the presiding officer: the senator from arizona is recognized. mr. kyl: thank you. mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that further proceedings under the quorum call being dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. killed kyl thank you. mr. president, for those clegs colleagues who are here, i want to -- mr. kyl: thank you. mr. president, for those colleagues who are here, i want to speak to an amendment that has been filed, an amendment which seeks to add some money for the united states marshals service, and i a like to explain

why we think this is a good idea. but, first, to say that in speaking with leader reid, we are trying with our staff and the majority staff to see if we can work out the appropriate pay-fors for this and an appropriate amount of money that was assist the u.s. marshals service. hopefully we can work something out and i'm just trying to explain the basis for this at this time. mr. president, as you know, we've done a lot of work on the borders to try to secure the border and that has required us to add money for the u.s. border patrol, several other accounts in the department of homeland security, we've added money for the department of justice, we need new judges, courtrooms, prosecutors, defenders --. it's taken a lot of money to secure the border with all of the different aspects that are involved. the one area that we haven't kept up with is the u.s. marshalls service.

all of us know the u.s. marshals service. it is a great organization. these people do tremendous work but sometimes we forget them. what we've learned here is that while we have an increased ability to apprehend illegal immigrants and to try them in court and even jail space to hold them, the group that does the holding and the transporting and the keeping of the judges and the courtrooms safe during the process -- the u.s. marshals service has not had funding to keep up with this. and, as a result, they are way low in terms of both personnel and also some facilities that need to be upgraded to accept the much larger numbers of illegal immigrants and other prisoners who are in their custody. just to give you one illustration: when prisoners are brought to a courthouse, obviously there are huge security measures that have to be followed to ensure that

jurors, judges, the public at large, witnesses and so on are not at jeopardy because of the existence of the prisoners. and so they are generally brought in vehicles appropriately accompanied to secure facilities in the court building and then at the appropriate time brought to the courtroom, and all in the custody of the marshals and with appropriate security for all. however, because of these increased numbers, what we found is, just by way of example, they bring the prisoners from the holding facility, the prison, the jail, whatever it might be. they literally have to disembark in a public parking lot where jurors are parking to come up to be involved in cases, where the public at large, where witness witnesses, where victims and families, judges and lawyers are coming to park, to go to the courthouse and go up the

elevators and so on right with these same people. that is not a secure situation. and what in most situations the march shallots have l -- the marshals have the ability to take their prisoners directly to a secure port, a place in the courthouse where they can immediately put them into custody in a secure, locked-down facility. construction of some court buildings needs to keep up with this demand, and it requires some money. in this case, about $16 million. now, i know this is a small matter in the overall budget that we're talking about, but for the marshal service to do its job, this is important for them. and they need additional personnel, and the cost of that far exceeds $10 million, but that's what we thought we would try to ask for in this amendment, to at least bring the marshals service up to a level where they can accommodate the new numbers of prisoners. mr. president, we might need to get order here.

the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. mr. kyl: thank you, mr. president. so in our amendment, $20 pll is provided for additional deputy marshals and security-related support staff to assist in overall southwest border enforcement. and we've narrowed this down to the five judicial districts on the border that have -- well, in fact, these districts have just about half -- 49.7% to be exact -- of all the prisoners nationwide brought into the custody of the marshals service are brought in by way of these five southwest border judicial districts and about half of those in marshal's custody along the southwest border were held for immigration-related offenses. so this is the need that we're trying to satisfy with this amendment. the marshal service employs only about 80% of what they need in terms of marshals and support staff in these court facilities. and a recent department of justice hiring freeze has

prevented the marshal's service from reaching even 90% of its personnel needs along the southwest borders. to reach 100% of staffing would require $43 million to hire an additional 162 deputy marshals and 71 support staff. now, we all know the constraints that we're all operating under here, and so we cut that back to simply try to reach 90% of their requirement for hiring needs, and that, as i said, would require just about $20 million for these hiring purposes. on the one hand the construction side of it -- on the construction side of it the amendment provides for $16.5 million for these detention upgrades at the federal choses located in this -- courthouses located in this border region. $1 pie 5 million would shall -- $1.5 million would be allocated for courthouse equipment. i have teeltd you a little bit about the problem with the security at the choses. some of this would obviously be used for construction of a port

that would allow these vehicles to unload detainees and prisoners right next to cell block doors and so on. i described that. but this is the least i think we could do both to protect the public and to assist the marshals service. one last comment i'd make: there's been some dichotomy of views, shall we say, expressed by the department of justice and department of homeland security about whether they have what they need to secure the border. we've heard the secretary of homeland security say we have all we need. but we also know that the secretary has said we have to prioritize our detention policy, for example, because we don't have the facilities and the money we need to detain and deport all of the people who are deportable, so we have to focus just on the most serious crime, the felons primarily, who are now the top target for deportation. obviously, if you have to

prioritize, we would agree with that prioritization. but twha means is that they don't have enough money to do all of the things that they're trying to do. and so on the wer one hand the department says we have all need and on the other hand, we don't have enough so we have to prioritize what we do. we're trying to attack the one part in this bill, has to help the u.s. marshals. i don't think there is a one of us here that wonk be supportive of that. i just want to avoid the situation where, god forbid, somebody is at a courthouse or entering the courthouse or whatever and innocent people are harmed because we didn't have the appropriate security. an that's we're trying to provide in this amendment. as i said, this is cosponsored by my colleague, senator mccain, and senator cornyn. the three of us are very aware of the problem that we have in our judicial districts on the border. so, mr. president, i again

reiterate, i really appreciate the offer of the majority leader to make majority staff available to see if there's some way with my staff we can work out some appropriate amount of money with the appropriate pay-fors, and i hope that i'll be able to announce that a little bit later on. i won't take nymph my colleagues' time right now but if anyone has questions about this and would like to talk to us, since i'm hoping we'll have a little bit to support later this evening, i would appreciate them cooct contacting me or senator cornyn or senator mccafnlt thank you, mr. president. mr. tester: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator montana is recognized. test parliamentary inquiry. has pastore time expired? the presiding officer: pastore time has expired. mr. tester: thank you, mr. president. i rise today to speak about the priorities facing montana and this nation. creating jobs, responsibly cutting our spending, cutting the deficit, rebuilding our economy. i appreciate the proposal that

will be put forth i think later this evening to attempt to create jobs, and when that proposal gets the floor, i will vote to have the debate on s. 1723. because only then will i be allowed to offer my amendments to that bill, because, as it is written, i cannot support that bill. having debate will allow us an opportunity to amend it so that it'll guarantee jobs in montana and across america. mr. president, the perspective that i bring to the table is a little different than most. i'm someone who lives in, works in, represents a rural state. my responsibility is to make sure that every decision i make works for not only montana but the entire country. i expect full accountability for every penney of -- penny of taxpayer dollars that we spend. i expect that when you invest in something, you get what you pay for. a lot of folks know that i'm a former. but many don't know that i'm also a former school teacher.

