator collins, the ranking minority member of the subcommittee and chairwoman patty murray, for her work and senator sanders for his support and cosponsorship. housing discrimination as we know, prevents hard-working families from buying homes in the neighborhood of their choosing. housing discrimination not only violates federal law, it's a barrier to economic mobility.

it's a morally wrong practice with real-world implications. a study by the miami valley fair housing coalition located in dayton, ohio, found that forclosed properties in predominantly african-american be neighborhoods in that city are kept in significantly worse condition than forclosed properties in white neighborhoods neighborhoods. that's bad for property values and bad for local governments that rely on property tax revenues because we know what that does for home prices. that's with why the department of housing and urban development initiated the f.i.p. f.i.p. helps enforce antidiscrimination laws. my amendment would put f.i.p. funding on equal footing with the house legislation, increasing it near its fiscal 2011 level, what the house the. this is about maintaining level funding so fair housing organizations won't be forced to

lay off hundreds of employees across the country. the amendment's fair housing organizations investigated 65% of the nation's complaints of housing discrimination, nearly twice as many as all government agencies combined. this amendment is efficient, it saves money by streamlining the claims investigation process. my amendment is fully paid for, transferring money from h.u.d.'s working capital fund. discrimination should never be tolerated and especially in these challenging economic times it would be particularly devastating to cut fair housing programs any further. i again want to thank senator murray and senator collins, the top two members, one in each party, of the transportation, housing, urban development committee -- subcommittee. i thank senator sanders for cosponsoring the amendment. i urge a yes vote for my colleagues when this comes forward for a voice vote in a few minutes. mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the 60 affirmative

vote requirement under the previous requirement for brown amendment as modified be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. the senator from utah. mr. hatch: mr. president, on behalf of myself and 2 cosponsors both republicans and democrats, i ask unanimous consent that the current matter be set aside and senate amendment 875 be called up. a senator: mr. president, object. mr. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. hatch: i understand there is an agreement regarding disposition of amendments already in place but i believe this amendment deserves consideration and a vote. it is a noncontroversial matter as far as i'm concerned. it would simply make permanent ten separate appropriations riders relating to firearms. the house s. bill did the same thing but they've been taken out of the senate substitute amendment. each of these riders has been in place a long time, some more than 30 years. these clarifying provisions have been enacted year after year to

preserve the rights of law-abiding gun owners and prevent encroachments on the part of the executive branch. it doesn't need to be a yearly exercise. there is widespread support for these provisions contained in my amendment. once again, they've never been the subject of any significant controversy. my amendment would justfully simply make them permanent. so we don't have to bring them up all the time. this amendment would likely pass with more than 60 or 70 votes. i hope that the leadership and the managers on the other side of the aisle won't simply accede to the wishes of a minority of senators who are hostile to second-amendment rights by preventing a vote on this amendment. so, mr. president, i ask again for unanimous consent to set aside the pending matter and call up senate amendment number 875. a senator: ,mr. president, i object. we have a good number of amendments already pending. mr. kohl: we have a list of amendments in order to be made pepped. until we are able to dispense an

dispose of these amendments, i must object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. hatch: i hope to be able to work with my colleagues on the other side on this. this shouldn't be a difficult exercise. it's just a smart thing to do. once again, i'm certain this amendment would have the support of a broad majority, bipartisan majority of my colleagues. if the other side wants to prevent a vote on this, keeping in mind that the vast majority of the american people support these provisions, i hope they'll able to explain to their constituents. i hope that there will be a reconsideration of this amendment and that we can get it up and get this matter solved once and for all. but i understand that -- i understand the distinguished senator has to object, and i feel very disappointed in that, but sooner or later we're going to vote on this amendment, one way or the other. the presiding officer: the senator from vermont.

mr. leahy: mr. president, i just wanted to rise in my -- as chair of the judiciary committee to say i oppose amendment 860. it's a one-size-fits-all approach, it would have catastrophic consequences on the justice department, and the important work the justice department does in supporting local law enforcement crime victims and justice across the country. my i've worked with my good friend from iowa, senator grassley, on many issues. we've been able to develop accountability measures to ensure the particular grants administered by the department of justice operate efficiently and effectively, particularly important at a time of budget austerity. we've done it in a specific context with the measures make a lot of sense. for example, in the course of our negotiations on a bipartisan version of the trafficking victims protection

reauthorization act, we worked out specific proposals there. but one size doesn't fit all. measures that make sense in one program cannot willy-nilly be applied to others without careful consideration of the consequences to the programs and to the intended beneficiaries of local law enforcement crime victims. the one-size-fits-all might harm rather than help important functions of the department of justice. for example, this amendment would prevent grants to the boys and girls club of america. i know some who constitutional right crit size some aspects of the boys and girls club and i'd be happy to work with any senator to work out these issues. the boys and girls clubs of america do great work. i remember one police chief in my state when asked if i could help him get a couple more police officers to help out because of problems, he said no, get me a boys and girls club, get me a place for young people to go.

i know in vermont they do a great deal as they do in most states. if there are reforms, we should -- let's do them but don't just cut out the funding in a one-size-fits-all way. at a time when we're doing everything possible to give young people a different goal than going out into a life where they might do things none of us would agree with. this would greatly restrict the ability to spend funsdz for salaries of its own people. that will lead to loss of agents, are we imposing a salary cap on top of the one the president has already imposed? are we going to be lose something of our best people? are we going to be unable to develop experienced law enforcement officers or prosecutors? i know that in law enforcement

and prosecution you value experience. you don't want to go for the lowest common denominator, you want people who are experienced. so i wouldn't -- again, a willie willy-nilly amendment does not help. the amendment includes a grant matching requirement, but in some programs grant matching is not a good idea. let me tell you about one. legislation the former senator ben nighthorse campbell and i put together, worked very well, is for the leahy bulletproof vest partnership program for local jurisdictions, we have in some local jurisdictions the ability to waive matching provisions. we've seen a rise in the number of assaults and murders of police officers across this country. many officers' lives have been saved because they've had bulletproof vests under the

leahy program. they would have died otherwise. but they're in small departments, small departments in states that could not afford the $500 or $600 for a bulletproof vest. yet we expect these police officers to be out at 3:00 in the morning, usually with no backup, if they're in a small, rural part of west virginia or vermont or all these other states, they don't have any backup. they're out there alone. and we ought to give them the kind of protection they need. i want police officers and rural communities do not have the budget of a big city department to have this kind of protection. so if you put a matching requirement by fiat, again, one size fits all, we got a lot of rural police departments that are going to be badly, badly hurt. and what about crime victims?