i used to teach elementary music in big sandy, montana. i want to make sure that owl of our teachers have the resources they need to do their job to lead our children. as a teacher, i also know that when rural schools are asked to compete with urban schools for federal funding, rural schools often get left behind. the same goes for emergency responders. their service sometimes is even -- even as volunteers, and it is very important to rural states like montana -- whether firefighters, police officers, e.m.t.'s that are on the clock whenever they are needed. in montana, as everywhere else, firefighters are respected for their courage, for that are hard work, for doing whatever is expected to save property and lives. but when montana's rural fire departments and rural police departments have to compete for federal funding, guess who often gets the short end of the stick? that's right. it's the emergency responders in

rural states like montana. the folks who often don't have the professional grant riders to help them secure the basic equipment they need to do their jobs safely. and that brings plea to my proposal. i want to state again, as 1723 is written, being not support -- i cannot support t i am not convinced that it will create the jobs in a this ait must create. $30 billion in this bill is meant to go to states to boost education, hire teachers. yes, insnrefght education is a powerful short--term and long-term way to create jobs. but as written, this bill fails to give taxpayers any guarantee that this money would be used to hire teachers and invest in our schools. the fact is this money could be used to supplant funds instead of supplement funds. the state would get loads of money with little guidance that they spend the money on teachers. but we all know what happens. a lot of smart folks who work in state budget office find their

way around guidance. money is pretty easy to move around. there's no guarantee that this bill will create the jobs. mr. president, montana is one of two states that has a budget surplus right now. we have been living within our means. there are other states like kansas that are considering broad-based tctds and that's fine -- tax cuts and that's fine. kansas can do that if it wants. i am not convincinged that we should be writing checks to states so they can cut taxes. montanans shouldn't be paying for tax cuts in other states. i'm all for individual states making smart choices with their own money, but giving them federal money and just hoping they'll use it for education and teachers -- well, that's not good enough. with that kind of money, we need a guarantee. so, mr. president, if the motion to proceed is adopted, i plan to offer two amendments. one will address the $5 billion in this bill meant to provide aid to the nation's first responders. my amendment is a simple one.

it requires a 20% competitive grant funding goes specifically for rural communities. it's only fair because rural communities make up 20% of our nation. the other amendment puts sideboards on the remainder of the money in this bill. to guarantee that it will be used in a way that it is supposed to be used, to create jobs in education, to invest in our kids. my amendment will prohibit states from pulling their own state money out of education programs when they take this federal money. how? by putting the money into part-b of the individual and disabilities education act, idea idea, otherwise known as special education. after the passage of the recovery act of 2009 school administrators told me that the money admitted was very much appreciated but special education was their top priority. idea funding is still one of the biggest unfunded mandates the federal government has on local school districts. when it was first enacted, the

federal government promised to pay 40%. today we pay l -- today we pay less than half of that promise. special education funding is not only a top priority for folks in montana, it guarantees funding will get to the local level. the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. mr. tester: it also guarantees the funding will get to the local level. if the money in this bill is supposed to be for teachers, let's make sure it ends up there. this amendment is a good way to go about doing just that. i ask unanimous consent, mr. president, that these two amendments be inserted in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. tester: finally, mr. president, i'd like to talk about one other thing missing from this bill, and that's reauthorization of the secure rural schools program and the payment in lieu of taxes otherwise known as pilt. these two programs will do more to ensure that thousands of teachers stay on the job than anything else that we can do around here, and here's the kicker. in the middle of this partisan

debate, secure rural schools and pill are bipartisan programs. under the leaderships of senators bingaman, murkowski, crapo, wyden and risch, we have a bill that could pass right now today. it would keep 4,000 teachers on the job at a cost of $3.5 billion over the next five years. that's small potatoes compared to the $35 billion in the bill that's before us today. it is a reasonable bill. but because it is so reasonable, no one wants to see it appear in the middle of such a partisan debate. once again, too many folks in washington are looking for ways to point fingers. quite frankly, mr. president, i don't have as many fingers as most folks around here, so i'd rather use mine to solve some problems. mr. president, only after this final bill is amended to guarantee job certainty will it be able to earn my vote. and in order to amend it, i'm going to vote for the motion to proceed. my vote is a vote for debate that we ought to have. it's an important one, one so we can truly create the jobs and

focus on rebuilding our economy. i look forward to that debate, mr. president. with that, i would yield the floor to my friend from west virginia. mr. manchin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from west virginia is recognized. mr. manchin: i want to thank my good friend for speaking on behalf of all the rural states and the common sense amendment he is going to provide. it is clear our nation is facing two grave economic threats: a job crisis and a debt spiritual. as much as some people may wish, we can't ignore one threat over the other. for the sake of our nation's economic future we must work together, democrats and republicans, and try to find a commonsense exclusion that protects -- solution that protects and creates jobs without adding to the deficit and debt it's what legislators throughout history have done. unfortunately looking at where things stand now, it is clear

that the legislative process in washington has gotten so dysfunctional that it doesn't make much sense at all. mr. president, i came here to try to fix things, not to make excuses. and i sure didn't come here to play the blame game. i've never fixed a thing by blaming someone else. and i've said many times before it is time for us, all of us, who have been given the great privilege to serve to focus on what's right for the next generation. not worry about the next election. it is why as frustrating as this legislative process can be, i will not lose hope that we can make this legislation better. with respect to the current teachers and first responders back to work act, there is no doubt about the fact that our teachers and first responders have a critical role in our nation. from the classroom where teachers educate our children to the streets where first responders -- if there could be order, please. the presiding officer: the senate will come to order.

senators are asked to take their conversations off the floor. mr. manchin: first responders put their lives on the line to keep communities safe, these great americans just so important to the future of this nation. but, mr. president, they and the american people deserve better than a temporary one-year legislative proposal that does nothing to tp*ebgs the long -- fix the long-term fiscal problems that led so many states to lay off thousands of teachers and first responders if the first place. what will we do next year when states come back again asking for more federal money? will we give out more money? will we go further in debt? will we borrow more money? what will we do? as it stands, without any changes this bill will not solve the fiscal problem that will come once the aid ends. but this bill is not hopeless. it can be made better, and i know it will. in my state of west virginia, we didn't have major layoffs of

teachers or first responders during this brutal recession. as difficult as it was, we balanced our budget based on our values and our priorities. we made difficult decisions but we kept our teachers in the classroom and our firefighters protecting our citizens. make no mistake, we cut back our spending, but we did so responsibly. we spent where it was needed, on our priorities. that's the commonsense approach that works in west virginia, because that's how people run their lives. it's how they operate their small businesses and how we should run this country. you make budget choices based on what is important in your state, to your family, to your business and to your country. in west virginia, this simple, commonsense approach paid off. every year that i was governor we ended the fiscal year with a surplus. and every year for the past three years, west virginia has seen its credit rating upgraded. but now because of the impact of this recession and the fact that

other states did not make the difficult decisions years ago -- if there could be -- a senator: mr. president, the senate is not in order. the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. senators are asked to take their conversations off the floor. mr. manchin: the taxpayers of west virginia are truly trying to be expected to foot this bill for other states, and i believe there's a better way. i believe there is a better way where we can balance the fiscal constraints that states face and the need to protect these vital jobs. i believe there is a better way where we can balance the need to keep teachers and firefighters working while not asking west virginia taxpayers or any taxpayer in any state to pay for more than is necessary. that is why i am offering a commonsense amendment that would transform this $35 billion in funding to keep teachers and first responders working and to

a loan program instead of a grant. this loan program would allow any state to borrow at very low or no interest. the money they need to keep teachers and firefighters employed. and pay it back over time. i don't know of any state that wouldn't put their teachers and firefighters as one of the highest priorities of their budget first. so this loan program would ensure that states are making the decisions on how much money they actually need. not the federal government's willingness to put us further in debt by giving more money away. it would ensure that states make smarter and more responsible decisions about what they can and cannot afford. such a loan program would help protect their jobs and would protect the fiscal future of states when they get in trouble. in short, it just makes common sense. i would encourage my republican and democratic colleagues to embrace this commonsense amendment and i encourage them to help me make it even better.

i would hope that they would support this cloture motion not because they support the bill as it stands, but because they believe in what this legislation could be if we all put politics aside and work to make it better. if we can get past a filibuster, i would hope that the amendment process would be a testament to the great legislative moments that this body has seen in the past. as i've been assured by my leadership, this bill, if it gets to the floor, will have an open amendment process that will give us all an opportunity to make this legislation better. and it is the reason why i will vote for this motion to move on with debate. to my republican and democratic friends who may not support this bill as it stands, i would respectfully ask you to seize this opportunity to work together to make this bill better. trust me, i share many of your concerns. and to be clear, if we cannot -- i repeat, if we cannot and do not adopt a commonsense approach

that stops throwing money at the problems we have in this country, i will join you and vote against it. mr. president, this country is looking to us to do what is right. it's not about this vote or this bill. it's about the fact that so many americans have lost tkph-ft this -- confidence in this great body. they have lost confidence in the body they see as broken and incapable of working. they have lost confidence in the political process that has become so political, it don't matter what we do, it seems all we care about is scoring political points to be used in the next election. some folks in this town are so busy trying to make the other side look bad that they don't realize they're making us all look bad. i don't believe for one minute that anybody in this chamber is rooting for jobs to be lost. we all have different ideas. while we should question each other's ideas and policies, we should never question each other's convictions.