crime victims have already suffered great loss. are we going to say we could help you out, but pony up some money. pony up a matching crime and then we'll come in and help you. we'll spend a fortune on the guy we lock up, committed the crime, $30,000, $35,000 a year on that person, not going to ask for any matching money from the criminal. but we're going to say to the victim we can help you, but sorry, i know you lost all this money, i know you've been beaten, you're bruised, you've been injured, but you got to come up with some money before we can help you. the guy that did it, we'll take care of him. we'll pay for that. we can't help you. no, no, no, no, no. mr. president, i was a prosecutor for eight years. i know how hard -- how these victims suffer. they are usually the forboughten person in the criminal justice

system. the headlines are so and so is arrested, we're going to prosecute them. and that's good. they should be. i prosecuted a lot of those people. but the victim is the one forgotten. and victims and others most in need of assistance are those least likely to be able to provide matching funds. rural communities, nonprofit communities, tribes and states facing their own problems, shouldn't have another funding mandate put on them from washington. a new matching requirement and other requirements this amendment would impose burdens on all money to law enforcement, the byrne program. wyatt prevent police departments from hiring and keeping the officers they need. that's why the national district attorneys association and the national association of police organizations have expressed their opposition to this

amendment. at one time i had the honor of serving as the the vice president of the national district attorney organization 0. they care about prosecutors, they care about victims. we ought to listen to them. it also would burden grants awarded through the smith act to reduce backlogs in producing rape kits. rapists go free because we don't have the money to process the rape kits. tell that to the victim, we don't have the money to go get the person who did this. i'm not going to vote in a way i'm going to be telling that victim we can't help you, we can't test that rape kit. the debbie smith grant program received bipartisan support, it helps ensure rape victims will not have to continue to live in fear as somebody said, it's going to take a few months to test this because we don't have the money. by the way, lock your door, he

might come back. i'm not going to vote for that. i'm not going to vote for that. the matching requirement would be devastating to the national center for missing and exploited children. works hard every day to keep our children safe from those who do them harm. it's hard to think of any work more important than protecting our children from the evils of abuse and exploitation, but this amendment would make that work much harder was because the national center receives justice department grants but does not have matching funds. mr. president, time is running out here but i could tell you some stories, i could tell you some stories about what happens to these children who are exploited and abused and it would have everybody here in tears. when i saw them as a prosecutor and it does every day when i read these reports as chairman of the senate judiciary committee, my god, if we could go and try to protect people around the world, let's protect our children here

at home. so i agree with senator grassley that we need rigorous accountability measures. of course we should. we do this in our hearings every week in the judiciary committee. g.a.o. does it, inspector general does it, but don't do a one-size-fits-all that's going to say to our victims, they're going to say to rape victims, say to exploited children, they are going to say to our police officer who is told to go out there without a bulletproof vest and defend you and me in the middle of the night, sorry, sorry, sorry, the wealthiest nation on earth can't help you. no, i oppose this amendment. i yield the floor.

the presiding officer: under the previous order, there are now two minutes equally divided prior to a vote in relation to amendments number 879 as modified offered by the senator from oregon, mr. merkley. without objection. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

per vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber who have not yet voted or who wish to change their vote? if not, on this vote the yeas are 55, the nays are 44. under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the adoption of this amendment, the amendment is not agreed to. under the previous order, there are now two minutes equally divided prior to a vote in relation to amendment number 874 as modified to be offered by the senator from ohio, mr. brown. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. brown: i call up amendment 874 as modified. the presiding officer: the senate will be in order, please. the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from ohio, mr. brown, proposes amendment number 874 as modified to amendment numbered 738. mr. brown: i ask unanimous consent furthering of the

amendment be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: thank you, mr. president. housing discrimination not only violates our laws it's a barrier to economic mobility. this amendment would put f.i.p. funding on equal footing with the house legislation, so fair housing organizations won't be forced to lay off hundreds of employees across the country. the's effective, fair housing organizations investigated 65% of the nation's complaints, nearly twice as many as all government agencies combined. it's efficient, it saves money, by streamlining the claims investigation process. my amendment is fully paid for, transferring funds from h.u.d.'s working capital fund. i want to thank senator murray, chair of the subcommittee, senator collins, ranking member, for their support and the presiding officer also for cosponsoring this important amendment. i yield the floor. thank you, mr. president. the presiding officer: who yields time in opposition?

ms. collins: i would yield back the time. the presiding officer: if there is no further debate, all those in favor say aye. all those say no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the amendment is agreed to. under the previous order, there are now two minutes equally divided prior to a vote in relation to amendment number 815 as modified offered by the senator from kansas, mr. moran. who yields time?

the presiding officer: without objection, if there is no further debate, all those in favor say aye. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from kansas. mr. moran: before yielding back our time -- the presiding officer: the senate will be in order. mr. moran: the pending business before the senate is an amendment i offered yesterday. it's moran number 815. it has been agreed to that it would be accepted on voice vote, and i appreciate the leadership of chairman kohl and ranking member blunt, and i yield back the republicans' time. the presiding officer: if there is no further debate, all those in favor say aye. all those opposed say nay.

the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the amendment is agreed to. under the previous order, there are now two minutes equally divided prior to a vote in relation to amendment number 860 offered by the senator from iowa, mr. grassley. mr. grassley: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: this is a good government amendment, and it goes after the justice department grant management program because the inspector general has had grant management at the top of ten major management challenges -- the presiding officer: the senate will be in order. the senator has a right to be heard. mr. grassley: should i start over again then? the presiding officer: sure. mr. grassley: anyway, the inspector general says that management of grants at the justice department is abominable. so this amendment is trying to take care of what the inspector

general said needs to be done for a long period of time. grant recipients would be held to basic principles of accountability. and there is only a handful of grants audited each year, but out of that handful, 25% talk about mismanagement, fraud and things of that nature. a vote against my amendment would be a vote to allow fraud, waste and abuse of taxpayers funded grant program. a vote against my amendment would allow nonprofit charities to continue to hold money offshore bank account for tax purposes, you know, and still receive federal grants. i got a letter in my office that justifies $54 million offshore. so i hope that you will vote for this good government amendment. thank you. mr. leahy: mr. president, could we have order?

the presiding officer: the senate will be in order. mr. leahy: mr. president, i have worked with my good friend from iowa on accountability measures and will continue to, but not for this amendment. this is a one-size-fits-all. there is a reason the national district attorneys association a reason the national association of police organizations oppose it. this would make it impossible for small rural communities to get bulletproof vests under the leahy-campbell bulletproof vest program. this would make it impossible for some of the smaller departments to have the money to pay for rape kits. they would have to tell the rape victim sorry, we can't go after the person who raped you, even though they might come back, because we don't have the money, we don't have the money to test this rape kit. this is a one-size-fits-all that is going to hurt law enforcement. it is going to hurt victims.

we will pay the price of the person we lock up, but we won't do anything to help the victim. i oppose it. mr. grassley: ordered by the national taxpayers union. mr. leahy: i stand for the prosecutors and police who oppose it. the presiding officer: all time has expired. the question is on grassley amendment number 860. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators who have not yet voted or wish to change their vote? if if not, on this vote the yeas are 46, the nays are 54. under the previous order requiring 60 votes pour the adoption of this amendment, the amendment is not agreed to.