shame on us if the blame game is the best thing that we can do. mr. president, we are better than this. i came here to fix things, not to play politics. it is time for us to stop with the bickering and remembering one thing. we may be members of different political parties, but we are all members of the same party in this great country. we're all americans. as difficult as it may seem, america and the future of the american people are more important than politics or an election. so i ask again, let's work together on commonsense bipartisan ideas to get this country on a responsible financial path that will strengthen the economy and create jobs. let's work together on making america's future brighter not just for us but for the next generation. thank you, mr. president. and i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from montana is recognized. mr. tester: would the senator from west virginia tkwraoeld a question? mr. manchin: yes, sir.

mr. tester: mr. president, senator manchin, i think everybody in this body wants to have real job creation in this country. i think they want to see this unemployment rate go down. i think most everybody realizes that if we can't get the unemployment rate to go down, the chances of paying off our debts and getting our budget under control is going to be severely diminished. you've offered potential amendments to 1723. i've offered potential taopldz 17 -- potential amendments to 1723 assuming we get cloture on this bill. in a previous life you were a governor. when i was in the state ledges slay taourbgs oftentimes -- state legislature, oftentimes money that came to the state government was very much appreciated. we took administrative costs off the top. it went anywhere from three to much, much higher than that as a percentage rate. was that done typically in west

virginia? how would your amendment impact things like administrative cost or would you be able to get more money to the ground? mr. manchin: to my good friend from montana, the way the system is soviet up now -- is set up now we're able to use this money in the way possible. let me give you an example of how the money was used prior. we've had two rounds of stimulus funding. this is our third. for a very worthy cause but for those states like myself and your state who really didn't have the layoff of teachers or the cutback of education, they would basically short that into their budget proposal. when a governor made his proposal, that money would backfill and that's how it was used. we only created 33 new jobs the first round with over $217 million. the bottom line is there's other states that need it. that's why i said have a loan program. we have to be responsible. if spending money would fix our

problems in america, we'd have no problems. you have to do it wisely. i think your amendments are greatly appreciated and hope to support them and hopefully you'll consider mine. mr. tester: thank you mr. president. mr. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from missouri is recognized. mr. blunt: thank you for the recognition -- mr. durbin: mr. president, before my colleague begins, could i ask consent to be recognized after senator blunt? the presiding officer: without objection. mr. blunt: i thank the senator from illinois for letting me go ahead and look forward to his remarks when i'm done. the bill that i hope we get to tonight is part of the president's jobs package, and it would repeal an action taken by the congress a few years ago that i think has proven to be a harmful decision on the part of the federal government. this would repeal the 3%

withholding tax which has a really dramatic impact on anybody that does business with the government. and that includes local governments. it includes state governments. it includes any one that contracts with the government. the government basically just pays 97% of the bill. the president rightly has pointed out that this is one of the things we could do to get more money into the economy, and in many cases simply to create profit where profit is not there otherwise. there are government projects for many businesses, the profit margin is less than 3% on big projects. there's only so much work you can do to just stay in the business. and if you're not making money, you can't stay in the business of doing what you're doing. and so for those large projects that have a huge overall number, often the profit doesn't even equal the 3% withholding.

and businesses have determined they can't do that. it obviously impacts the bidding process for federal work. the tax revenue generated by this mandate is thought to be only around $200 million a year, and that $200 million left in the economy, left in the bidding process, left in the granting process could make a real difference. the only thing that this job-killing tax increase does is delay recovery and stop us from getting on with the business of making american private-sector job creation a reality. the repeal is strongly supported by dozens of groups, including the farm bureau, the national association of manufacturers, the u.s. chamber of commerce, the national fed ration of -- federation of independent

business, the national league of cities, the national -- the corn growers, the associated general contractors, the american trucking association, associated builders and contractors, the federation of american hospitals. and when you think about that group, you've got the federation of american hospitals, you've got the national league of cities, you've got the american corn growers. this must be -- this must be a government policy that has broad impact on lots of different segments of the economy. it's not all that unusual to see the national manufacturers association or the chamber of commerce or the national federation of independent business on a list supporting a bill, but when they're on the list with the other people i mentioned, plus the truckers and the associated builders and contractors, something must be happening. and -- and why have all of these groups come together and said let's support this part of that package? medicare payments to hospitals

and individual physicians are affected, will be affected when this goes into effect in january of 2013. medicare payments to individuals and hospitals will have 3% withholding. this causes a lot of cash flow problems for both -- both the physician and for the hospital. farm payments, even deficiency loan -- loan deficiency payments beginning january 1, 2013, you get 97% of the solution -- of the partial solution to the problem you already have. grants for for-profit companies, regardless of whether they're state or federal, will have 3% withheld. grants by their combination are allocated to an entity for a specific purpose, like research. and if you have a research

budget that is grant dependent, what happens if you get 97% of the budget? do you get 97% of the solution or does that mean you never get to the full solution? what if the grant is for a facility of some kind or a -- a delivery of a service? what happens when you can only deliver 97% of that? the construction -- and, again, back to these big construction projects where 3% withholding may be more than the profit. and so, mr. president, this is one of the pieces of the president's jobs bill that i and others would like to see become a reality so that people could look out a year from now and not have to begin to plan on what happens when you only get 97% of what you expected it would cost to complete a job or to complete a project.

and so i believe, mr. president, we're going to be able to vote on this later this evening. i think we're going to have that opportunity. i urge my colleagues to vote on it. i think it's one of those things that if we actually let it occur in the -- the 1st of january 2013, people would wonder, why couldn't they figure out during the interim period of time when this was passed and it was going to go into effect, that no matter what the intention was, this will not work. and in a bipartisan way, we should step forward and clarify this problem before it becomes a real problem with real consequences. and probably already having an impact on bidding, on requesting grants, on other things that people are beginning to think about what happens if this project is -- is agreed to or approved or our bid is accepted for work that would be done beyond 2012. and so i would yield the floor.

i see my friend from illinois is not here, and until he get back, seeing no one else on the floor, i will note the -- i would note the absence of a quorum and look forward to mr. durbin's return. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. mr. durbin: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: and, mr. president, there are two amendments that are likely to be called this evening and i'd like to address them very briefly because i believe both of these amendments should be carefully scrutinized. one amendment is by senator ayotte of new hampshire. and what she would do in her amendment is restrict the authority of the president of the united states to refer suspected terrorists to our criminal justice system to be invested, prosecuted, and tried. she would make it mandatory that those terrorists, particularly associated with al qaeda, would be tried before military commissions and tribunals. i listened as she and senator mcconnell came to the floor to explain their point of view. it's an interesting point of view, that we are at war with

al qaeda and therefore any trials of suspected terrorists associated with them should be before a military tribunal. but, unfortunately, the logic of their argument falls flat when you look at reality. here is the reality. since september the 11th ten years ago, president bush and president obama have faced time and time again allegations that individuals are suspected terrorists. each president, bush and obama, have had to consult with the secretary of defense, the attorney general and the other leaders in their administration to determine the appropriate place to investigate and try these cases. here's the record. since 9/11, the department of justice advises us that on as many as 300 separate occasions, 300, these suspected terrorists have been taken to the article 3 criminal courts of america,

successfully tried and prosecuted. in that same period of time, exactly three suspected terrorists have been sent to military commissions and tribunals. for the senator from new hampshire to now argue that all cases have to go to military commissions is to ignore the obvious. the president as our commander in chief, with the premier responsibility to keep america safe, should decide the best place to try those who are accused. now, this has been a recurring theme on the republican side, to take the terrorist cases out of our criminal courts. in fact, almost on a weekly basis, senator mcconnell has come to the floor making this argument. the argument goes something like this: do you mean to tell me that we're going to take a suspected terrorist in and read them their miranda rights, that they have the right to remain silent? you know what's going to happen, they'll lawyer up and shut up and we won't get the informing we need to keep -- get the

information we need to keep america safe. that's why he's argued time and time again we shouldn't allow the f.b.i. to be involved and we shouldn't refer these cases to article 3 criminal courts. and that's why senator ayotte is offering her amendment this evening. the fact is, that argument isn't borne out by the facts. look what happened two weeks a ago. remember the underwear bomber, this somewhat crazed individual -- maybe crazed -- who got on an airplane and was apprehended over deprovid detroh the argument that his clothing was on fire. and when they apprehended him and took him in, the f.b.i. asked him questions. he answered questions for some period of time, and at that point stopped talking. they read him his miranda righ rights. and the scenario at that point would have ended, according to senator mcconnell, he lawyered

up and shut up. but it didn't end. the f.b.i. continued the investigation. they went overseas and brought this man's mother and father to the united states, who sat down and talked to him. after they talked to him, he said he would cooperate fully with the f.b.i. he talked for day after day after day, telling them all the information about al qaeda. then his case was referred to a criminal court in detroit, and two weeks ago he pled guilty. now if you follow the logic that has been given to us by senator ayotte and senator mcconnell, they never would have happened. the fact is it did. the f.b.i. did its job. the department of justice did its job. the man was prosecuted in our criminal courts. he pled guilty, is likely to be sentenced in january to a life in prison. it's because the president had the authority as commander in chief to pick the forum to try the individual. he picked the most effective forum. and when he did, we ended up in a situation where this man was,

pled guilty and is going to be sentenced. it isn't an isolated case. in fact, it is the overwhelming likelihood that when a person suspected of terrorism, they are more likely to be successfully prosecuted in one of our article 3 courts. i note today that the chairman of the armed services committee, senator levin of michigan, pointed out on the senate floor that when senator ayotte raised this issue in the armed services committee markup on the defense authorization bill, her amendment was defeated on a bipartisan roll call. six republicans voted against her, including senator mccain, the ranking member of the armed services committee; and senator graham, the only military lawyer serving in the senate. but the amendment will still come to the floor. i urge my colleagues, whatever they think of president obama -- and i respect him very, very much -- whatever they think of him, do not tie the hands of any president when it comes to picking the proper forum to try a terrorist. if the proper forum is a

military commission and tribunal, i'll back the president. if the proper forum is an article 3 criminal court, let's proceed that way as well. the evidence overwhelmingly tells us that going through our criminal court system, terrorists pay a price, a heavy price with up to 300 convictions since 9/11 and more than 100 convicted since president obama took office. let's respect the president's authority. let's do the best thing to secure our nation. let's not let the senate presume to know exactly where every terrorist, suspected terrorist defendant is to be tried. mr. president, there's also another amendment that's likely to be considered this evening, and i'd like to speak to. senator stabenow of michigan is chairman of the senate agriculture committee, has a special responsibility when it comes to nutrition programs, and especially the program known as a supplemental nutrition assistance program, the "snap" program, which is known to most americans as the food stamp program.

senator sessions introduced an amendment that would eliminate the use of what's known as categorical eligibility for people to qualify for the "snap" program. 40 states use it. what they basically say is if you're eligible for some other programs, then we believe in establishing that eligibility. you are also eligible for the "snap" program. it turns out that -- let me get this exactly right. only 1% of "snap" households have net incomes over 100% of the federal poverty level. the federal poverty level is $22,350 for a family of four. when these people are judged to be part of a program like temporary assistance for needy families, tan f, liheap, low-income energy and heating assistance program, they are eligible then for the "snap" program, the food stamp program. the senator from alabama, senator sessions, would change that. what he would add to it is a new

red tape requirement that these people who are by and large some of the poorest people in america, will now have to go through another bureaucratic process, fill out another application. i don't think that's necessary, and i'm urging my colleagues not to support senator sessions' amendment. he recently said on the floor something that i want to point out. he said no program in our government has surged out of control more dramatically than food stamps. and then he went on to say we need people working with jobs, not receiving food stamps. i will readily concede to the senator from alabama that the number of hungry americans have increased. it's evident at the food pantries, at the breakfast, lunch and dinner feeding programs available across illinois and across america. i've been there and i've watched who comes through the door. it's a heartbreak for them and for me to watch. many of these people have never

in their lives asked for anything, and now they have no choice. and many to the surprise, i think, of many senators are actually working. but they make so little money that they have to go in and ask for help. i agree we need to put americans back to work in good-paying jobs. the senator from alabama and others will have a chance to vote for part of president obama's jobs program this evening. the fact is 14 million americans are currently unemployed. another 10 million underkphroeud. and these -- underemployed. these feeding programs are essential for them to keep their families together. now, the senator from alabama points out one example to give reason why we need to change the law across america. he talks about a case where someone actually won the lottery and then went on to get food stamps. that case got a lot of media attention, but the fact is it was highly unusual. if the senator from alabama wants to ensure that people who win the lottery and win income are not eligible for snap, i'll

be glad to work with him. but this amendment is not that legislation. that single, highly unusual situation doesn't merit kicking people who are out of work or in a low-income job out of a program that feeds their families. to impose that new obligation, new paperwork, new red tape obligation on families that are struggling because one person abused the system i just think goes too far. "snap" has one of the lowest error rates of all federal programs. the u.s. department of agriculture shows us over 90% of those receiving "snap" payments are eligible. the system has good quality controls, and i will work with the senator from alabama and any other senator to make them even better. the problem isn't food stamps in america. the problem is hunger in america. let's address the hunger problem and put people back to work. we'll have less demand for food stamps and food pantries. i think what we face in this

country is serious. i know it is in my state. , in senator sessions' home state of alabama, 73.3% of residents live in poverty and the same percent live in households that have food insecurity. sadly, children are disproportionately impacted with hunger. in senator sessions' home state it's one of four kids who are in a situation with food deficiencies. 873,174 people in alabama rely on food stamps the "snap" program. are we going to make their lives more difficult because one person who won the lottery abused the system in i think that goes too far. i hope we can work together to make this a better program. for those who are angry about food stamps or angry about food pantries, direct your anger toward hunger, toward unemployment. those are the things driving the numbers up in the system. we can work together to make it

a better system but the approach being suggested by the senator from alabama will add red tape, and unnecessary hard work to people who are already struggling. mr. sessions: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from alabama is recognized. mr. sessions: mr. president, i thank the distinguished assistant majority leader for his comments. i disagree, but i think we could agree, because my proposal is not the -- to cut off anybody who ought to receive food stamps. my proposal wouldn't cut off benefits to anybody who deserves food stamps. my proposal would not cut off anybody who qualifies for food stamps. it would say that just because you complied with the requirement for tanf or you complied with the requirement for liheap or you sought assistance for some family planning issue, those don't

automatically qualify. and i don't think it's too much to ask someone who would be given thousands of dollars over a period of time in food stamps, to fill out a form. and that form would say what your income is and what your assets are. if you have substantial assets and that's higher than the food stamp law allows, you should not get it. so i don't believe this proposal does anything but help tighten up the act. i don't believe it's too much to ask that somebody fill out a form to demonstrate that they're qualified before they receive free money from the united states government for the purchase of food. and certainly i would emphasize that dramatically. no program, i don't think the

senator would disagree that any program in the united states government of any real size has surged faster than this program has. since -- it's gone up since 2010, $20 billion. in 2009 or so unemployment hit 9.8%. it's now 9.1%. it's too high. and people need food stamps and they should get them. and perhaps there are more people out there that qualify even in 2009 or whenever ununemployment hit, almost 10%. maybe there are more people today. i don't know. but i don't think there are huge numbers more. you go from $59 billion to $79 billion. that's about a 38%, 40% increase in two years in this program.