a senator: mr. president. mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. coburn: i would ask unanimous consent -- the speaker pro tempore: the senate will be in order. the senator from oklahoma. mr. coburn: i would ask unanimous consent to call up the following amendments displacing the amendment that is present, en bloc but considering each one of them individually. that would be amendment number 793, 794, 795, 796, 797, 798, 799, 800, and 801.

i make exception, 798 has been done, which would eliminate that. and 801 and 833. a senator: for the moment i object. the presiding officer: would the senator do his list again, please. mr. coburn: amendments number 794 through 797, amendment 799 and 801 and amendment 833. the presiding officer: without objection, the amendments are

pending en bloc. mr. coburn: thank you, and i yield. the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. mr. levin: mr. president -- mr. president, i am going to speak now against the pending amendment of senator ayotte, which would prohibit the prosecution of terrorists in federal courts. we need all available tools against terrorists --. the presiding officer: the senate will be in order. the senator from michigan. mr. levin: mr. president, we need all available tools against terrorists including the possibility of prosecution in federal courts or before military commissions and there is no doubt the use of military commissions in the course of previous wars that we have never enacted legislation closing the federal courts to the prosecution of our enemies.

we have always left it up to the executive branch to determine which tool best fits an individual case. indeed, both the bush administration and the obama administration have repeatedly used the federal courts to bring terrorists to justice. for example, the bush administration successfully used the federal courts to prosecute richard reid, the so-called shoe bomber, in october of 2002. the bush administration used the federal courts to successfully prosecute ahmed omar abu who was convicted in 2005. the bush administration used the federal courts to prosecute and sentence zacarias moussaoui, the so-called 20th hijacker. convicted in 2006, sinced to life -- sentenced to life in prison for his role in the 9/11 attacks. the obama administration has successfully used the federal

courts when they prosecuted damage beulah zazi in 2009 for his role in the new york subway bombing flat, and in connection with the times square bombing when they prosecuted umar farouk abdulmutallab the so-called underwater bomber in 2011 in connection with the christmas day bombing in detroit. if the ayotte amendment had been law these prosecutions would have been thrown into doubt. in fact, prosecution might not have been possible in any forum because if a court determined that a military commission lacked jurisdiction and if the ayotte amendment precluded jurisdiction of a federal court, there couldn't be prosecution in any form whatsoever. now, that could have actually been the outcome in the case of

ahmed warsami, a member of al-shabaab. he was indicted in federal court earlier this year on charges of providing material support to al-shabaab and al qaeda in the arabian peninsula. in that case our national security and legal teams determines that the federal courts provided the best forum in which to prosecute warsami for his alleged crimes. this decision was reached for two reasons. one, warsami is alleged to have violated a number of federal statutes including sections of the criminal code, protecting -- excuse me, prohibiting trafficking in explosives, use of dangerous weapons, acts of international terrorism, providing material support to foreign terrorist organizations and receiving military-type training from foreign terrorist organizations. only the federal courts have jurisdiction to try violations of those sections.

those offenses are not listed as crimes under the military commissions act. now, there's a second reason why it was decided that warsame was best prosecuted in a federal court which could not happen under the amendment of senator ayotte. warsame appears to have engaged acts of terrorism and material support to terrorism, both of which are crimes under the military commissions act, but -- and this is the problem -- only if they are committed, quote, "in the context of and associated with hostilities" against the united states. the administration concluded that it would have been difficult to prove beyond a reasonable doubt before a military commission that warsame met those jurisdictional thresholds. as a result, if the ayotte amendment were law, it might be impossible for the united states

to prosecute warsame in any forum. our federal prosecutors have a proven track record of prosecuting terrorists in federal courts. two years ago, the justice department informed us that there were 208 inmates in federal prisons who had been sentenced for crimes relating to international terrorism and an additional 139 inmates who had been sentenced for crimes related to domestic terrorism. those were crimes which were prosecuted in federal courts. by contrast, only four enemy combatants had been convicted by military commissions since 9/11. two of them, by the way, as a result of plea agreements sending them to australia and to canada. critics of the decision to try warsame in federal court apparently would prefer that he

be tried before a military commission, even though he might be less likely to be convicted there due to the jurisdictional issues. the most appropriate forum for trial should be as it is true for warsame, with the nature of the offense, the likelihood of successful prosecution. the executive branch officials who make these determinations are more likely to reach a sound conclusion after weighing those factors than would be the result of a one-size-fits-all legislative restriction that we would impose under the ayotte amendment. yesterday afternoon, madam president, we received a letter from the secretary of dwns and the attorney general expressing their -- quote -- "strong opposition to the ayotte amendment." the letter states as follows. "whether a given case should be tried in an article 3 court or before a military commission is a decision that should be based on the facts and circumstances

of the case and the overall national security interests of the united states. it is a decision best left in the hands of experienced national security professionals." and the letter continues, "if we are to safeguard the american people, we must be in a position to employ every lawful instrument of national power, including both courts and military commissions, to ensure that terrorists are brought to justice and can no longer threaten american lives. by depriving us," they concluded, "of one of our most potent weapons in the fight of against terrorism, the amendment would like it more likely that terrorists will escape justice and innocent lives will be put at risk." and, madam president, i would ask unanimous consent that the text of the letter be included in the "congressional record" immediately following my remarks. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. levin: madam president, this issue, as the presiding officer may remember, came up in

the armed services committee during our markup of the defense authorization bill. our bill expressly allows the transfer of detainees for trial by a court or competent try biewngal having lawful -- tribunal having lawful jurisdiction. senator amendment defeatin was d in the armed services committee. the court has never before -- we should not do so now. we should continue to use military commissions in cases where they are the best place for prosecution and for trial. we should not foreclose prosecution and trial in federal courts. madam president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from massachusetts. mr. brown: thank you, madam president. irrise today to speak as if in morning business for about five

minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: thank you, madam president. i rise to speak in strong support of a bill that we'll be voting on i hope later today, senate 1726, the withholding tax relief act of 2011, which has over 30 cosponsors. you are one of them, madam president -- and many others. it's based on legislation that i've introduced on three separate occasions which currently has almost one-third of the entire senate cosponsoring it. a and as i said, i brought it up before, and i'm glad that it will finally be getting a vote, because this is exactly the type of bipartisan jobs bill that the american people are yearning for, and we shouldin we shouldig on and i'm glad we're finally able to bring the repeal of this job-killing tax provision to the floor for a serious vote. this is a jobs bill, plain and simple. i don't know how else you can phrase it.