one of the reasons is we've made people automatically eligible. so if you are eligible for any of these programs, you've received any assistance, you really may not have even filled out a form that has anything alike, the same qualifications that the food stamp act requires. you are automatically categorically qualified. the congressional budget office says if this change in the law that happened recently were to be eliminated, it would save $10 billion over ten years. and it would not reduce food stamps. it would just reduce a little bit the growth in food stamps. $10 billion over ten years represents $1 billion a year. in the first year it would be less than that according to the score we've seen. let's say in the first year that

this program reduced spending by $1 billion. so that's $1 billion out of a proposed $79 billion. so we were expecting to expend $79 billion this year. and we would only spend $78. but that adds up over time. and really food stamps need to be looked at across the board much more carefully because we don't have that many more people that are in poverty today than we've had, but we have many, many more people receiving food stamps. so i just would stress that this year's increase in food stamps by another 14% is not an acceptable figure because we know that there are problems within the program. and, mr. president, i would just like to say one thing briefly

about senator ayotte's proposal on terrorism prosecution. as a federal prosecutor for almost 15 years, i truly believe that she is correct on this issue. it's something we've been debating in congress about for a long time. congress has made clear its view about it. i would just simply say this. the presiding officer is a former attorney general. but why o# if you make the presumption that an individual who is arrested is to be tried in article 3 courts, even though they are an enemy combatant against the united states, against the laws of the -- of war, an unlawful enemy combatant, those individuals should be treated as warriors, enemies of the country.

and they should be arrested and detained presumptively in military custody. this is the tradition of the united states from its founding. this is worldwide-accepted law. and i do believe it's just not important -- i do believe that we need to understand the reason this is important. an individual who is arrested, attacked in the united states, and he's going to be tried in a federal court must be given miranda warnings before they're interrogated, must be provided a hear. must be properly taken before a united states magistrate. must be provided discovery in the government's case. must have a public hearing. you don't do that for people who are at war with you. a senator: would the senator yield for a question? mr. sessions: i would. mr. mcconnell: i've heard it argued on the floor here in

connection with this issue, that somehow because the christmas day bomber pleaded guilty in an article 3 court, that was an argument for putting him in the article 3 court. as a distinguished former prosecutor, i wonder if my friend from alabama could address the issue whether or not because somebody happened to end up in an article 3 court and happened to plead guilty, how that was an argument for his placement there in the first place. mr. sessions: senator mcconnell, that's a very important question. people -- this individual doesn't perhaps look like he just fell off a turnip truck or something. he was not a very solid person, and he decided to plead guilty and that was good. but ming of these individuals are very -- but many of these individualindividuals are very y clever, very devious and they have, we know for a fact, used the civil justice system to find discovery against how we interrogate -- how we discover

their activities, what kind of surveillance techniques we use and have made the trials dangerous places and have made the trials showcases. so i think just because one individual decided to plead guilty has no bearing on the overall principle that if you arrest a person on the battlefield they are not required to be taken immediately to a judge and give an lawyer. mr. mcconnell: would my friend further yield for a question? mr. sessions: be pleased to. mr. mcconnell: i've heard it said on the floor that because a number of terrorists have been tried in article 3 courts in the past -- and i have heard people actually aped the number of times -- that that's somehow an argument for continuing to do it. and is it not the case, i would ask my friend from alabama, that we just set up these military commissions a few years ago at the insistence of the supreme court in order to deal with this issue and only since that time have we had a defined

alternative for dealing with these enemy combatants who are also not citizens of the united states? mr. sessions: the senator is so correct. we went through a number of actions. the supreme court found the law inadequate and congress responded to the supreme court's concerns and passed clear laws that are certainly adequate within the constitution, as described by the supreme court, and we now have the entire system set up to meet the supreme court's concerns about the trial of these individuals. and it's safe, it's secure, it's consistent with supreme court requirements and international law. mr. mcconnell: i would ask my friend, is it not also the case that senator ayotte's amendment has in it a national security waiver? i've heard it said that we have eliminated all the president's

options. is it not the case that even if the amendment of the senator from new hampshire were adopted and the president felt strongly, for some reason -- hard for me to contemplate that set of circumstances, but possible -- he could in fact issue a national security waiver and go ahead and do it anyway, could he not? mr. sessions: you're absolutely correct. and i think senator ayotte really reached out to members of this senate to make sure that they knew that there was an option to do it another way, and it does provide the president that option. with regard to the f.b.i. and their involvement, they are a great investigative agency, and if they participate in the arrest of one of these individuals and they were turned over to the military, the f.b.i. can still work with the military to investigate the case t would just be tried under military commissions according to the lawful system that congress in a

bipartisan way passed several years ago. mr. mcconnell: i was going to pose another dwoa my friend that it's kind of lewd dross assume that this ultimately leads to the reading of miranda rights to a foreign citizen on foreign soil. if in fact we're saying that routinely foreigners, enemy combatants are going to be mainstreamed into article 3 courts, when do these protections, if you will, that wwe afford to american citizens under the constitution attach? mr. sessions: that's a very good question. under the law of the united states, if you interrogate an individual that's been taken into custody, the splice to give them miranda rights before they

interrogate. as long as that person is in custody, then if you are going to try them in a civilian court and director mueller of the f.b.i., in response to questions i asked him acknowledged that if you're going to try the person in the civilian courts, you conduct interrogation, you must give them miranda warnings. and this is not -- mr. mcconnell: this was not be the case then that all of these issues in terms of the timing of the attachment of these rights would be before courts in the united states for interpretation, ultimately by i guess the supreme court. at what point do these rights now afforded a foreign enemy combatant attach? mr. sessions: there have been suggestions that somehow that the terrorist cases would allow the interrogation to go on a few hours, but i'm not -- i've not

seen real authority that would justify that. the clear miranda standard for any police officer in america is if you arrest anyone, before you ask them questions, they must have been given their miranda rights. and that's the ruling of the trial of any federal court. so i think it would be ver dangs to assume that the court will give some extraordinary new rights that they never indicated they would. mr. mcconnell: i thank my friend from alabama. mr. sessions: i thank the senator, the republican leader, for his good questions and would just say, i think senator ayotte has worked really hard on this a.m. she herself is a skilled prosecutor. i believe the legislation would be helpful to us, and i would just say, as a matter of policy, you can be absolutely sure that it will be more difficult to prosecute a case, more likely to

complicate matters significantly if they're given miranda warnings, this they're given lawyers, perhaps revealed to the other coconspirators the fact that they have been arrested before they can be arrested. it would cause many more difficulties than is necessary. and of all people we ought not to give extra rights to, it would be terrorists bent on killing and maiming innocent americans. i thank the chair and would yield the floor. mr. durbin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: does the minority leader wish to sneak i'd yield to him if he does? no? mr. president, i'm just going to respond very briefly. this argument is so upside down. if during the last ten years we

had successfully prosecuted terrorists, 300 in military commissions, and only three in our courts, then all of their arguments make sense. because you'd have to argue that's the best place to go. that's where you can investigate and prosecute and successfully incarcerate those accused of terrorism. exactly the opposite is true. president bush and president obama, given the authority to choose a forum to try a suspected terrorist, have overwhelmingly and successfully chosen the article 3 criminal courts of america. here's the score: they don't like to hear me say this, but i'm going to give them the score again. it is important to know. since 9/11, we're told by the department of justice, as many as 300 suspected terrorists have been successfully prosecuted in our criminal courts, and three -- three -- before military commissions.