section 3402(t) of the tax code will require beginning in january of 2013 state and local governments to withhold 2% of nearly all contract payments made to private companies as well as medicare payments, construction payments, and certain loan payments. this is an arbitrary tax. this is extreme extremely expensive to implement and punishes the many for the bad acts of the few. what's more is that this tax absolutely promises to kill jobs at a time when we absolutely cannot afford to kill any jobs. the government withholding relief coalition, a coalition of more than 100 members -- and i have a sheet here, madam president, of four pages of groups -- american bankers association, men's for tax reform, national association of manufacturers, wholesalers, national league of cities, chambers of commerce -- four pages of groups and entities, over 100 members, a

cross-section of america. they have estimated that a combined five-year total cost to the states and federal government in implementing this legislation could be as high as $75 billion. the department of defense alone has estimated that this provision could cost the d.o.d. around $17 billion, and i know the shall that chairman levin who spoke before me, we're wrestling with trying to reinstate, i think, $20 billion to $25 billion from what the appropriations folks cut. so that's real money. here's the catch: the provision is estimated to bring in only around $8 billion. during that same period. and i'm not sure about you, madam president, but you have the concept of approximately $75 billion, the cost to state, federal -- states and federal government of implementing the legislation. then the d.o.d., it's $17 billion. yet we're only going to get $8 billion in rurchlt now, i don't know how else to say it except,

only in -- on capitol dishil something like that make sense, where we're spending more than we're actually going to be getting. unfortunately, there are many other reasons why this provision should be repealed as soon as possible. at a time when the state and local governments are under extreme financial stress, why would we want to enforce another unfunded costly mandate on them to recover minimal funds for the federal treasury? it makes no sense. as i said before, only in washington does spending $2 in order to recoup $1 make any sense. and i'll encouraged by -- and i'm encouraged by many of the cosponsors-- as i said, we've a bipartisan group. at what point do you see al franken -- senator franken and senator paul on the same bill together? and everybody in between as well. now, i'm -- i'm concerned, like many others, that businesses that contract with the government will simply pass on the cost of this provision to

the government in the form of higher bids on projects. i'm also concerned with the effects on small businesses as well. senator snowe recently, the ranking member, as you know, of the small business, on which i serve, and my fellow cosponsor on my original bill, recognized early on with me that this provision has destructive consequences for small businesses. everybody here knows it. at what point do we put politics aside and just agree to pass something that is so simple and makes absolutely no sense at all? because, as you know, it'll restrict cash flow and discourage small businesses from participating in federal contracting, and members of the construction industry are equally as worried. as you know, that's an industry that's being devastated. so they're equally as concerned that it will tax away all of their anticipated profit on government projects, thus diminishing competition and further raising costs to the government. there is a reason it has been delayed overed and over since

2005. everyone knows if can never go into effect because it will place an extraordinary cost burden on the federal government and state and local governments as well. we can't afford to shoulder that burden right now. everyone grease. shal-- everyone agrees. 309 cosponsors represent a diverse cross-sefnlings the president proposed its delay in his most recent jobs package. i've said before, why don't we work on the things we can all agree on right now. why -- why don't we just take the things that, in a bipartisan, bicameral managers and get them out of door? i understand the house is working on this right now. we're doing it right now. let's get it out the door. no reason why we shouldn't be able to do t just last week i had an opportunity to speak before the small business committee with secretary geithner, who has issued the provision'provision's latest prn

may. this repeal is one of those rare opportunities, rare opportunities, that we have around here where everyone can be in on the same team. very similar, madam president, when we passed the arlington cemetery bill with your leadership in the middle of all the problems we were having last year. you know, the legislative bodies of both branches came together and pass the arlington cemetery bill. i look at this as a similar provision where actually do something in a bipartisan, bicameral manner and get it passed. i urge my colleagues to rise above the partisan politics and support this truly bipartisan piece of legislation. because, as i've said before, madam president, we're americans first. yes, we're americans first. and, to me, that means it shouldn't matter if this is a republican bill or a democrat bill. it matters that, you know, it's a bill that's going to help small businesses and americans who are fighting on a daily basis to just make ends meet.

we have a great opportunity to move forward upon a piece of jobs legislation and pass this portion of the bill that is in fact supported by the president and scheduled, as i said, to be tainl in the house next week. -- to be taken up in the house next week. i appreciate the leader for bringing it to the floor for a vote. i thank the chair, and i yield the floor. mr. hoeven: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from north dakota. mr. hoeven: thank you, madam president. i rise too speak on the issue of job creation as well. specifically, in regard to legislation that i will be introducing that seeks to not only create jobs but also to truly reduce the cost of

electricity to americans throughout this country. in north dakota, we have a power plant north of our state capital, the city of bismarck. it's a large power plant. about 1,100 megawatts. it consist of two separate plants, each of them 550 megawatts, so that the complex provides 1,100 megawatts of electricity, power that fuels our state as well as sending power to minnesota, other places as well. this plant uses the latest in emission control technology, state-of-the-art. we also have an ethanol plant attached to the power plant so that the waste steam that comes off the power plant is used to power the ethanol plant to make low-cost transportation fuel as well. and in addition to those things, another innovation at this plant is that they take the coal ashe, after they produce the

electricity, they take hundreds of thousands of tons of coal ash and rather than landfilling it, they actually reuse it. and they use it to make concrete -- they call it flex-crete, for highways, in i woulding about materials. they even use it in products like shingles that we use on our hooves. -- --on our roofs. formally, this plant paid about $4 million a year to landfill that coal ash. now, they sell it for all these products and generate about $12 million a year in revenue. so if you take the $4 million they use to spend to landfill the material, the $12 million they now make selling the product, that's a $16 million revenue benefit to the plant. that means $60 million reduction in the cost of electricity to their customers throughout north

dakota and minnesota. and, at the same time, because they've partnered with a company out of utah called headwaters, right there at the complex they also have a facility that manufacturers these building products -- flex h.-crete, and creates good-paying jobs as well. so today, madam president, i rise to introduce a commonsense, bipartisan legislation, a jobs bill, if you will, the coal residuals reuse and management afnlgt in fact, this legislation has already passed the house of representatives with a large bipartisan majority. anin a true example of american ingenuity, companies are ecycling coal ash. americans work in building that are either partially constructed from coal ash strengthened building materials and they drive home from work on roads and over bridges that are made of coal ash concrete, or as i

said, they live under roofs that are shingled and those shingles are made out of this coal residuals material. in in fact, in my home state of north dakota, we have both our heritage center which is under construction now and also the national energy center of excellence which were constructed with these materials. here first this national energy center of excellence. this is at bismarck state college. they specialize in energy programs. this facility overlooks the missouri river, it's about a $20 million-plus facility, it's absolutely beautiful, and it's made with these coal residual product building materials. this other slide right now, this facility is under construction. this will be a more than $50 million facility which is in essence a museum and a heritage center for the state of north dakota. the building materials in this

facility, state-of-the-art will have both static and interactive displays is being built with what's called coal ash but coal residual materials. so these are materials coming out of our power plants that were formerly simply land filled and now we're using them for all these purposes. but the important point is we need to be able to continue to do that, and that's why i'm introducing this legislation. it turns out that using this natural byproduct of coal combustion not only makes our buildings and infrastructure stronger, it makes homes, businesses and highways more affordable to build, and it also creates hundreds of thousands of jobs in the process while using this cost-effective material. meanwhile, by using coal ash in such an innovative manner, it's estimated that the overall energy consumption in this country can be reduced by 162 trillion b.t.u.'s, british thermal units, and that water usage is reduced annually by