two of whom -- before the military commissions -- were released within a year to return to their home countries of australia and yemen. so when you look at where terrorists are in jail in america today, you will find 300-1 they were terrorists who were prosecuted in our criminal courts. in comes the ayotte amendment, the arguments by senator mcconnell and senator sessions to argue clearly this system is upside down. we should be going to the military commissions, not to the criminal courts. and their argument is incidentally, miranda warnings. when you give an alleged defendant a suspected criminal defendant miranda warnings, end of story, they stop cooperating. the problem they have are the facts. and the facts are, all 300 prosecuted terrorists in article 3 courts were given their miranda warnings. the investigation continued, the prosecution continued

successfully. it didn't end the case. and they don't like to talk about the detail about this christmas bomber, the underwear bomber. he was read his miranda rights and he shut up a understan. and then the f.b.i. brought in his mother and father and they said, why don't you cooperate. according to the head of the f.b.i., he talked nonstop for days about everything he knew about al qaeda. he did it after he was read his miranda rights. then he was off to court, where he was going to defend himself in this criminal case, and he pled guilty. i've heard the senators on the floor dismiss this. well, he pled guilty, so they didn't really prosecute him. they prepared the case, a case he knew he couldn't win. fully cooperated in the investigation and he conceded that he was guilty. now he faces a life sentence in prison. is that a good outcome? it's the best utcome because they will not acknowledge this fact and they should. all across the world when they

look at the way we prosecute terrorists in the united states, they've got say, you know, they're following the same rules and laws for alleged terrorists that they're following for anyone accused of a crime in their country and it's public, and and opportunity for a lawyer, and he was given the same warnings as any prospective criminal defendant. there's something to be said for that. it is a bragging right or something we should be proud that have in the united states we use that system and use it so successfully. for those who want to pass the ayotte amendment and make it more difficult for any president to decide the appropriate forum to prosecute terrorists, i just leave them one last reminder: the score is 300-3 since 9/11. 300 suspected terrorists successfully prosecuted in our criminal courts, three before military commissions. give this president -- give every president the tools and the authority to make the right decision to keep america safe.

defeat the ayotte amendment. mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: i'm going to make one final point on this issue and then i want to address another amendment we'll voting on at some point here. one thing we have not discussed is what happened if the foreign enemy combatant in the article 3 court in the united states is actually acquitted. if he is, he of course has toe b released. and the deportation option is only available if some other country is willing to take them. there's not a whole lot of clamoring for these kind of folks anywhere else in the world. we've had that experience. the courts then cannot keep them. they're released into the united states. as a result of an acquittal in an article 3 court in the united states and a situation where you cannot deport them because no one will take them.

i think the point here is, this is all totally unnecessary. these are foreigners. these are not citizens of the united states. they have no right to be in an article 3 court. we don't dispute that the president can put them in an article 3 court. but why would he want to do it? he responded to the decision of the supreme court to recipient these military commissions for this precise purpose and it is clear this administration does not want to use them. now, mr. president, i also want to make some brief comments here about a matter we'll be voting on later this evening. everybody here in this body knows that the american people want us to do something about the jobs crisis. what republicans have been saying is that raising taxes on business owners just isn't the way to do it. so what we've done is we've combed through the president's latest stimulus bill looking for

things we can actually support. for things that don't punish the very people we're counting on to create jobs. in other words, since the president never asked if there was anything in this legislation that we could support, we've actually done it ourselves. and it turns out that there's a very sensible provision in the president's second stimulus bill that would help businesses across the country. in fact, it is absolutely identical to a bill senator scott brown of massachusetts introduced with 30 cosponsors earlier this year, many of them democrats. among them, senators franken, begich, klobuchar, pryor, tester, and mccaskill. they're all cosponsors of senator scott brown's bill. what this bill does, it repeals any an existing requirement that government agencies at the state, federal, and local level

withhold 3% of every payment to any contractor they do business with. this is money contractors may very well end up getting back from the i.r.s. at some point long after the job is done. but, in the meantime, the government gets to hold onto it instead of allowing the businesses to invest it in jobs and the economy. this is money these companies could be putting toward hiring workers and growing their businesses, but it's going to the i.r.s. instead. basically as a zero-interest loan to the federal government here in washington. now, i know that members on both sides of the aisle are hearing from constituents about how burdensome this legislation is. that's why president obama himself already embraced delaying its implementation in his first stimulus bill and proposed delaying it again in his latest stimulus bill, and that's senator scott brown got so many democratic sponsors when he proposed a full repeal.

like the president's bill, this bill is fully offset and the off set we're proposing has been -- and the offset we're proposing has been supported by our friends across the aisle. in fact, the last time i saw a vote, i think 81 senators actually voted for it. so the bill we're proposing is bipartisan. the offset we're proposing is bipartisan. there's no reason in the world that our democratic friends, including the president certainly should oppose it. if delaying this legislation was a good idea before, repealing it should be an even better idea now. the bill is supported by hundreds of business groups representing job creators across america. we should come dispoag act right now -- come together and act right now, make it easier for jobs to change and not harder. the president asked us to come together and pass pieces of this bill. here's one that all senators should be able to agree on. let's vote on it and prove the

skeptics wrong by acting in a bipartisan fashion that something the job creators in this country actually want. mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: mr. president, the provision my friend talks about was placed in legislation as a result of a study made during the bush administration, the second bush administration. the g.a.o. did a study. they found that 33,000 contractors in effect cheated on their taxes and they owed some $3 billion. this money they also determined went mostly to giving the owners more salary and building them second and third homes. there is no question that a lot of people, in addition to the 33,000 who cheated, were found to be burdened by this withholding 3% of what they had come to them. what my friend fails to

acknowledge, mr. president, is this bill that is -- amendment that my friend has before the senate has no chance of accomplishing anything. constitutionally it will be killed in the house in the matter of a milisecond because constitutionally it will be what we call blue slipped here. it's a revenue measure, it can't stop -- it can't start in the senate. it costs $11.6 billion to take this money out and we need -- i'm sorry, take that 3% provision out, and we need to do that. it costs $11.6 billion. what my friend fails to alert the senators to is that since this matter has come up in years past and months past, things have changed. we have burdened the american people, especially the middle class, with all these cuts that we've made. we did them. it was done by democrats and republicans. but they have given enough.

my friend's bill is offset by reducing discretionary spending by $30 billion. senator mcconnell's bill does nothing to address contractors that cheat on their taxes and still get federal contractors. nothing. zero. our alternative -- and i'll offer a unanimous consent request for this at a later time before we get to these two cloture motions that we have -- it repeals the 3% withholding tax. and we acknowledge we should do that. the democratic alternative also addresses the problem of taxi vairdz receiving government -- tax evaders by receiving government contractors by expressing prohibiting contractors who are delinquent on their taxes for being eligible for federal contractorcontracts.that wall at punished, in effect those who are only cheating. the cost of repealing the withholding requirement by closing a loophole that allows companies to claim excess foreign tax credits and the famous corporate jet preference. it has a one-year delay in

implementing worldwide interest allocation which allows taxpayers to claim greater tax credits for the foreign taxes they pay. fair, reasonable, not a burden on the middle class. a vote for senator mcconnell's amendment would do nothing to repeal the withholding requirement because the house, i repeat, will blue-slip. this the house will send us a repeal bill. they've told us, the republican leadership, soon, and i mean soon, within a matter of weeks. so we'll have a real opportunity to repeal the withholding requirement when we get that house bill. and we would, of course, put our amendment on that. now, mr. president, let's be honest about this. this is nothing more than a misdirected stunt by my friend, the republican leader. this provision will be repealed but it should be done the right way. we all agree that it's unfortunate that the bush administration did this. they good intent. they were trying to get rid of some people who were cheating, but it was too broad and overreaching and has hurt a lot of people. but the reason they did that, i