32 billion gallons a year. that's the equivalent of the amount of energy used by 1.7 million homes a year and the amount of water, actually one-third of the amount of water used in the entire state of california each year. so you can see from a conservation standpoint what an incredible impact using these materials has. unfortunately, the e.p.a. is now considering whether to overturn 30 years of precedent and regulate coal ash as a hazardous material, despite findings from the department of energy, the federal highway administration and state regulatory agencies throughout the country, as well as e.p.a. itself. e.p.a.'s own studies that show that the toxicity level in coal ash is well below the criteria that requires any type of hazardous waste designation. in fact, the e.p.a.'s may, 2000,

regulatory determination, in that determination, they concluded that coal ash does not warrant regulation as hazardous waste and that doing so would be environmentally counterproductive. however, new regulations first proposed in june, 2010, would create a stigma for coal ash recycling and expose it to frivolous lawsuits that could undermine the industry, cost thousands of jobs and take billions of dollars out of our economy at a time when working families can least afford it. but the damage to americans' pocketbooks would not just stop with the undermining of this recycling industry. it's estimated that meeting the regulatory disposal requirements under the e.p.a.'s sub title c proposal would cost between $250 and $450 per ton.

that could mean up to another $50 billion in costs of burden on our electricity generators that use coal, and most importantly customers, american families, businesses, farmers, again, americans throughout this great country. it is also estimated that this regulation by e.p.a., this proposal could mean the loss of more than 300,000 american jobs. that is why i have at the desk the coal residuals reuse and management act which i am introducing today along with senators kent conrad, senator michael enzi, senator mary landrieu, senator rob portman, senator ben nelson, senator joe nelson, and also senator john bozeman. four republicans and four democrats. this is truly a bipartisan piece of legislation. as i said, it is a companion to house resolution 2273 that passed the u.s. house of

representatives last friday with strong, and i emphasize strong bipartisan support, and it takes a commonsense approach to ensuring that we can continue this vital industry and, in fact, build it, save millions of dollars for american consumers and create hundreds of thousands of jobs. this bill not only preserves coal ash recycling by preventing these byproducts from being treated as hazardous, it also establishes federal standards for coal ash disposal. under this legislation, states, states can set up their own permitting programs for the management and disposal of coal ash. these programs would be required to be based on existing e.p.a. regulations to protect human health and the environment. if a state does not implement an acceptable permit program, then the e.p.a. regulates the program for that state. importantly, states will know where they stand under this bill

since the benchmark for what constitutes a successful state program is set in statute. e.p.a. can say yes, the state does meet these standards or no, it doesn't, but e.p.a. cannot move the goal post. this is a state's first approach that provides regulatory certainty. and what is certain is that under this bill, coal ash disposal sites will be required to meet established standards. these include groundwater detection and monitoring, liners, corrective action when environmental damage occurs, structural stability criteria and financial assurance in the recordkeeping needed to protect the public. madam president, the coal residual reuse and management act is legislation needed to protect jobs and help reduce the cost of home and road construction and electric bills.

i want to thank both the republicans and the democrats who have taken a leadership role and are joining me in cosponsoring this legislation. i particularly want to thank my fellow senator from north dakota, senator kent conrad, and i urge our colleagues to join us and support this important measure. thank you, madam president. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. blunt: madam president? the presiding officer: the

senator from missouri. mr. blunt: madam president, yesterday at about 5:30 -- the presiding officer: there is a quorum call, senator. mr. blunt: i ask to vitiate the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. blunt: madam president, yesterday about 5:30 or so we had all kind of members who slid wanted to come over and talk about their amendments. this is an opportunity to talk about these three appropriations bills. the floor is open. there are a number of pending amendments, and hopefully members will come over and offer the amendments or talk about the amendments that they've offered, and we want to move through this legislation as quick as we can, but actually no quicker than we need to. there's plenty of time here, and if members want to talk about this bill, if they want to support the bill or oppose the bill or maybe more likely right now come and talk about the significant number of pending amendments, this is a good time to do that. and i suppose the other thing i could and should talk about that i know the chair would be happy

with would be the great cardinal victory last night. even the cushions in the back of the chamber seem to me to be a little brighter red today than they normally are. so maybe the texans need to come and talk about their amendments and talk about the rangers. but i will say that the cardinal team, from the last week or so of august until right now, has been one of the true miracles of baseball history. just going from 10.5 games -- from even qualifying to be the wildcard in the playoffs, to having almost every game from that moment on having the sense that this is the intensity, the final game of the season. so all cardinal fans are proud. there's quite a bit of red on today here on the senate floor, and there's another cardinal game tonight, and i wouldn't mind to watch some of it. and the my best chance of doing that is if members will come over here and talk about their

pending amendments now and defend those amendments. this is really in the year, it seems like to me, that this week the senate has been working as the senate should work, bringing appropriations bills to the floor, debating those bills, letting members propose amendments, and hopefully we'll continue with these bills, the agriculture, rural development, and food and drug administration bill that senator kohl and i brought to the floor; the transportation and housing and urban development bill; the commerce, state, justice bill -- maybe, commerce-justice now, but that bill that -- so we've got a lot of topics here. would don't want to let this appropriations process go to one huge bill that nobody understands, nobody has time to read, and nobody has time to debate. and so hopefully with all these pending amendments we'll have

that discussion and we've had a number of votes already today but a number of members that have things that they'd like to see discussed and voted on, and hopefully we'll begin to see more of that happen. so, with that, it does appear that we don't have a quorum yet or other members to speak, and i'd suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: ms. mikulski: madam president, i ask unanimous consent that the call of the quorum be vacated. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. mikulski: i would like to echo my comments -- echo the comments of my colleague from missouri. i, too, invite senators to come down. we are showing that we can govern. we have our appropriations bills here. and we've already disposed of eight amendments. actually, i think we've disposed of more than eight by now. and -- but we have 22 amendments

pending. 22 amendments pending. if you have an amendment, come and speak to it. if you've reviewed these 22 and you oppose it, have your day, have your say because that's what the senate is. due diligence, due deliberation. what we don't want is everybody exactly as the senator from missouri said, who's the ranking on agriculture, that everybody is going to want to come at 5:30 or 6:00 or 7:00 and want to speak. i know the leadership on both sides of the aisle would like to move expeditiously, and even if possible finish this bill tonight. i think we've agreed that we're willing to work through the evening to dispose of amendments witamendmentsbut senators have n

their amendments. and so, on my side of the aisle i would encourage if have you an amendment, come and speak to it regardless of the side of the aisle you're on, you oppose it it, come and speak on it as well. some of these are quite controversial, and so again, we invite this due deliberation. but, you know, madam chair, everyone has worked hard. we've done a lot in appropriations. we've ended earmarks, a topic that i know of is of special interest to many of our colleagues. we have made significant cuts this year in both the shall, as a result of the continuing resolution and other agreements, but at the same time the subcommittees have worked hard to follow the mission of what we're trying to do in this country, have a more

frugal government. i know in my bill we have really paid particular attention on how to curb waste, and i'll be speaking about that shortly. but again, i invite my colleagues to come. i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. ? quorum call:

ms. mikulski: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. ms. mikulski: i ask unanimous consent the call of the quorum be vacated. i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to consideration of calendars numbers 206 through 210 which are all post office naming bills. in other words, naming post offices if they remain open after distinguished americans. i've asked unanimous consent. the presiding officer: is there objection? if there is no objection -- unanimous consent so ordered. ms. mikulski: i ask unanimous consent the bills be read a third time, passed en bloc, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table en bloc, with no intervening action or debate, and any related statements be printed in the record as if read.

the presiding officer: without objection. ms. mikulski: and madam chair, i will submit these names that have been cleared by the relevant committees and approved for the record. i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: president.

the presiding officer: the senator from south dakota is recognized.

mr. thune: madam president, i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be dispensed with and i be allowed to speak as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. thune: madam president, i rise in support of senate bill 1726, the withholding tax relief act of 2011, and i know that we are currently debating several appropriation bills, which we hope will be concluded sometime later today, but in that process, my expectation is that we're going to get an opportunity to vote on a couple of amendments that deal with the real issue, i think, that's on the minds of most americans today, and that's jobs and the economy. the bill that i mentioned that i reference senate bill 1726 is identical to the measure that was introduced earlier this year by senator scott brown and olympia snowe and of which i and 28 of my colleagues from both sides of the aisle are cosponsors. now, given that we may get a chance to vote on this legislation perhaps in the form of an amendment to the bill that we're currently on later today,

i want to say a few words to why i believe this represents the right approach to spurring our economy. i think there is a right approach and there is a wrong approach to getting people back to work in this country and getting the economy growing and expanding again. american businesses need access to capital. they need to be able to deploy their existing capital as efficiently and effectively as possible. if we don't act, come january 1, 2013, 3% of contracts between private businesses and federal, state and local governments will be withheld. this means that dollars that could be reinvested by businesses and new videotape or new employees will instead be used essentially to give the i.r.s. an interest-free loan. the joint committee on taxation estimates that permanently eliminating this burdensome withholding requirement will allow taxpayers to keep an additional $11.2 billion over the next ten years. while 3% of a contract may not seem like a large amount, consider that for many

businesses, 3% could be their entire profit margin. in effect, the withholding requirement, if we allow it to take effect, will result in a large transfer of funds from local economies all across this country to the internal revenue service. imposing this new wealth transfer makes absolutely no sense while our economy remains very fragile. the good news is that there is broad bipartisan support for repealing the 3% withholding requirement. the obama administration's office of management and budget just last month released the president's jobs plan entitled "living within our means and investing in the future." on page 8 of this document, it reads the president's plan calls for the congress to remove burdensome withholding requirements to keep capital out of the hands of job creators. madam president, i could not agree more. unfortunately, the details of the president's plan as introduced by majority leader reid only provides a one-year delay in implementation of the withholding provision. american businesses need more

than a one-year delay. they need certainty. this is the reason that a long list of businesses and trade groups support this legislation. in fact, a document prepared last week by the house ways and means committee lists 170 businesses and groups supporting repeal of the 3% withholding requirement. this diverse list includes groups such as the american farm bureau, the american bankers association, the associated builders and contractors, the american gas association, the american ambulance association, just to name a few. it should be no surprise that this bill also enjoys broad bipartisan support. the house version of the bill likely to be voted on next week has 269 cosponsors, 62 of whom are democrats. in the senate bill, there are a number of both republican and democrat cosponsors, and the bill was fully offset by rescinding unobligated discretionary funds. this is the same offset that we have voted on in february when senator stabenow proposed it to pay for repeal of the 1099

reporting requirement. that vote passed by 81-17 with 34 democrats voting yes. so to summarize, madam president, we have a bill before us that we will soon vote on that will allow businesses to keep more of their own funds rather than sending them in advance to the i.r.s. that is broad bipartisan support that is fully offset using an offset that's supported by a majority of both republicans and democrats in this chamber. so why would we not want to enact this legislation as soon as possible? i would note that this approach stands in stark contrast to the many -- mini stimulus bill that is being proposed by the majority leader. the reid bill goes in exactly the opposite direction. it would raise taxes on the private sector to pay for new spending on the public sector. let's think about that for a minute. we all agree that the private sector creates the crass

majority of jobs in this country, and since the beginning of the recession, there has been a decline of 5.4% of private sector jobs or 6.2 million jobs lost. however during that period government jobs declined by less than 2% and federal government jobs increased by 2% or by 63,000 jobs. so the federal government is getting larger at the same time that the private economy is shedding jobs. we all want to find ways to help public sector employees but let me suggest we need to do it without imposing new burdens on the private sector at a time we should promote private sector job creation. the withholding tax relief act will do just that. it will promote job creation by allowing businesses to keep more of their capital and it will send a message that washington understands that promoting the private sector is the key to reviving our economy, not another government bailout.

only eight days ago we voted in favor of the three pending trade agreements, votes that garnered broad bipartisan support and which we agreed will stimulate the economy and grow jobs in this country. during my remarks during the debate on those agreements, we were setting a precedent that i hoped would continue in the weeks 0 to come. instead of considering divisive and controversial measures such as the president's new surtax on small businesses and job creators we should be considering legislation that helps our economy and can actually become law because it has strong bipartisan support. that was true of implementing legislation for the three trade agreements the president will sign into law tomorrow and true of the withholding tax relief act of 2011. let's take this opportunity, madam president, to demonstrate when we are willing to work together we can enact legislation that will help to spur economic activity and to create jobs in the private

sector economy. and we can do this without new taxes and without new burdensome regulations. we can accomplish it simply by getting the government out of the way of american entrepreneurs. let's help americans in a free and open society do what they do best -- take riz, crate -- risks, create business opportunities. we don't need yet another stimulus bill heavy with government spending. we just need a little common sense and passing the withholding tax relief act is a good place, madam president, to start. and so when we -- when these amendment votes coming up later today i hope my colleagues on both sides will recognize the importance of stimulating and spurring economic activity in the private sector, getting our entrepreneurs in this country, giving them incentives to create jobs by keeping the tax burden, the regulatory burdens low, and move away from this notion, this idea that the way to get