repeat, that 2005 g.a.o. report, i repeat, said 33,000 people, civilian contractors, owed more than $3 billion in taxes. and i didn't make this up. the g.a.o. report also found that these firms, many of them diverted these payroll taxes to increasing an owner's salary or building them a new home or two. so with what we're doing by withholding a small amount from a contractor's payment and sending it along to the i.r.s., the belief was that contractors would have more motivation to comply with the law. that didn't work well. it was too overreaching and too broad. so, mr. president, i would hope that we would look at the consent that i will offer. procedurally there's no way that we can have a second-degree or a side-by-side with what we're doing here but i would hope that my friends, both democrats and republicans, would do something that's real, not something that's only figurative. what we're doing is real. we agree it should be done. it should be done right. it should be done -- shouldn't

be done by burdening the middle class with more domestic discretionary cuts. and we would hope, mr. president, that we -- i would just say this generally. here it is, it's 9:30 at night. a decision is going to have to be made very, very quickly as to whether we're going to be here tomorrow. we've got two matters that the republican leader and i have spoken about. we could vote on those right now. i've offered those earlier today but for reasons we were unable to do that. but we -- we -- we can come tomorrow. it's getting late here. i'm not sure what we're accomplishing by trying to work through all this stuff tonight. we are trying to be reasonable. as i indicated, my friend, the republican leader, said he needed 10 or 12 votes. that's -- we -- we agreed to that a long time ago. i can't imagine why we can't move forward on this. and i -- i -- we -- i repeat, we

cannot be stalled so that we come back with our very short work period. we have the continuing resolution and many other things to deal with when we come back that short work period. and i would like to do another appropriation bill. but we can't do another appropriation bill while this one is still floundering around here. this is an experiment that i was -- i was happy to engage myself in because i believe that we should try to do our work here. but this c.r. business and holding us up from doing the work that we've done for ten months to year wasn't our doing. this has been as a result of my friends who are in the majority in the house and the minority over here. so we've spent all these months on two major issues: c.r.'s and the raising the debt ceiling. so i would hope that we can work something out on this appropriation bill and get it done tonight. mr. mcconnell: mr. president, i'm just asking my friend, did you actually propound a consent agreement? mr. reid: no.

what i said i would do is when we get ready to schedule these votes, i'll do it. i'll make sure you're here. mr. mcconnell: fair enough. i want to echo the comments of the majority leader. in my time in the senate, some of our best work has been done on thursday night. usually when we're passing bills around here, we're working on thursdays into the evening and finishing them. it is my hope that we'll continue on that path and finish this bill tonight. frequently coming back on industry counterproductive and i would encourage all of our members to cooperate to the greatest extent possible. i think we are -- at least we were the last time i checked -- making progress toward getting a lot of amendments in the could yoqueuehopeful to be voted on t. -- hopefully to be voted on tonight. mr. reid: i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. brown: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to vitiate the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: thank you, mr. president. ive rise in support of -- i rise in support of amendment 771 sponsored by senator bingaman. it will strengthen our nation's

competitiveness, as i heard the majority leader and the republican leader talk about job creation. this will matter. strengthening our nation's competitiveness by ensuring that we enforce trade laws better than we have. american workers, american farmers can compete with anyone. we can compete on productive, we can compete -- productivity, we can compete on skills. when workers are forced to compete against unfair export subsidy, that's cheating, as we showed on the china currency bill which passed with 63 votes, good, strong, bipartisan effort. and we can compete against unfair export subsidies if we're forced to compete against unfair export subsidies, our workers can't compete against that kind of cheating. fortunately we have tools to do something about that. our trade laws are the last line of defense to retain and create jobs in american industries. paper, steel, tires. president obama's actually enforced trade laws on -- in those three industries which directly created jobs in finley,

ohio, in lorainne, ohio, in youngstown, ohio, including the construction of a new steel mill. our trade laws are critical if we're going to compete for advanced manufacturing jobs, jobs in solar and wind and clean energy component manufacturing in the auto supply chain all rely or should rely on an active u.s. trade representative who will -- who will initiate more cases. i proposed an amendment to this appropriations bill number 865 that would provide the office the u.s. trade rep an additional $5 million to initiate cases when china subsidies to solar producers in china's -- and china's hoarding of rare earth materials and increasingly -- an increasingly important problem that's eroding american manufacturing. i support senator bingaman's amendment which provides funds for general trade enforcement but here's why i wanted to specify solar and rare earths in my amendment according to the u.s. international trade commission, our solar producers, like those in toledo -- and

there are three of them -- are facing an expected 240% increase in the import of chinese solar panels this year. yesterday a number of solar companies filed a complaint with the commerce department and the i.t.c. asking them to seek duties on chinese solar panels sold below cost. understand, the chinese sell these into our market as they sold coated paper, as they sold tires, as they sold oil county tubular steel. they often undercut us, undercut our prices because they're subsidizing energy and water and capital and land. and, of course, the currency subsidy which this -- which this body spoke about and voted on a couple of weeks ago. on rare earths, china is artificially using export restraints or quotas to raise the cost of rare earths internationally while keeping them low domestically, so producers in ohio and the presiding officer's home state of delaware simply can't compete

because of how they're subsidizing their production. ohio companies like electrodyne in cincinnati have seen their costs go up 59% in june and 68% in july of this year alone on account of these price changes. how can we possibly compete when they're cheating that dramatically and to that degree? these policies have fun fundamentally -- these policies have fundamentally turned rare earths into a spot price market. i want to see ustr litigate on these and protect these policies. these aren't american protectionists. this isn't american protectionism. this is our civic ou our servinn interests as a nation against answering the protectionism that they've exhibited. every country in the world, mr. president, practices trade according to their national interests. too often in the united states, we practice trade according to a college economics textbook that's 20 years out of print. these two enforcement initiatives critical to my state

and many others of my colleagues here will -- will absolutely matter.+ this amendment will ensure the ustr has the resources to investigate and to act on blatant unfair trade practices. trade is critical if we're going to compete in so many other industries that are in our states. i urge my colleagues to support the amendment. i applaud senator bingaman for his leadership on amendment 771. mr. president, i yield the floor and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the call of the quorum be terminated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: could we have order, please? mr. president, i can't hear. the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that at a time to be determined by the majority leader after consultation with the republican leader the senate proceed to a series of votes in relation to the following amendments and motions. landrieu 781 as modified with the changes at the desk. cole 755, vitter, menendez 857, lautenberg 836, bingaman 771 as modified. coburn 791, 792, 796, 800. paul 821, mccain 892, cantwell 893 as modified withing changes at the desk. cochran 085 with changes at the desk. burr 890, demint 763, inouye

918, ayotte 753, crapo 814, kyl as modified with changes at the desk. lee motion to recommit. that there be no amendments or points of order tkpwaepbs of the amendments -- against amendments prior to the votes other than the budget points of order. that the vitter and menendez, sessions, paul, ayotte, crapo and coleman amendments be subject to a 60-vote affirmative threshold. all after the first vote be ten-minute votes. the remaining coburn amendments be withdrawn with the exception of amendment 801, that no other motions or amendments be in order to the bill, the senate proceed to the cloture vote on the substitute amendment 738 as amend. if cloture is invoked, the substitute amendment be considered as read as agreed to. the majority leader be recognized to raise points of order against any pending nongermane amendments. if cloture is invoked the senate

resume consideration of the bill on 4:00 p.m. monday, october 31 and proceed to skwrer mainly pending amendments -- germane pending amendments. in addition to germane amendments the bill as amended be read a third time, the senate proceed to vote on passage of the bill with no intervening action or debate and when the senate receives a message from the house with respect to h.r. 2112 the senate insist on its amendments or agree to a conference with the house on the disagreeing votes of the two houses and the chair be authorizeed to appoint the following conferees. cole, harkin, feinstein, nelson, pryor, blunt, cochran, hoeven, hutchison and shelby. finally if cloture is not invoked, clove on the underlying bill be vished and the billing be returned to the the calendar in status quote. -- in status quo.