the economy growing again is to put -- to spend more government money, to come up with yet another stimulus plan which we know doesn't work. we've seen that picture before, madam president. we know many of these same types of ideas were tried and they have failed. unemployment today it's over 9%, back when the stimulus first stimulus bill was passed, a lot of contentions at the time were it would keep unemployment under 8%. the exact opposite has happened. we've got more people unemployed since the stimulus bill passed, over 1.5 million more unemployed than when it passed and we should recognize that those types of remedies are not the correct prescription for america's economy today. the correct prescription for america's economy is to get our entrepreneurs, our small businesses back out there investing their capital, buying new equipment, creating jobs for american workers and the way that we do that is to make it less costly, cheaper, easier

for them to create jobs rather than harder. unfortunately, too much of what's been happening in washington of late is making it not easier but harder because of all the economic uncertainty that's created here by tax policy, regulatory policy, and this is a good example, putting in place yet another withholding tax having that to plan for knowing that's going to take effect come 2013 and now layered on top of all those other things you've got the new health care mandates, many small businesses across the country are saying we are not going to hire people until we know with greater certainty with a the impact of the health care reform bill is going to be on us and our employees. and so, madam president, this is a clear winner, something that as i said enjoys broad bipartisan support, the way in which it is paid for has enjoyed broad bipartisan support before, i hope we will be able to pass it today and i hope we will defeat what i think is the ill-conceived approach proposed by the majority leader and that

is to try and put a tax on job creators, a tax on job creators, the people who are out there who have the capital to put people back to work, and to invest in more government spending, more government programs, all of which have proven that they don't work. let's do what works. let's use a little common sense. let's get american people working again. madam president, i yield the floor. a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from hawaii is recognized. a senator: as we to debate the three appropriations bills, i'd like to take a moment to congratulate the managers of these measures. mr. inouye: and to urge my colleagues to continue in the current bipartisan spirit as we seek to work additional bills in the coming weeks. building on the progress we have made this week will make it less

likely that we will be forced to resort to an omnibus or yearlong continuing resolution down the road. the bills we are considering are both bipartisan and fiscally responsible. senator kohl and senator blunt have worked together to produce an agriculture bill that is $2.2 billion below the president's request, and $141 million below the f.y. 2011 enacted level. senator mikulski and senator hutchison have managed a commerce-justice-science bill that is $5 billion below the president's request and $631 million below the f.y. 2012 enacted level. and senator murray and senator collins have crafted a transportation-housing bill that is $677 million below the president's request and $117 million below last year's.

as noted by the leadership of the respective subcommittees, all three of these measures were approved by the full committee with overwhelming bipartisan support. these measures reflect the austere fiscal environment that we face. they are consistent with the framework established by the budget control act, which established a discretionary spending level that is $7 billion below last year's level. madam president, all three of these bills present difficult choices. these bills are focused on a number of basic priorities: job creation, public safety, nutrition, housing, and transportation. and yet despite the importance of these initiatives, to the lives of every american, many worthy programs were either

reduced or eliminated to meet our austere limits. some have argued that our national debt demands even further cuts to these vital areas. however, every credible, nonpartisan analysis has concluded that any real solution to our fiscal problems lies with reforming mandatory programs and raising additional revenues, not cutting investments in roads and bridges and public safety any further. but to date the entire focus on deficit reduction has been on discretionary spending. those who advocate further cuts must look elsewhere. if it is -- even if it is more politically painful to do so. it is my firm belief, madam president, that another round of ill-advised cuts to

discretionary spending will quite simply put our nation's security and economic future at risk. madam president, in addition to the managers of these three bills, i'd like to thank the leaders on both sides of the aisle for their support in bringing these measures to the floor this week. as the house has not enacted on the commerce-justice side or the transportation appropriations bills the package we consider today is creative, bipartisan solution that enables all senators an opportunity to offer amendments. as always, the closer we get to regular order, the better the final legislative product will be. it is important that the senate has an opportunity to debate these three measures and to focus on the matters that are germane to the bill. madam president, when we complete action on this bill,

there will be seven outstanding appropriations committee bills and it is my hope and my intention to move forward with additional appropriations measures when the senate returns in november and demonstrate to the american people that congress is able to complete its work in a responsible manner. once again, i wish to commend the chair and the ranking members and their staffs for their fine work on this measure. madam president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from inteam recognized. mr. sessions: madam president, i would ask that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. sessions: i just want to take a minute to say that i'm pleased that one of my amendments to eliminate the categorical eligibility for food stamps concept is set for -- has been called up and i also look to calling up an amendment that's been referred to as the medco amendment that has real strong bipartisan support.

it was an amendment that many people felt they needed to vote against when the patent bill came forward because it would have been the only amendment to the patent bill, and would have required it to go back to the house. so it failed on a 51-47 vote but i'm confident there's an overwhelming number that would prefer to vote for this amendment now if we can get it accepted, wouldn't take a long time for to us consider it, i think it's an issue our members are familiar with. so i just want to share my thoughts that it's very important to me and i think i would have perhaps a majority vote on both sides of the aisle, and it basically would say we want to delay the implementation of an act that would have the effect of deciding a ongoing civil

litigation. it's on appeal now to the court of appeals. the merits of the matter are being argued. and i believe that it's the kind of matter that clearly should be allowed to stand in the courts. and if somehow after this, this law firm who failed apparently to follow the statute of limitations although the court has ruled in their favor, is seeking to have the united states congress overrule or shortcut the appellate process in this matter. i just want to take a couple of minutes to say i look forward to debating the question of categorical eligibility for food stamps where if you are approved for a number oof federal programs --, other federal programs, you don't have to make a formal application for food stamps and qualify. and it is -- the c.b.o. has indicated it could save as much

as $10 billion over ten years if that hole in a program is closed, and i would note that food stamps are the fastest growing major item in the budget by far, nothing close to it, it's doubled in the last three years, it's gone from $20 billion to $80 billion in the last ten years. 400% increase. nothing is like it anywhere else. one in seven people are now receiving food stamps. originally it was one in 50 when the program started. and nobody wants to deny people food, but the program has not been looked at, we've not looked under the hood. i believe this one reform that simply says if you want to get thousands of dollars in food benefits from the government, you ought to at least fill out a form and qualify according to the standards the food and nutrition service sets and that's basically all it would do. some of the programs that if you

qualify for them, are now being automatically accepted for food stamps, have lower qualifications than food stamps do. for example, one person won the lottery and that was counted as an asset to the person rather than an income to the person, he called and said do i still get food stamps when i won a $2 million lottery? and they said yes, the money you received is asset and we don't count assets under this other mechanism. but but you should count assets your honor the food stamp program. i thank the chair. i thank the senator from delaware who's moving the bill, allowing me to share these thoughts. and i do hope that we can get an agreement and move forward on the medco amendment along with the categorical food stamp amendment. ms. mikulski: i say to my colleague from alabama, i'm the senator from maryland, but delaware is next door.

we share the whole ches chesapee bay and a whole lot of chicken farms. so that's ofnlgt i want to advise the senator that his amendment, 810, is pending, and i believe the leadership is negotiating on which group of amendments would be voted on in the next phase of this, which we hope we'll be able to announce shortly. his one in which he has just spoken about the patent office is not a pending amendment, and again that would be subject to leadership on both sides of the aisle determining what would be called up. so i suggest that stay in touch with senator -- the republican leader, senator mcconnell, and his floor staff as they're talking with senator reid. but your amendment is pending, and i know you debated it yesterday. i know that our colleague from

michigan, senator stabenow, chair of the agricultural committee, commented. and i would just say to the gentleman, because i believe him to be a compass national conservative, a phrase we once use add decade ago, one of the reasons people -- you know, maybe how you file papers are one thing, but we do have a 9% unemployment. gosh, in my state, we're seeing people come to food banks. we used to donate to food banks. we're seeing an increase in people who've been lloyd off, who either have no job or have taken now part-time jobs. so one of the reasons the food stamp population is increasing is because unemployment is increasing, and i look forward to working with you on a bipartisan jobs bill. but we also want you to be able to speak to your amendment and

hopefully, because it is pending, it could be included in -- mr. sessions: i thank the chair, and she is correct that we have allowed the food stamp amendment to be pending. and i am talking with staff on this side and the senator from maryland is not objecting at this point to that amendment. so i hope that will happen. i just wanted to emphasize that a number of members feel very strongly that this is a matter that we have an opportunity now to fix, that is, we shouldn't be moving forward to intervene in an ongoing lawsuit. you know, under our rules, there is a way to get a special relief act. if somehow there's a miscarriage of justice that occurs in our american system, an individual special relief act. but it has certain procedures. but one of the key procedures of

that is that your litigation be exhausted, that you've already tried to get it exhausted, and then if the courts can't give you relief, we might consider it under certain procedures. so this litigation is ongoing and that's why i -- ms. mikulski: senator, which category are we -- are we still talking about food stamps? mr. sessions: no, i'm talking about the -- ms. mikulski: i kind of got lost here. mr. sessions: -- the patent off the, the patent bill, medco statute of limitationations issue that's -- was -- house -- by a vote they said not to do it. the second vote they put it in by a narrow margin. our members did not want to amend the house bill. so this would give us an opportunity to vote on it. ms. mikulski: i remember that very we will, senator. i remember that it was enormously controversial. it was significantly confusing,

and there was much to be said on both sides of that. i believe somebody missed the filing by 24 days -- i mean, 24 hours. mr. sessions: i think that's basically correct. ms. mikulski: but, you know, you were the chair of the judiciary committee. you are well-versed in the patent stuff. but why don't we turn it every to leadership and see how they want to proceed. mr. sessions: fair noser. i just wanted to for the record indicate that i was urging leadership to make the matter pending. ms. mikulski: make the matter pending. we'll turn it over to a higher power, okay? mr. sessions: mr. president, thank you. ms. mikulski: madam president, we note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

ms. collins: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from smain recognized. ms. collins: thank you, madam president. i ask unanimous consent that proceedings under the call be dispensed with.

the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. ms. collins: thank you, madam president. madam president, at some point during consideration of the transportation, housing, urban development and related agencies appropriation bill i expect that there may be a motion to recommit the bill to the appropriations committee. therefore, i want to take this opportunity as we're attempting to work out amendments and proceed to some additional votes, to give my colleagues some basic facts about our bill. first of all, our appropriations bill took one of the largest percentage cuts to spending of any of the appropriations bills for fiscal year 2011. it's important to understand that our bill is nearly $13 billion below fiscal year

2010 enacted levels. this funding level represents a reduction of nearly one-fifth in just two years. when disaster funding is not included, our bill total is $55 billion, that's $117 million below f.y. 2011. so, madam president, i want to point out that this bill is a fiscally responsible bill. it's a bill that required a lot of tough choices. it's a bill that does not fund some programs to the level that i would have liked to have seen them fund, but it recognizes the reality of a $14.3 trillion federal debt that is growing every day. therefore, we've had to make tough choices.

we cannot have the luxury of fully funding every program, even those programs that are very beneficial. in other cases, also, madam president, we put tough new restrictions on programs where we felt that the taxpayers have been not getting their money's worth. and that includes some programs run by public housing authorities and the home program, about which "the washington post" did an expose. so we've worked carefully with the inspector general at the department of housing and urban development to make sure that there are new antifraud provisions and restrictions. it's also important to understand that the $117 million difference from fiscal year 2011 does not take into account the

$3.9 billion in one-time rescissions taken in f.y. 2011 that were not available in fiscal year 2012. so when you compare the appropriations for program spending not including the offsets, our bill's appropriations in our bill, the appropriations is actually $1.1 billion below the fiscal year 2011 enacted levels. madam president, i've just given a number -- a great deal of different numbers, but my point is the same, and that is that this is a fiscally responsible bill, it's a constrained bill, and our subcommittee's allocation was cut quite severely, and thus it was a real challenge. but it's a challenge that we

have to meet in these very difficult budget times. we don't have the luxury of fulg funding even very worthwhile programs. it been a great pleasure to work with my colleague, senator murray, to produce a bipartisan bill and that's what we have done. but again, our transportation-h.u.d. bill took one of the largest percentage cuts in spending of any -- of the appropriations bills that will be brought before this body. finally, madam president, let me tell you that i'm very pleased that we are bringing the appropriations bills to the senate floor. none of us, in my opinion, wants to see the problems that we've had in the past couple of years where we've ended up the end of the calendar year with a huge omnibus bill stacked on our

desks, no one completely sure of every provision that is in the bill, and it's just a terrible way to legislate. it is much more responsible to bring the appropriations bills before the full senate after they've had their careful consideration by the appropriations bill, and by note that they do get careful consideration by the appropriations committee. is what i meant to say. we have extensive hearings, and we have markups at both the subcommittee and the full committee level. but then the full senate should have a chance to work its will on these bills. and i've been pleased that we've been considering these bills all week. we've had several amendments offered by members on both sides of the aisle, and we've had constructive debate. as my colleague from maryland

has pointed out, it's been a respectful, civil debate. and that's what the people of this country deserve. so i hope this is going to set a precedent where we will bring every single one of the appropriations bills before this body so that members can work their will. it is the right way to legislation, and it avoid the spectacle of our having a multiple thousands of pages omnibus bill which does not serve the people of this country well. madam president, seeing no one seeking recognition, i would suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call: a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the