i failed, mr. president, to identify the kyl amendment being number 912. the presiding officer: is there objection to the leader's request? without objection. mr. reid: mr. president, all these amendments that are pending, there's no requirement that we have to have roll call votes. everyone should understand that. mr. president, i ask unanimous consent -- i want to get the republican leader's attention. i ask unanimous consent that when the senate receives from the house h.r. 674, the senate proceed to its consideration and that the reid of nevada substitute amendment be agreed to. this amendment would dot following: repeals 39% withholding requirement, prohibits contractors who are delinquent on their tasmtion from being eligible for federal contracts, allows oil an gas companies to claim tax credits and one-year delay in the interest o. lee indication. i ask that the binal read a third time, the senate proceed to vote on passage of the bill

as amed. if all the above occurring without intervening action or debate. we have both given our statements earlier today. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. mcconnell: reserving the right to object, mr. president, this would implement a tax increase. it also would be subject to the same blue slip concern that the majority leader expressed with regard to the vote we're going to have on the 3% withholding. therefore, i object. mr. reid: mr. president, i would say there would be no blue slip problem whatsoever because, as i indicated, this would be an amendment to a revenue bill that we receive from the house and i side of which one that would be. mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the cloture vote with respect to the reid motion to proceed calendar number 204, s. 723, occur at 9:55 p.m. tonight. if cloture is not invoked on the reid motion to proceed, the senate then proceed to a vote on the motion to reconsider on the mcconnell motion to proceed to calendar number 205, s. 726

mpleghts finally, if h cloture s invoked on either motion, the senate resume consideration of h.r. 2112, upon disposition of 2112, the senate resume consideration of the motion to proceed postcloture. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered.

the presiding officer: the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: cloture motion: we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to proceed to calendar number 204, s. 1723, teachers and first responders back to work act signed by 18 senators. the presiding officer: by unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum call has been waived. the question is is it the sense of the senate that the debate on the motion to proceed to s. 1723, the bill to provide for teacher an first responder stablization shall be brought it a close? the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll.

vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: any senator wishing to vote or change their vote? seeing or hearing none, on this vote the yeas are 50. the nays are 50. three-fifth of the senators not having voted in the affirmative, the motion is not agreed to. the majority leader. mr. reid: mr. president, could we have order? mr. reid: order in the chambers -- the presiding officer: order in the chambers. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent all remaining votes tonight be ten minutes in duration. mr. president, we have 16 more amendments -- we have 16 more amendments that we must vote on. i would hope that people would look at those very closely. a number of them, in fact most

of them could be taken by a voice vote. if you win, it doesn't matter how you win. let's get rid of these as quickly as we can. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: cloture motion. we the undersigned senators in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate do hereby move to bring to a close the debate on the motion to proceed to s. 1726, the withholding tax relief act of 2011, signed by 17 senators. the presiding officer: by unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum has been waived. the question is, is it the sense of the senate that the debate on the motion to proceed to s. 1726, a bill to repeal the imposition -- mr. baucus: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from montana. order in the chambers. mr. baucus: i ask consent to speak one minute or two minutes evenly divided on this amendment -- the presiding officer: is there objection? seeing no objection, the senator from montana. mr. baucus: we all agree the

federal government should, if the contractors who contract with the federal government should pay their taxes. i don't think there is any dispute on that. there's also agreement we should not overburden small business who are paying their taxes. the bill before us to repeal the provisions scheduled to into effect in 2013, require withholding 3% of payments from the u.s. treasury to government contractors. there are two flaws in this legislation. one, it lets all government contractors off the hook even those who refuse to pay taxes they owe. those contractors would not be subject to the mechanism to make sure they pay. second, this is paid for by rescinding $30 billion of appropriated funds which, frankly, is contrary to an agreement which was reached to the president on deficit reduction. mr. president, i ask our colleagues to oppose the cloture motion to proceed to the bill. the presiding officer: who yields time? a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from massachusetts. mr. brown: thank you, mr. president. the presiding officer: order in the chambers. mr. brown: this is a no

brainer. this is where political theater stops and we actually do something that the american people want and need. three percent withholding is good for small businesses. we've you'd this pay for many other times. it passed, one time 81 votes. another time i think 37-plus of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle used the same fund that we're using the money to pay for this. and now all of a sudden it's not appropriate. we have six cosponsors on the democratic side on this. we need one more, a couple more to make it go forward. once again, the people want us to work together in a bipartisan manner. this is a good way to send that message that we've turned the corner. thank you. the presiding officer: by unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum has been waived. the question is, is it the sense of the senate that debate on the motion to proceed to s. 1726, a bill to repeal the imposition of the withholding of certain payments made by vendors to government entities shall be brought to a close. the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.

the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or change their vote? on this vote, the yeas and nays are 57, the nays are -- you threthree-fifths is not having d in the affirmative, the motion is not agreed to.

the presiding officer: under the previous order, there will be two minutes equally divided prior to a vote in relation to amendment 781, as modified, offered by the senator from louisiana, ms. landrieu. ms. landrieu: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator louisiana. order in the chamber. the senator from louisiana. ms. landrieu: mr. president, i'm going to do my best to start the pace around here. i'm going to ask for a voice vote, and i would hope people would give a shout out for a yea for a narrow exception to a wetlands project for nonprofits with a permit to build. that's what this amendment z

there's no opposition. i ask for the yeas and nays. modify amendment -- the presiding officer: the senator wish to modify her amendment? ms. landrieu: yes. the presiding officer: the allot is so modified. ash the amendment is so modified. all time is yielded back. all those in favor say aye. all those opposed. it appears -- the yeas appear to have it. the motion is approved -- the amendment is agreed to. the question is on the kohl amendment 755. two minutes evenly divided. who yields time? the senator from wisconsin. the presiding officer: is there any further debate? all time is yielded back. the question is on the amendment. all those in favor say aye.

all those opposed say no. the ayes appear to have it, the ayes do have it. the amendment is agreed to. the question is on amendment 9 917, vitter second-degree amendment. mr. vitter: mr. president, i'd like to call up the vitte vitter second-degree amendment. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from louisiana, mr. vitter, proposes an amendment numbered 17 to amendment numbered 8357. -- 857. the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. mr. vitter: mr. president, this is a second-degree amendment to the menendez amendment. the menendez amendment would expand the already dominant role of fannie mae and freddie mac in the mortgage marketplace when there is an unlimited taxpayer bailout liability toward that. my amendment would simply say,

particularly if there's going to be this expansion, we should limit taxpayer liability to $200 billion and the taxpayers should definitely be paid the dividend they were promised. i think that's a very reasonable taxpayer protection. i reserve the balance of my time for the ranking member of banking. the presiding officer: the senator from alabama. mr. shelby: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent for 45 seconds on this amendment. the presiding officer: the senator from alabama. mr. shelby: mr. president, i urge my colleagues to support the vitter amendment. the amendment will limit the taxpayers' exposure to the bailout of fannie and freddie. no more blank checks. no. we've already spent $169 billion in taxpayers' dollars. $200 billion is more than enough. think about it. the presiding officer: who yields time? a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from south dakota. mr. johnson: this amendment would essentially force the

winddown of fannie mae and freddie mac prematurely without any structure to take their place. the banking committee has heard from witnesses, including dwight jeffy and mark zandi that taking over fannie mae and freddie mac were the only options the government had to avoid a complete mortgage market collapse. this amendment could plunge us back into the panic of 2008 when credit was unavailable and the economy was on the brink of collapse. mortgages would not be penalized, home sellers could not go through -- home sales could not go through and the homeowners were unable to avoid financing. the amendment would eliminate any in the market. the vitter amendment is an irresponsible response to the housing crisis and i urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. i ask that the letter from the realtors, home builderrers and

mortgage bankers -- home builders and mortgage bankers be added to the record. the presiding officer: without objection. who yields time? mr. vitter: mr. president, i yield back the time and ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. there is. under the previous order -- under the previous order, the senate -- the amendment requires 60 votes for adoption. the clerk will call the roll. vote: