mr. levin: i just have a question, if the senator would yield, of the senator from illinois. is the senator aware of the fact that section 1031 in the bill that we adopted months ago in the committee had exactly the language that you think should be in this section 1031 which would make an exception for u.s. citizens in lawful residence? this was in our bill. i'm wondering if the senator is aware that the administration asked us to strike that language from section 1031 so the bill in front of us now doing not have the very exception that the senator from illinois would like to see. mr. durbin: i have the greatest respect for you and the administration but i think i'm entitled to my own conclusions. mr. levin: i'm asking is the senator aware it was the administration that asked us to strike that language, the exception for u.s. citizens? mr. durbin: not being a member

of your committee, i didn't follow it as closely as you do did. i respect your word and take it. the presiding officer: the senator from kentucky. mr. paul: i ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment and call up my amendment 1064. the presiding officer: without objection is there objection? , without objection, the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from kentucky, mr. paul, proposes amendment number 1064. mr. paul: i ask that the reading of the amendment be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. paul: mr. president, this amendment will call for a formal end to the war in iraq. our founding fathers intended that the power to commit a nation to war be lodged in congress and that's what the constitution says. the power to declare war is one of the most important powers given to congress, and it should remain in congress. john madison wrote at the beginning in "the federalist papers" that the constitution supposes what history

demonstrates, that the executive is the branch most prone to war, therefore the constitution has with studied care vested the power to declare war in the legislature. we are calling for a formal end to the war in iraq as the troops come home, as the president has planned by january 1. this will reclaim the power to declare war that is vested in congress, allows for checks and balances, and is an important milestone and an important retaining of power for congress. so i will ask very careful deliberation of a formal end to the war in iraq by supporting this amendment. and at this time i'd like to yield the floor to senator merkley. mr. mccain: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. mccain: briefly, i'd ask the indulgence of the senator

from oregon. i would ask the senator from south carolina if he would finish -- finish the response and i'm sure it would only take him two or three minutes to finish the response. mr. graham: i promise you, i will. mr. mccain: i ask unanimous consent that senator merkley be recognized a couple minutes after the senator from south carolina. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. graham: the exchange with senator durbin is very good, the law of the land is very clear, unequivocal that an american citizen captured overseas can be held as an enemy combatant and every enemy combatant held at guantanamo bay or captured in the united states has habeas rights. the padilla case involves an individual captured in the united states, suspected of being an al qaeda operative and was held by -- for four years, appealed his case to the fourth circuit, the fourth circuit said you have a right to lawyer to prepare your habeas case but

you don't have a right to a lawyer to interrupt the interrogation, you can be held as an enemy combatant and they can gather intelligence for an indefinite per. that's the law of the land and that's why the administration came over and said punk the me and carl were talking about really would change the law and they're preserving the ability if they want to, basically to hold -- and here's the thought process for the body and the nation. if you capture somebody not just involved in terrorism, that's not just what we're talking about, al qaeda operatives involved in an attack on the united states, if they're an american citizen, who cares if they're doing that, we want to know what they know, interrogate them and hold them for prosecution or just hold them so they won't go back to the fight. and that is the law. all we're doing is creating a procedure for that system to be followed. we're not doing anything

different than already exists. and this notion somehow that the homeland is a -- not part of the battlefield is absurd. why in the world would you give somebody rights who came to america to attack us different than you would if you caught them overseas when the point is they're involved with the enemy, american citizen or not, we're just creating a procedure that will allow that situation to be handled. so that's why the administration objected to our language, and i think they're right. the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. merkley: i ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment and call up my amendment number 1174. the presiding officer: without objection. the clerk will report. the clerk: senator oregon, mr. merkley, proposes amendment numbered 1174. mr. merkley: mr. president, i ask further reading of the amendment be waived.

the presiding officer: without objection. mr. merkley: mr. president, i introduced this amendment with several original cosponsors, senator mike lee, senator rand paul, tom udall and senator sherrod brown and by like to thank them for joining in this effort to address our military presence in afghanistan. and the fact that our military forces have done such an excellent job of completing the original missions of destroying al qaeda training camps and bringing to justice those responsible for 9/11. but over this past decade, our mission has changed to one of nation building, a mission that is obstructed by vast corruption, by extraordinary traditional cultural resistance to a strong central government, and by very high illiteracy rate. these factors should have us

rethinking how to have the most effective use of our military forces, our intelligence assets, in taking on the war on terror. and that we should be engaging in counterterrorist efforts using our resources wherever the terrorist threat emerges across the world rather than concentrating these vast resources in afghanistan. our sons and daughters and fathers, mothers, sisters, and brothers could not have done a better job in their military mission. but it is right now that we do less nation building abroad and we do more nation building at home. it is right that now we refocus our effort to have the most effective strategy to take on terrorism are around the world and it is in that philosophy that we come together in a bipartisan fashion to propose this amendment, and we ask that

colleagues take a chance to consider it and join us in redirecting our efforts to be more effective. thank you, mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. mr. levin: mr. president, first i ask unanimous consent to add senators akaka, chambliss, blawmle that, gillibrand, ben nelson, stabenow, and udall udall -- senator mark udall as cosponsors of amendment number 1032 which is the pending levin-mccain amendment on counterfeit parts. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. levin: secondly, mr. president, we are going to move now i believe to the conference report. but i do want to remind folks of -- our colleagues of what senator mccain said which is we will be here tomorrow morning and we are here to try to clear

amendments. we want to be able to give our colleagues as much opportunity as possible to debate and to clear amendments. but we've got to move this bill. we're not going to be given a whole week after we come back to get this bill adopted, hopefully. the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. mccain: the pending -- what's the pending business before the senate? the presiding officer: s. 1867 is still pending. mr. mccain: the amendment -- isn't the paul amendment the pending business? the presiding officer: the merkley amendment is pending. mr. mccain: the merkley amendment is pending. mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the paul amendment be the -- okay. that the regular order be --

the speaker pro tempore: the levin amendment is now pending. the levin-mccain amendment is now pending. mr. mccain: i thank the president. i'd like to say a couple words about the paul amendment. i would like to point out we will still have 16,500 americans still in iraq for an extended period of time. whether they should be there or not is the subject of another debate on another day. but to then not be able to do whatever is necessary to protect the lives and safety of those men and women who will continue to serve the country sometimes in very difficult circumstances i think that this amendment is unwarranted. finally, i would like to ask my colleagues who have further views on the detainee issue if they would come over and add their voices to the debate and the discussion, because we really would like to dispose of

this amendment. i respect the senator from illinois' desire that everybody be allowed to speak. we have been now speaking on this single amendment for i believe well over three hours, and -- so if there is further discussion on the udall amendment, i would very much like to have a vote on it so we can bring other important issues before the body. i yield the floor. mr. graham: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from south carolina. mr. graham: i ask unanimous consent to enter into a colloquy with my colleague from new hampshire. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. graham: okay. we're talking about this amendment, let's debate this amendment, let's vote on this amendment, but really the heart of the issue is whether or not the united states is part of the battlefield in the war on terror. the statement of authority that i authored in 1031 with cooperation from the administration clearly says that someone captured in the united

states is considered part of the enemy force regardless of the fact that they made it on our home soil and the law of war applies admitted the united states, not just overseas. the authorization to use military force right after the war began allowed us to go into afghanistan and use detention and capture and military force to deal with the enemy in afghanistan and other places overseas. what is the enemy -- to my colleague from new hampshire, do you believe al qaeda considers american soil part of the battlefield? ms. ayotte: in response to the senator from south carolina, by say that, unfortunately, our country is the goal for al qaeda 5, and we saw that with september 11 and the horrible attacks on our country that day

that killed americans. they want to come here and harm us and hit us where it hurts us the most. and so, unfortunately, america is part of the battlefield. and to put ourselves in a position where we would not allow our military intelligence law enforcement to have the tools they need to gather the most intelligence to protect americans on our soil would lead to an absurd result. mr. graham: does the senator agree with senator levin and a very bipartisan work product, we've now created a legal system that says the following: if a u.s. citizen, a non-u.s. citizen is involved in an al qaeda attack on our nation and is captured here within the united states, we're allowing our military the ability to hold them as part of the enemy force, to question and interrogate them for

intelligence gathering, and that that right we have overseas to hold somebody now exists in the united states because the threat is the same. ms. ayotte: i would say to my colleague from south carolina when you spoke on the floor, you really captured the most important part of this, which is without the amendment that we have here that we've been debating, we do not even give our military law enforcement intelligence officials the ability to decide which system is best in each instance, and because, rightly so when you're in our country, when you're an american citizen, you are given your miranda rights, told you have the right to remain silent, you have the right to have a lawyer, and we need to make sure we don't create a distinction where if you're captured abroad, you're treated one way, and you're given -- we're giving our officials

maximum flexibility to gather as much information as possible to protect our country, but if you make it here, the rules are different and we don't give the officials that are set to protect us every day, both on the military and the law enforcement end, the flexibility that they need to gather maximum intelligence, and it would just be an absurd result to treat it differently. it would almost encourage, come to america, unfortunately, to attack us, because you'll actually be given greater rights if the attack occurs here. mr. graham: would the senator agree what we've been able to do on the committee is basically say in law for the first time that the homeland is part of the battlefield, that military custody is available to hold a suspected al qaeda operative caught in the united states, american citizen or not, but we're going to allow the administration, this administration and all future administrations, to change that model if they believe it's best?

an -- and to me, we've created a right by our intelligence community, law enforcement community to do what at home what they can do overseas. and if we don't do that, that would just not only be absurd, i think it would make us all left safe for no higher purpose. so to my colleagues who believe we're changing something, all we're trying to do is make sure that the enemy, when they make it to america, that we can hold them and gather intelligence to protect ourselves, no more or no less, and we start with the presumption of military custody. but if the experts in the field, this administration or future administrations believe that model is not best, they can seek a waiver. that, to me, is what we should have been doing for years. because the battlefield, to

those who are listening, is an idea, not a country. we're battling an idea that's a terrible idea. there are ideas if you're a moderate muslim seeking to worship on god a different way, you're not worthy of living f. you're a jew or gentile, you name it, you don't bow to their view of religion, then you're going to live in hell. so that's what we're fighting. and at the end of the day, this legislation creates a process to deal with the threats here in our own backyard. and unfortunately, does the senator from new hampshire agree that there's going to be further radicalization that homegrown terrorists is where this war's going to? ms. ayotte: i would agree with the senator from south carolina that unfortunately there are threats that we face within our own country from homegrown radicalism, but also let's not forget, this amendment in terms of the military custody applies

to members of al qaeda or associated forces who have planned an attack against our country or our coalition partners and are not united states citizens. so this provision, really we're talking about foreigners coming to our country who are members of al qaeda and who want to harm americans, when you think about what happened on september 11. i would also add, i think it's very important that what is in this important provision of the defense authorization act in response to the senator from california raised the case of zazi as an example where she thought that case would be impacted by this amendment. that is just simply, with all respect to the senator from california, not the case, because if you look at the language in our amendment, we've given flexibility to the executive branch to conduct the

interrogations, to have surveillance. so in the zazi case, there was surveillance undertaken and we put express language in here allowing the executive branch, to allow law enforcement to conduct surveillance, to conduct interrogation. and i would point that provision out in terms of the amount of flexibility we've actually given the executive branch in this position. but most importantly, we've dealt with the issue you talked about, which is in the absence of this provision, when terrorists come to our country and attack us, we are in a position where our law enforcement system, you have to give miranda rights, you have to give the right to presentment. we're simply saying that you have the option to make sure that you can put intelligence gathering as the top priority. so this, as you've identified and talked about, is a very reasonable compromise. and as you know, my colleague from south carolina, i would

have actually liked to have seen this go further. but this is very important that we bring this forward. mr. graham: and i would add that senator lieberman would have gone further than you, and nobody i respect more than senator lieberman, but trying to find a balanced way. so in summary here, 1032, the military custody provision, which has waivers and a lot of flexible, doesn't apply to american citizens. 1031, the statement of authority to detain, does apply to american citizens and it designates the world as the battlefield, including the homeland. are you familiar with the padilla case. case? that is a federal court case involving an american citizen captured in the united states that was held for civil years as an enemy combatant? his case went to the fourth circuit. the fourth circuit court of appeals said an american citizen can be held by our military as an enemy combatant even if they're caught here in the united states because once you join the enemy forces, then you

present a military threat and your citizenship is not a sort of a get-out-of-jail-free card. that the law of the land is an american citizen can be held as an enemy combatant. that went to the fourth circuit and that, as i speak, is the law of the land. ms. ayotte: that's right, that is the law of the land and that's what's reflected in this provision in the defense authorization act. it's reflective of case law issued by our united states supreme court, which in not only that case but in subsequent cases basically said, in those instances, what you do have to provide is habeas-type proceeding. mr. graham: right. now, in the padilla case, that went to the fourth circuit. the ham i did case went to the supreme court, captured overseas but the fourth ruling stands as an american citizen captured in the united states can be held in the united states. but 1032 is only for noncitizens

captured in the united states. so the bottom line is i think we've constructed a very sound, solid system that deals with homeland captures and homeland threats and we've created due process that understands this is a war without end, that no one's going to be held in jail indefinitely without going to a federal court to make their case that they're unfairly held. that if the federal court rules with the government, there's an annual review process that would allow the opportunity to get out in the future based on an evaluation of the case. so from a due process point of view, i'm very proud of the work product. i think it makes sense. i think it's a balance between our right to be safe and our rights to provide individuals with due process. but the big breakthrough here is that we're now, for the first time in this congress, creating a system that not only will allow this president flexibility and guidance, future presidents, and it will help us in further court challenges. and, quite frankly, the congress

is saying through this bill, if someone is caught in the united states, citizen or not, joining al qaeda, trying to do harm to our nation, we are going to create a system where you can be held, you can be prosecuted, you can be interrogated within our values and we're not going to create an absurd result that if you make it here, none of that applies. and that's all we're really trying to do. do you agree with that? ms. ayotte: i would agree with that. and i would just say, you've already pointed out how important it is to have these provisions in place to give officials that do this work every day that we have so much respect for the ability to gather intelligence. and we need this provision to protect our country from attacks on our homeland. it's so important. i would ask one question of the senator from south carolina. you've had -- you're familiar with the military commission.

mr. graham: if i may, i think we need to move to the appropriations conference. go ahead, we'll do it very quickly. ms. ayotte: on,. i will ask you very quick. the senator from illinois said that we've only had six civilian trials of terrorists. excuse me, six military commission trials and hundreds of trials of civilian trials of terrorists. i would ask you, did the administration suspend military commission trials for a period? mr. graham: the reason we haven't had more is because the obama administration withdrew charges. thank goodness they reinstated charges. there are military commissions going to as we speak. i'm in the camp of all of the above. sometimes article 3 courts are the best venue, sometimes the military commissions. the ghailani case was somebody we held as a military combatant, took to federal court, had hundreds of charges and got convicted of one. our courts are not set up to

handle enemy combatants held under the war and then tried as civilian citizens. the christmas day bomber, it made sense to notice dry him -- sense to me to try him at home. he was a low-level guy. but if we catch someone here at home or somewhere overseas that's really involved deeply in terms of what they know, then we would hold them for a period of time to question them. then if you wanted to decide to prosecute, military commissions makes the most sense. so the only reason we haven't had more military commission trials is because they've been stopped. i'm not saying federal courts are not a appropriate venue sometimes. i'm saying that when you hold someone under the law of war for years to gather intelligence, which you have right to do, we need to keep them in the same system. and you see what happens when you mix systems. so very proud of the bill, great debate to have, long overdue. if we can get this enacted into law, i will say this. america can look anyone in the world in the eye and say we have robust due process and we can

also tell the people in this country that we're sworn to protect that we've got a system that recognizes the difference between an al qaeda operative trying to kill us and destroy our way of life than a common criminal. we need to do both. with that, i yield. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the senate will proceed to the conference report to accompany h.r. 2112, which the clerk will report. the clerk: the committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two houses on the amendments of the senate to the bill h.r. 2112 -- ms. mikulski: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the committee report be considered as read. may i proceed? the presiding officer: the report is considered read. under the previous order, there will be two hours of debate equally divided between the two

leaders or their designees. ms. mikulski: mr. president, i rise to speak in behalf of the conference committee. i rise as the -- in behalf, as the chair of the subcommittee on commerce-justice-science, one of the three subcommittees in the conference report. the other is agriculture, and we are an amendment to this. senator kohl will be coming to the floor to speak in behalf of his bill that's part of the conference. and the -- and the others will speak. i want to speak on the commerce-justice bill. i'm pleased that the senate is considering the conference agreement on the fiscal year 2012. as i said, i'm c.j.s. senator kohl will speak on agriculture, and senator patty murray managed the bill on

transportation and housing. she is the ranking -- she is the chair and i'm sure either she or her designee will speak about a subcommittee we affectionately called thud. but let me talk about the c.j.s. conference agreement. you know, this is a great agreement. thit's the product of bipartisan and bicameral exroa highs and cooperation -- compromise and cooperation. i really want to thank my ranking member, senator kay bailey hutchison, and her excellent staff. we worked hand-in-hand on this bill. and i want to talk about our colleagues in the house. much is made about the prickly situation sometimes between the house and the senate. but i want to say that working with chairman frank wolf and rankintheranking member on the ,

for their bipartisan support. and there was give and take, sometimes stormy exchanges, but at the end of the day we work cooperatively and collegially. so as we look at the process, what i want to say is that the conference agreement itself is a really good one. our bill, the c.j.s. bill, totals $52.7 billion in discretionary spending. now, we were frugal. it is $600 million below the 2011 level, and it's $5 billion below the president's request. the purpose of this bill is to help create american jobs, make our streets and our neighborhoods safe from violent crime and terrorism, and to support innovation and technology so america can continue to be an exceptional nation. it also promotes trade. we do this through our federal agencies. the commerce department, through

its economic development administration, patent office, international trade administration, and the census bureau. it also has important agencies related to innovation, the national institutes of standards and the national ocean atmosphere. our bill also has in it the department of justice, the national space agency, and the national science foundation. it's got a lot of important things, and it also is a bill that promotes justice. it has in its for the foa for te legal services commission. mr. president, within these shrinking funding levels, the c.j.s. conference agreement make prioritiepriority that focused , saving lives and protecting communities and looking out for the future of our country.

now, the subcommittee faced two really pressing problems that are critical to life and safety. one, our weather satellites. we had to come up with a substantial junk of money to make sure we had those important, new weather satellites that tell us about hurricanes, tornadoes, and other things that are coming. also, we had a real challenge in providing the adequate funding for america's prison population. these activities are not considered mandatory. they're truly discretionary. we had an obligation to fund them. we also had an obligation to provide security funding to the two conventions to help them underwrite their security concerns. together the bare minimum for the j.p.s. satellite was nearly $800 million, $350 million for

prisons, and we were able to meet that obligation. we also looked out for our law enforcement, for our state and local police departments. this supports our blue line to keep our police safe, to protect them with the equipment they need with bulletproof vests so they can protect us and the modern tools related to forensic science and enough cops on the beat. we funded grants at $370 million, a main federal tool for state and local police operations and cops hiring grants. in terms of federal law enforcement, we met our obligations to the f.b.i., we funded them at $8 billion. our drug enforcement agency at $2 billion, the bureau of alcohol, tobacco, and firearms and the marshal services that are each at $1.2 billion.

our marshals no longer necessarily ride the plains but they serve the warrants that go after our sexual predators and make sure they fulfill their responsibility to protect the federal judiciary at the courthouses. so those federal law enforcement agencies are at our borders, they're in our streets, they're in our communities, and they're an important task force protecting our communities. in terms of science and innovation, i'm really proud of what we did at nasa. from the space shuttle legacy to our new vehicle for space exploration. we also funded the james webb telescope, which will be the successor to the hubble telescope. it will be 100 times more powerful and will assure america's place as the leader in astronomy for the next 30 years. our conference agreement was $17.8 billion.

it's a balanced space program. it ensures the continuity or continuation of human space flight, does important works in space science, and also bold research in aeronautics. so we can be at the cutting edge. we also funded the national science foundation, which continues to do that groundbreaking and innovative work that then the private sector works off of. this year three americans shared the nobel prize for physics. one was dr. reese at johns hopkins. his was -- he used the hubble space telescope to look out for dark energy, to look at decaying know have as and find out the expansion of the -- novas o and find out the expansion of the universe. and dr. she canman, both

discoveries were unexpected and game chairntion. changers. these nobel prize winners were done by those wonderful americans who were making use of whether it was the hubble telescope or the kind of work that goes on in our chemistry labs. so we're out there wing the nobel prizes, but our bill lays the groundwork for winning the markets. mr. president, i note that on the floor is the chairman of the full committee, senator inouye, and also senator kohl, who has managed the bill and will speak for agriculture. there are many things that i could say about what we did in this bill, but i think i've summarized the basic themes. i ask unanimous consent that my full statement be in the record. i will be available to answer any questions from colleagues, but i also want the full -- the chairman of the full committee to have an opportunity to speak, and certainly senator kohl and

senator blunt and i want to say a special word to senator blunt. when senator kohl had to be temporarily off the floor, i'm going to thank him for working with me, because we really moved this bill, and we showed we knew how to govern, we knew how to move legislation. if we work this way, we're going to get america mosque again. mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from hawaii. mr. inouye: mr. president, first i'd like to thank the chairman, barbara mikulski, for her valiant work in conference. mr. president, as we are all aware, the congressional budget process has faced unprecedented obstacles over the past year. we have struggled to find common ground on one of the most basic responsibilities of congress, and that is funding the operations of the federal government. mr. president, earlier this year

we saw politically charged threats of government shutdowns culminating with an irresponsible debt ceiling standoff at brought our economy to the brink of disaster. the american people are deeply frustrated that many in congress put partisanship ahead of the national interest. and yet, despite these challenges, we now consider legislation that reflects the good-faith efforts and input of members of both sides of the aisle of both the whos house and senate. given current fiscal and political realities, mr. president, this is no small accomplishment. the conference report before us today includes three fy 12012 appropriations measures: agriculture, commerce-justice-science, and

transportation, housing and urban development. this legislation also includes the continuing resolution that funds government operations through december 16, giving congress time to finish its work on the remaining funding bills. these bills are focused on a number of basic priorities: job creation, public safety, science, nutrition, housing, and transportation. due to stringent funding limits in the budget control act which establish our discretionary spending level that is $7 billion below last year's level, many items in this bill are not funded to the levels that i would prefer. and as we're all awar await oute of the supercommittee, i remind my colleagues that we cannot balance the nation's book on the backs of non-defense

discretionary spending. despite our reduced spending levels, mr. president, i'm pleased that we have been able to maintain investments in several critical areas. public safety is a top priority of this bill. the conference report before us provides the resources necessary for the food and drug administration to begin implementation of the food safety modernization act, wilbert protect the american people from foodborne illness. the funding levels provided in the conference agreement for the federal bureau of investigation, the drug enforcement agency, the bureau of alcohol, tobacco, firearms and explosives, and the u.s. marshals service will prevent layoffs and furloughs of federal agents, enabling the agencies to continue their critical missions with regard to public safety.

the funds provided will also allow for increased law enforcement on the southwest border. mr. president, i note that the bill maintains funding for cops hiring grants which were eliminated in the original house bill. the conference report before us funds an additional 11,000 new housing vouchers for homeless veterans. it includes $500 million for competitive transportation surface grants as well as nearly $2 billion for new transit rail projects and it maintains federal support for amtrak. mr. president, this bill includes more than $12 billion for basic research at the national institutes of standards and technology, the national science foundation, the national ocean graphic and atmospheric

administration, and the national aeronautics and space administration. this research, mr. president, will plant the seeds for new discoveries that not only winnow bell prizes but also earn profits and create american jobs in our highly competitive global economy. the conference report before us represents thousands of compromises on issues large and small. it represents in mo small measure the -- in no small measure the way the congress of the united states is meant to function. the credit for this accomplishment rests with the members of the subcommittees and their staffs, and so, mr. president, i'd like too thank the leadership of the three subcommittees: senator kohl, senator mikulski, senator murray, senator blunt, senator hutchison, and senator collins for their exceptional efforts in

completing these three bills. we all recognize that we would not have been able to accomplish this task without the countless hours put in by the staff of the subcommittees. and i i'd like to take a moment to recognize them for their efforts. and i want to publicly thank gayle fountain, jessica arden frederick, diane miller, bob ross, marlee breckman, gabriel backman, jessica barry, jeremy wyrick, gin tou icen, alec mccarthy, rachel milburg, stacey mcbride, rachel jones, james christopher son, alan

cutler, goodlo sutton, heidi savment mariti, carl barriyc, and mike clark. they are the ones who should be receiving the medal this evening. mr. president, this conference report is a combination of a process that includes countless hours of hearings, markups, debate, and negotiations and posting online -- and i underline this -- all of the hearing testimony and legislative text for any citizen to review. and finally, mr. president, it represents the one essential ingredient to a functioning democracy that has been in short supply in recent months: compromise.

so, mr. president, i urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this measure and send it to the president for his signature. i yield the floor. mr. cochran: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from mississippi. mr. cochran: mr. president, this conference report contains agreements between the house and senate on three appropriations bills. these bills support a wide range of important federal government activities. it also includes an extension of the continuing resolution that expires on friday. the conference report is the product of negotiations that have taken place with the other body's conferees over the past several weeks. i commend the chairman and ranking members of each of the

subcommittees for the thoughtful manner in which they have undertaken their responsibilities. and i also want to thank the staff members for their diligence and the many long hours they have spent in performance of their duties in bringing us to this point. the practice of combining multiple appropriations bills into a single package is not ideal, nor should it be encouraged. i would prefer, and i know other senators would as well, that we have the opportunity to consider, offer amendments and vote on the bills individually. this summer the months during which we normally debate appropriations bills, congress and the president were wrangling over legislation to increase the debt ceiling and other matters.

and while the committee moved quickly to report bills in september, we are now more than a month into the new fiscal year and are only now approaching enactment of the first three appropriations bills. i don't know how or when we will actually be able to complete action on all of these measures, but i want the senate to know that the members of this committee under the very able and distinguished leadership of senator inouye from hawaii have done everything within our power to try to get the senate to move quickly but carefully to approve these bills. so, mr. president, without prolonging the debate and knowing other senators are here to speak, let me just say that we have the restraints of the budget control act which are respected by the appropriations

committee. caps were included that locked in recent cuts in discretionary spending, and that is holding future discretionary growth below the rate of inflation. the act that we're passing will bring discretionary spending as a percentage of g.d.p. to the lowest levels since the eisenhower administration. so i'm confident the house and senate will work together in the coming weeks to complete our negotiations on these and other appropriations bills that will fully comply with the guidance set out in the budget control act. today we're making a good start with these three appropriations bills, and i urge support for the conference report.

mr. kohl: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from wisconsin. mr. kohl: mr. president, i support the conference report which includes appropriations for agriculture, rural development and the food and drug administration. i'm pleased that we followed the regular process to get to this point. itit has not always been an easy process but produced a good and well-balanced bill. overall, spending levels in this bill are closer to the senate bill than the house-passed little. the conference bill is consistent with our allocation and includes a nondisaster spending level of $19.565 billion compared to $19.780 billion in the senate and $17.253 billion in the house. this funding level allowed us to

protect important ongoing programs while continuing to reduce spending from last year. some of the highlights of the conference report funding levels are as follows: for the w.i.c. program we were able to provide an additional $36 million above the senate, bringing total funding to $7570 million above the house level. the emergency food assistance program which provides assistance to food pantries is funded at the fully authorized level of $140 million. the food and drug administration is funded at the senate level of $2.497 billion, including increased funding to begin implementation of the food safety and modernization act. the food safety and inspection service is funded at $1.004 billion, an increase of more than $32 million above the house level. the p.l.-480 program which

provides international food assistance is funded at $1.466 billion, an increase of $426 million above the house level. agriculture research funded through the agricultural research service and the national institute of food and agriculture is funded at $2.297 billion, an increase of $282 million above the house level. disaster relief funds for the emergency waters, watershed protection program, emergency conservation program and the emergency forest restoration program were provided based on the latest usda estimates. beyond these important funding items, we also rejected many of the controversial policy riders that were included in the house bill. among them were a provision prohibiting any food aid for north korea which would tie the hands of u.s. negotiators, a provision blocking enforcement

of the energy independence and security act, and a provision blocking participation in a global climate change task force as well as others. again, i think this is a well-balanced bill. we worked hard with our house counterparts to identify and maintain priorities that benefit the american people. i'd like to again thank senator blunt for his help during this entire process, his insights were extremely valuable. mr. president, i urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this conference report. mr. blunt: i'm pleased to join senator kohl in supporting the conference report and particularly want to talk about the ages program in the report. this is my first year as a member of the agriculture subcommittee and i enjoyed working with the chairman, and he has been generous and kind to me in including me in many of these discussions.

these days it's no small feat for an appropriations bill to get through the senate in what is pretty close to regular order, and i'm glad we're able to work closely together to help get that done. i hope we can do the same thing next year and have hearings and floor time to pass the agriculture, f.d.a. rural development bill again next year and maybe in a way that's even closer to the timing and the order we'd like to see. the conference report we're considering today reminds us that we can and should return to the regular way of doing business on appropriations bills. even though the conference report includes three separate bills, they were all vigorously debated on the floor and more than two dozen amendments were accepted. the process has certainly yielded a better outcome than the large omnibus appropriations bill would have. the chairman reviewed the detail of the agriculture bills so i want to touch on a few of the highlights. discretionary spending for

agriculture programs is $350 million below the fiscal year 2011 level and significantly below the fiscal year 2010 level. we are slowly but surely reining in discretionary spending. to reduce overall spending, we've made difficult decisions. most programs in the bill that related to agriculture were reduced by 5%. we have, however, prioritized those programs that protect the public health and help maintain the strength of our nation's agriculture economy. i'm particularly pleased, mr. president, that we've been able to main taeupb funding for formula research and competitive agriculture research programs in this bill. smart investments in american agriculture have been made by the federal government for well over a century now, and this bill continues that process of promoting competitiveness and is critical to helping our farmers increase production and produce

food supply that is safe, abundant and affordable. with unemployment still hovering around 9%, now is not the time to place unnecessary restrictions on the competitive marketplace. therefore, this plan prohibits the department of agriculture from moving forward with a costly and burdensome rule, gyp is a, that -- gpsa. this rule would have negatively impacted poultry and damaged the overall strength of the farm economy. i'm glad the agriculture bill includes funding to help farmers and communities recover from natural disaster. missouri has seen unprecedented devastation from both tornadoes and flooding this year. funding included in this bill for the emergency watershed protection program and the emergency conservation programs necessary to help those areas recover. it's important that we support our farmers as they clear debris, as they regrade and rehabilitate their land for the

next growing season. as the ranking member of the agriculture subcommittee, i've limited my comments to agriculture funding, but i'd be remiss if i didn't point out the significant contributions of the commerce, justice and science subcommittee and the transportation, housing and urban development subcommittees in developing this conference report. this bill, while it may have been referred to as the agriculture minibus, doesn't do justice to the great efforts of my colleagues, senator mikulski, senator murray, senator hutchison, senator collins and their staff. they have contributed a lot of time and effort to get this report this far. it's not exactly what any of us would have done, but none of us are exactly in charge of doing it all by ourselves. so i hope my colleagues will join me and join senator kohl in supporting this bill. i would yield the floor. mrs. hutchison: mr. president?

the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mrs. hutchison: mr. president, i appreciate the distinguished senator from missouri for managing the bill for our side, because there are three appropriations bills included in this package. i'm pleased that we are actually passing appropriations bills that have been amended, have been debated and discussed in the senate the way it ought to be done. i'm very pleased also to talk about the commerce-justice-science and related agencies bill. that is the one on which i am the ranking member and the chairman, senator mikulski, has already spoken earlier this evening on the bill and what's in it and how we put it all together. i can't thank senator mikulski enough for being really the kind of chairman that could bring people together, bring the house members together, where we had

some significant differences. but i believe that she and i were on the same page, that we have national priorities in this bill, and we assured that those priorities were met because they are so important for our country. but at the wasn't easy, as has been said by everyone who has spoken. difficult choices had to be made. we had an allocation that was $583 million below the fy 2011 continuing resolution level. it was $4.7 billion below the president's request. it is in accordance with the budget control act that passed on august 2, 2011. and i just want to mention, mr. president, on that point that all of the appropriations bills that have gone through the appropriations committee this year have met the budget control

act requirements. that is something that i think we should have done, certainly something that we were expected to do. but there are some members who will be speaking against these bills that wanted even different standard from what we passed. i think the standard that we set, which was below the fy 2011 continuing resolution and below the president's request is the standard that we should have met and we did. and we struck a balance between competing interests: law enforcement, terrorism, research, competitiveness through investing in science. i think the chairman, senator mikulski, spoke about the specifics of that. but i want to highlight some of the programs of national interest that i was particularly

insistent that we do. we've worked hard to ensure that law enforcement receives the priority funding needed to protect our nation, communities, children, and victims of crime. that was a particular point that senator mikulski made and with which i agreed. we've also made sure that the f.b.i. had the resources that it needs to continue its major role in global mission in its mission of counterterrorism and counterintelligence. our director, robert mueller, has seen the largest transition of the agency in maybe ever, but certainly in modern times. a transformation from a traditional crime-fighting organization into an intelligence-driven, threat-focused law enforcement organization and a full member of the u.s. intelligence community since 9/11. now, you know, a lot of people are going to say, well, gosh,

why would you increase the f.b.i.? well, because they are a part of our national security today. they're no longer just a domestic crime-fighting, very important but nevertheless smaller function. they are part of our u.s. intelligence agencies that are helping us fight terrorism all over the world, and we funded them, and i'm glad we did. we have also included language to encourage the department of justice to maintain its f.y. 2011 current level of funding that focuses on the southwest border. mr. president, this is so important. we read the atrocities that are happening in mexico on our border, some of which have begun to spread across the border. drug cartels are becoming increasingly involved in it. i was talking to someone in the law enforcement community today who has had very high positions in our government, and he said

those drug cartels are terrorists, and i agree with him. those drug cartels are terrorists. the things they're doing to innocent people are atrocious. so we are encouraging and we have given the money to the justice department for the southwest border. the el paso intelligence center is another important program that is one of our first safeguards along the border. it is a national tactical intelligence center that supports law enforcement in the u.s., mexico and the whole western hemisphere. it's the drug enforcement administration's most important intelligence-sharing entity, focusing on all things related to our borders. another important program in this bill is the state criminal alien assistance program, which we funded to provide federal assistance to the states and localities that are incurring the costs of incarcerating

undocumented criminal aliens who have been accused or convicted of state and local offenses. now, you know, mr. president, that there are counties throughout our country. they don't have big budgets, and yet we have illegal alien criminals that are being put in county jails and city jails, and it is important for the federal government and it is the federal government's responsibility to pay for housing those illegal alien criminals, and we have done so in this bill. i was also pleased to work with senators mikulski and jon kyl, the senator from arizona, to include more money for the u.s. marshal service for its mission along the southwest border, including detention, construction and security upgrades in southwest border federal courthouses. mr. president, the last thing i want to mention is that we had a

very moving ceremony yesterday honoring the significant astronauts -- they are all significant, but some of those who took the first chance to go where no human being had ever been, and we honored them with the congressional medal of -- the congressional gold medal, which is the highest honor that congress can bestow on a civilian. it is john glenn, the first american to orbit the earth, neil armstrong and buzz aldrin, the first and second men to walk on the moon. the americans that did that and they were ferried there by michael collins who landed the apollo xi. we talked and the speeches were very uplifting about the importance of space exploration and what it has done for our country. it's clearly been an economic boon to this country. it has created jobs, it has

created better quality of life, and it has also inspired generations of scientists, and with the significant support of senator mikulski, we were able to give nasa the funding that it needs to assure that we have not only the vision that was established by congress in the 2010 authorization bill, but the funding to achieve the vision going forward since our space shuttle program has been shut down. we are now on a mission to provide a commercial crew vehicle to take our astronauts to the space station where we're doing scientific research, and we have fully funded the launch vehicle that is going to take our astronauts beyond earth orbit and into the asteroids and hopefully mars, and that funding

has started with this appropriations bill that is going through this year. so we will have our launch system and our orion capsule that will be the next generation of space exploration for our country, and senator mikulski and i agreed on that priority, along with the web telescope, which is a very significant scientific priority that we would assure that those priorities were met and it is in this bill. we support the emerging commercial space companies to bring cargo and astronauts to the space station, and our investment for discovery on the space station as well as the science that is gotten from these wonderful, incredible telescopes that fly out there in space and gather information. nasa has now released its design for the heavy launch vehicle

that will be able to carry our astronauts in the orion crew vehicle to the moon, the asteroid and beyond. now that that decision has been made, we can focus on the future and on moving human exploration forward. nasa has announced its commitment to the path that congress authorized, and now we are providing the funds to accomplish the development of that rocket. chairman mikulski and i have strived to produce a bill that reflects not only the senate's priorities but the needs of our nation. not only do i commend her and all of the senators that have a part in passing these bills and the house members who also have a significant part, but our staffs did a lot of the work in making sure that these priorities were met. her staff, gabrielle batkin, jessica berry, jeremy myrick,

molly o'rourke did wonderful work, and we're so close in concept and close relationships and working relationships with my staff -- james christopherson, goodloe sutton and allen cutler. mr. chairman, i recommend my bill. i think we stayed within the budget resolution, the budget control act that we passed, but we set the priorities, and i'm very pleased to offer it to the senate tonight, and i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from alabama. mr. sessions: i would ask to be notified after five minutes. the presiding officer: the senator will be notified. mr. sessions: i appreciate the work of the sponsors on this difficult piece of legislation. there is so much that we would like to do, but every american knows that when you're in debt, you have to cut back on spending, but washington remains in denial.

this bill is a statement that washington does not take seriously the straightforward dangers imposed by our debt. it is strange and disney arrest that we have tasked a committee of -- and bizarre that we have tasked a committee of 12 to achieve deficit reduction while at the same time working to increase the deficit with bills such as this one. after the first two years of the obama administration in which nondefense discretionary spending surged 24%, not counting the stimulus, it should not be difficult for us to find reductions that can be achieved in these three bills that have been cobbled together as a mini omnibus. but instead of doing the hard work and finding things we can reduce the spending for and bringing this bill in with a reduction, a real reduction in spending, we now have a piece of legislation that's moving

forward with increases. in fact, what this amounts to and what we're seeing in the committee of 12, the super committee in their secret work is apparently a demand by our democratic colleagues that taxes be substantially increased to fund the spending level that we have been on. so i recently also addressed some of the gimmicks that i believe this bill uses to conceal more spending than is apparent. one of these gimmicks creating the false appearance of cash savings and mandatory spending was actually increased in this current version of the bill, increased in conference. that's why i introduced the honest budget act to confront continuing problems. senator olympia snowe and i believe that these kind of gimmicks like on mandatory

spending, claims of reductions that are not real need to be eliminated from our process, and it helps cause the great deficit that we're in. i think it is particularly offensive that the bill is being represented as a spending cut, even though that was the most minute spending cut of $1 billion, when in truth i believe it clearly increases spending. we need real cuts, not minuscule cuts and certainly not increases. with the president at the helm of the ship of state, washington is continuing to steer towards financial disaster. we must get off this path. the american people know it. i think -- and they thought, i believe, they spoke clearly last november. we still have not gotten the message. we still remain in denial. some say oh, the tea party, you shouldn't pay attention to them.

they were angry people. well, i think they were deeply frustrated people, and, yes, somewhat angry, and why should they not be? when the people they have elected to congress they now discover are spending billions and billions of dollars day after day, week after week, borrowing 40 cents of every dollar that's spent, how can we defend that? how can we defend to any american citizen our behavior that's allowed such a debt situation to occur? we have had three consecutive trillion-dollar deficits, and next year we're expecting to have another trillion-dollar deficit. it's an unacceptable course. mr. president, i will oppose the legislation and urge my colleagues to do the same and would yield the floor. ms. collins: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from maine. ms. collins: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, as the ranking

member of the transportation, housing and urban development appropriations subcommittee, i rise in support of this conference report, and i encourage our colleagues to join me in voting for this measure. mr. president, let me first thank chairman patty murray and her staff who worked cholesterol be a reatively with me and with my talented staff throughout this entire process. i also want to thank chairman kohl, ranking member blunt, chairman mikulski, ranking member hutchison and, of course, the leaders of the full appropriations committee, senator inouye and senator cochran. all of us have worked closely together to usher this first group of appropriations bills to

final passage. i'm particularly pleased that we brought these appropriations bills to the floor through the regular order, enabling members to examine, debate and vote in a fair and transparent process. that is a big change from the approach that has unfortunately marred the process in previous years when all of the appropriations bills or nearly all of them were bundled into one enormous omnibus bill that was considered at the last moment in a rushed manner and without the opportunity for full and fair debate and amendment. we didn't do it that way this time, and i think that represents progress. i'm also pleased that this

conference report contains provisions that are important to the state of maine. mr. president, the transportation-h.u.d. bill recognizes the fiscal reality of what is now an unsustainable $15 trillion debt while making critical infrastructure and economic development investments that will help to create jobs. in this bill, we are also meeting our responsibility to very vulnerable populations in our country. the bill strikes the right balance between thoughtful investment and fiscal restraint, thereby setting the stage for future economic growth. the proposed nonemergency funding levels for fiscal year 2012 in this bill are nearly

$13 billion below fiscal year 2010, a reduction of nearly 1/5 in two years' time. these significant savings represent an unmistakable commitment and movement in the direction of fiscal responsibility. mr. president, for those reasons and for many more, i urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this conference report. thank you, mr. president. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. coburn: i just want to spend a minute because i don't think the american public knows how bad they've beenhood winked by by -- been hoodwinked by

congress. the budget control act claims we cut a trillion dollars. that's what the claims were. the fact is under the budget control act, spending, discretionary spending, will still rise by $850 billion over the next ten years. that's the truth. and we hear in the bills that are coming up the, quote, emergency. and one of the things that the american people can't quite understand, when they have an emergency, what they do is they end up having to make choices. they don't have a bank that will loan them money regardless of whether or not they're worthy of paying it back, and that's where we are, we're not worthy of paying the money back that we're borrowing now. that's going to become acutely obvious over the next 18 months in our country as we see our interest rates rise. so we have before us a bill on the floor that meets the numbers and meets what the budget control act said, but totally

denies what the american people are expecting. let me talk about what i mean by that. is there's five major problems with this bill. number one, it claims to cut spending when in fact it doesn't. when you take all spending, it doesn't cut spending. but we're going to hear and we've heard already how it cuts spending. but usually with the caveat not counting emergency spending, not counting emergency spending. so the first thing it does is it doesn't address any of the problems that our country has today in terms of we have to have real cuts in spending, not decreases in the rate of growth of spending. we have to have real cuts if we're going to create a future for our kids, if we're going to be able to borrow money in the future at an affordable interest rate, we have to have real cuts. we got to quit playing the game with the american people and start talking to them as

adults, not playing the game and actually being dishonest with the american people about what we're doing. the second thing, it continues -- this bill continues to demonstrate that we won't -- we are shirking our duties in terms of doing oversight. we are providing fundings for things that obviously need to be corrected, but we won't correct them. we don't eliminate the wasteful programs, there's nothing in here, there's not one duplicative program in any of these three segments of appropriations bills that is eliminated. and yet we know there's over $200 billion a year in duplication costs to the federal government on programs that do exactly the same thing. and yet we didn't do any of that. it's no wonder you can't cut spending if you don't get rid of programs that do the same thing, none of which or 80% of which aren't accomplishing their goals or never have been

measured about whether they accomplish their goals. that's the third thing. the fourth thing it does, this bill absolutely ignores f.h.a.'s condition. it was announced they're about to run out of money. what do we do? we raise the amount of money that people can borrow from the f.h.a. at the time when f.h.a.'s running out of money. the only problem with that is the f.h.a. has a very friendly banker, which the congress has no control over. because when f.h.a. runs out of money, you know what they do? they go and get it from the treasury? and we can't stop it. and so what we've done is we've raised the loan limit for f.h.a. homes to $729,000 in this bill, f.h.a. is going to be out of money this year, they will have no capital to protect the $1.1 trillion worth of loans they are guaranteeing, and then

they'll go get the money. well, where is that money going to come from? that money, we're going to borrow it from the chinese. so we're going to compound the very problem that we have today. absolute ignoring of what the real situation is on the ground, ignoring the real complications of not acting, and consequently -- cons subsequently we actually make it worse for our kids in our country. and finally, includes very few of the amendments that were passed by wide margins in the senate, one of mine is there, i'm very thankful for it, i think it's an appropriate amendment but several others aren't that were good, commonsense amendments but yet somebody in the appropriations committee decided even though they may have voted for it, they pulled it out. and it wasn't the majority on the other side that insisted they came out because i went and checked. so what we've done is we're

setting up here, we're going to pass this bill tonight, i have no doubt about it, but we're continuing down the road of number one, being dishonest, dishonest with the american people about what we're doing, how we're doing it, number two, we're shirking our responsibility to eliminate the wasteful portions of the federal government which at least are $350 billion a year when you combine waist, fraud, and duplication. none of that was attacked in this bill. none of it. and then we're lying to them about whether or not we're actually increasing spending or not increasing spending. our time is shortening. and if you look at what happened in europe in the last two weeks to the bond yields for italy, to the bond yields for spain, we know what's coming. how -- how bad does it have to get or how close does it have to get to us before we will act in the best interests of the

country instead of the best interests of partisanship or the best interests of our careers? this isn't a bad bill. it just doesn't do what the american people need us to do right now, which is start cutting out the waste, fraud, and duplication in the federal government so that their children will have an opportunity to live in a country of opportunity. this bill fails on that count. and it should be defeated. and a bill coming back here with $10 billion, $12 billion, $15 billion less is ought to be what comes back here. that's what ought to happen. if we were going to truly be honest, either i'm being dishonest about the situation facing our country or you're being dishonest in what you're bringing as the answer on the floor. one of us isn't telling the truth and i'll guarantee you the market will prove me right. when we no longer can baro as the chairman of the federal

reserve said, we're going to eventually fix all this regardless of the population -- the politicians. why are we going to fix it? because they're going to quit loaning us money and we've done nothing with this bill to solve the very real and immediate problems in front of this country. i yield the floor. mr. blunt: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from missouri. mr. blunt: we are going to move this bill tonight and we have other people who would like to speak but i urge people to get over here and say what needs to be said so we can get work done. we have a few people that still have opportunities to make a plane, we're not going to be voting tomorrow, and we plan to vote here in the next 30 minutes or so, and i hope that people come and come to the floor and speak on the bill.

and, you know, this bill has gone through a process with lots of amendments, lots of debate, went through a conference committee, not perfect by anyone's standard of perfect, but legislation seldom is. it is under the level that was established in the -- in the debt ceiling agreement that also established how we deal with emergency spending, and of course many of our colleagues didn't vote for that, didn't agree with that at the time. it's only been a few weeks ago, but it is the standard that the house and senate worked on, and this -- these numbers should be below that number. they're a little lower than the senate number which was at that number, they're higher than the house number, and i wish we could have been closer to the house number, but the house has a different majority than the senate does, but the real point is if people want to come and

speak on this bill, the vote is scheduled here in about a half an hour or so and i hope people would come on over and have their say on this bill, let the people know in addition to their vote where they stand. we're waiting for a couple of people to come and this would be a good time for them to do that. i yield back and --

quorum call:

mrs. murray: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. murray: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i rise to speak about the transportation-housing title of the bill that's before the senate. it has broad bipartisan support because it addresses the very real housing and transportation needs of american families across the nation. now, this is want a perfect bill but there's a lot to be proud of in the conference report and i am pleased with what we've been able to accomplish with my colleague, senator collins, because she has worked so hard in a bipartisan way to get us to this point. chairman latham and congressman

ober on the house side and all of their staffs. this bill makes needed investments in our transportation infrastructure, creates critical jobs while also supporting housing and services for our nation's most vulnerable. this bill touches the lives of all americans in ways that they can appreciate every day, whether it's a parent that commutes every day and needs safe roads or new public transportation options so they can spend more time with their families, a business who depends on solid infrastructure to move goods and attract customers, young families searching for safe and affordable communities to raise their children, or a recently laid-off worker who needs hope keep his or her family in their home. this bill has a real impact on americans who are struggling in these troubling economic times. our bill takes a balanced approach that addresses the most critical needs we face in both transportation and housing while remaining financially responsible and staying within the constraints of the budget.

the bill contains improvement investments for our nation, including $500 million for the competitive multimode tidal program to help improve our nation's infrastructure, including rail transportation projects, $1.4 billion for amtrak, including funding for state-supported services, sufficient funding to preserve housing for our nation's low-income families, elderly, disabled and veterans who rely on h.u.d.'s housing and rental assistance programs. $39.8 billion to continue the federal aid highway program at current levels. $45 million for housing counseling. and $75 million for 11,000 new vouchers for homeless veterans. and the bill also addresses the needs of communities that have been hit by disasters this year, providing $1.7 billion in emergency relief highway funding and up to $400 million in cdbg funding for areas that have been

most impacted by recent disasters. it's not a perfect bill but it is a good bill. it represents a fair, bipartisan compromise that makes investments in our infrastructure and protects the most vulnerable while living within our funding restraints. our bill helps commuters, homeowners and the most vulnerable in our society. most importantly, mr. president, it creates jobs and supports the continued recovery of the national economy. so i look forward to having it reach the president's desk soon for his signature. and before i close, i again want to thank my colleague, senator collins, and all of her staff for all of their very hard work on this bill. and i also want to thank all of my staff members who worked beyond reasonable hours to get this bill to this point tonight to be able to send it to the president. they are alex keenan, megan mccarthy, dabney hague, rachel millberg, molly o'rourke, lauren

shotz and lauren oberman. so, mr. president, i want to thank all them for all their hard work, all of senator collins' staff as well, as well as our chairman, senator inouye, and i look forward to the passage of this bill this evening. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. 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: mr. president, we would yield back whatever time was left here with the -- on the democratic side. the presiding officer: without objection, the time is yielded back on the democratic side. mr. reid: mr. president, we're going to continue to work tomorrow on the d.o.d. authorization bill. everyone has been told by the two managers of this bill if they have amendments, they should offer them. we're working on the energy and water bill. we're making progress on that with senators feinstein and lamar alexander. we have some nominations we're

working on. the next vote will be 5:30 p.m. on november 28. we will be in session tomorrow. a senator: mr. president, i'd yield back the republican time. the presiding officer: all time is yielded backment -- yielded back. the question is -- is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. there is. the question is on the adoption of the conference report. to accompany h.r. 2112. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any other senators wishing to vote or to change their vote? if no, on this vote the yeas are 70, the nays are 30. under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the adoption of this conference report, the conference report is adopted. a senator: move to reconsider that. the presiding officer: without objection. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. mr. levin: mr. president, if i could have order. the presiding officer: the

senate will come to order. the senate will come to order. the senator from michigan. mr. levin: there are a number of people, a number of senators here who want to offer their amendments, make them pending tonight and that's fine with us. the presiding officer: the senator is correct, the senate is not in order. will the senators please take their conversations out of the chamber. the senator from michigan. mr. levin: there are a number of senators who have amendments that they are able to call up tonight, make them pending and then set them aside and then if they have speeches, i would suggest that they withhold speeches until everybody who has amendments here can offer them and set them aside so that we can allow people to leave and

then have the speeches come, if there are speeches tonight, after anybody who wants to make their amendment pending has that opportunity. that's the process i would suggest. and senator mccain is supportive of that process. so that's my suggestion. that the chair recognize people, as the chair wishes, call up your amendment, set it aside, let the next person call up the amendment, set it aside and if there's any speeches, that they come after everybody who is recognized to call up their amendments have that opportunity. now, one other thing: this relates to what will happen hopefully tonight and tomorrow. and that is that we're going to try to clear amendments, if we can tonight and tomorrow. we'll be here 9:00 and we're going to try to clear as many amendments as we can because we've got to make progress on this bill and i want to thank senator mccain for all he's doing to help that process and help our leaders.

the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. mccain: i understand we have a couple of amendments already from senator cardin, i believe 1073 and 1188. i see the senator from louisiana, he is also probably ready for his amendments. is that correct? mr. levin: are his two amendments cleared on your side, do you know? we've cleared one. mr. mccain: we should, momentarily. momentarily. mr. levin: all right. the presiding officer: the senator from california. mrs. feinstein: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the pending amendments be set aside in order to call up amendments 1125 and 1126. i further ask that senator lea leahy, durbin and udall of colorado be listed as cosponsors of both amendments. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from california, mrs. feinstein, proposes en bloc amendments numbered 1125 and 1126.

a senator: mr. president? mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from colorado. mr. udall: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside and amendment 1107 be called up. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from colorado, mr. udall, proposes an amendment numbered 1107. strike subtitle 2 of title 10 and insert the following. subtitle d, detainee matters. section 1031, review of authority of the armed forces of the united states. mr. udall: mr. president, i'd ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. the senator from louisiana. ms. landrieu: thank you, mr. president. i ask to make pending or to set aside the pending amendments and to call up amendment number 1015 and i ask to make it pending on

behalf of myself, senator snowe. and i appreciate the cosponsorship of senators shaheen, brown and kerry, if we could call up the amendment. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from louisiana, for herself and mrs. snowe, proposes an amendment numbered -- 1115. at the end, add the following. mrs. lann do you: i ask consent to dispense with the reading. mr. president, this is an amendment that would authorize two of the most important research programs of the small businesses of this country. i thank you. mr. franken: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from minnesota. mr. frank h franken: mr. presidi ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment and call up my amendment numbered 1197. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from minnesota, mr. franken, proposes an amendment numbered 1197. at the end of subtitle e of title 8 -- mr. franken: mr. president, i ask that further reading of the amendment be waived.

the presiding officer: without objection. mr. franken: thank you. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. mr. cardin cardin: i ask unanims consent the pending amendment be set aside so that i may offer first amendment 1073. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from maryland, mr. cardin, for himself and ms. mikulski, proposes an amendment numbered 1073. at the end -- mr. cardin: i ask that constitute the reading of the amendment. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cardin: mr. president, i also ask consent that that amendmenamendment now be set asi can offer amendment number 1188. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from maryland, mr. cardin, for himself and others, proposes an amendment numbered 1188. mr. cardin: i ask unanimous consent that be considered the reading of the a.m. the presiding officer: without-. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cardin: mr. president, i don't see anybody else on the floor. i'm sorry, there is one. i yield to the chairman of the committee. the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. mr. levin: mr. president, on 1188, i believe that this amendment has been cleared and

that we can actually pass it. no. i understand that this amendment has been cleared on both sides and we could actually pass 1188 tonight. right now. and i'm just wondering if -- the presiding officer: is there further debate on the amendment? if not, all in favor say aye. opposed, no. mr. levin: that's 1188. the presiding officer: that's correct. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the amendment is agreed to. mr. levin: move to lay that on the table. the presiding officer: without objection. the senator from alaska. mr. begich: mr. president, i ask consent that the current amendment be set aside. mr. president, i rise to call up amendment number 114 to senate bill 1867, the national defense authorization bill. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from alaska, mr. begich, for himself and others, proposes an amendment numbered 1114. at the end of subtitle e of title 3 of the -- mr. begich: mr. president, i ask

to waive the reading. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. begich: mr. president, i ask consent that the current amendment be set aside for one more. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. the clerk will report. mr. begich: let me give you the number. senate bill, amendment number 1149. the clerk: the senator from alaska, mr. begich, proposes an amendment numbered 1149. at the end of subtitle c of title -- mr. begich: mr. president, i ask the waiving of the reading. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. begich: mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. mr. cardin: mr. president, if there's no one else that is -- wishes to offer an amendment at this time, i was going to make a brief -- i understand the senator from new hampshire wishes to -- let me yield to the senator from new hampshire, if i might. mrs. shaheen: thank you.

the presiding officer: the senator from new hampshire. mrs. shaheen: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment and to call up amendment number 11 1120. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from new hampshire, mrs. shaheen, for herself and others, proposes an amendment numbered 1120. at the end of subtitle b of title 7, add the following: section 714. mrs. shaheen: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. shaheen: thank you, mr. president. mr. cardin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. mr. cardin: mr. president, first, let me thank senator levin and senator mccain in regards to the amendment 1188, which was hotels for heroes. i'm going to be very, very brief. hotels for heroes follows on the hero miles, a successful program where our wounded warriors are able to get their families

together using frequent flyer miles that are donated. i want to compliment my colleagues in the house, congressman rupersburger. this expands that program for hotel miles so that the family can use the donated hotel miles in order to have housing so they can visit their wounded warriors in our -- at our facilities. i want to comment very briefly on the other amendment that i filed which is senate amendment 1073 that i filed with senator mikulski. this amendment would prohibit the district of columbia's national guard from operating or expanding its youth challenge program in ann arundle county, because there's already a better alternative in place. the d.c. national guard currently partners with the maryland national guard to provide valuable service to at-risk children through the youth challenge program at aberdeen proving grounds in harford county, maryland. i have visited that site and that's the site where i think

it's logical to see an -- an expansion. the problem with the oak hill facility, which is what this amendment deals with, is that it borders the national security agency. this is federal property located in the state of maryland that is valuable for our national security. in the 1920's, the district of columbia got permission from congress to place on that property -- and i'm quoting from the authorizing language -- it was a facility for -- for children that are feebleminded. that's the exact quote from the authorization. since that time, the district, without knowledge, constructed a juvenile detention facility. the purpose of this amendment is to say, look, we have a place where it should be. we shouldn't be using other federal land in the state of maryland for expansions without working with the state and local officials. i hope that this amendment can get cleared but i wanted to

explain the reason why i filed it. and i thank the chair for your attention and i thank the chairman and ranking member. and i yield the floor. mr. franken: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from minnesota. mr. franken: mr. president, the amendment i offered, number 1197 -- the presiding officer: the senator from mr. mccain: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from minnesota has the floor. mr. franken: would you like the floor? the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. mccain: i will just say that we have the senator from maine. we -- i thought we were going to go through the process of pending amendments before we spoke. i think the senator's amendment is already pending. mr. franken: it is. i thought because the senator from maryland spoke to his amendment, i thought that process was over. i apologize. mr. mccain: not at all. it's no big deal at all. maybe the senator from maine could make her amendment pending. mr. franken: i yield to the senator from maine. the presiding officer: the senator from maine is recognized. ms. collins: thank you. i thank my colleagues, mr. president. a senator: would the senator yield? the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. mr. levin: i just want to thank

the senator from minimum for his courtesy because he had no way of knowing that the senator from maine was here to offer her amendments. i just want to thank the senator. mr. franken: i'd like to thank the senator from michigan for thanking me. ms. collins: mr. president, now that everyone's properly recognized and thanked, i would ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside and i would call up to make pending en bloc amendment number 1105, 1155, 1158, and 1180, which are at the desk. the presiding officer: without objection. the clerk wilthe clerk will rep. the clerk: the senato the senatm maine, mrs. collins, proposes enbloc amendments numbered 1105, 1155, 1158, and 1180. ms. collins: thank you,

mr. president. i thank the ranking member and the senator from minnesota. mr. inhofe: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. inhofe: i ask unanimous consent to set the pending amendment aside for the purpose of consideration of ten amendments en bloc and i will read these. number 1094, 1095, 1096, 1097, 1098, 1099, 1100, 1101, 1102, and 1190 -- 1093. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. the clerk will report en bloc. the clerk: the senator from oklahoma, mr. inhofe, proposes en bloc amendments numbered 1094, 1095, 1096, 1097, 1098,

1099, 1100, 1101, 1102, and 1103. mr. inhofe: i ask unanimous consent to dispense with the reading. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. inhofe: i yield the floor. mr. franken: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from minnesota. mr. franken: mr. president, the amendment i offer, number 1197, will help small businesses. small businesses often serve as subcontractors or suppliers to large corporations that have a primary government contract. my amendment would help guarantee that small businesses get paid by these large corporation nasa timely way. more specifically, my amendment would require the office of management and budget to issue regulations in the next year to do this. this amendment sounds simple. there is a reason for that.

it is something that we can do here today that will offer real and significant help for small businesses. it's going to offer predictability and certainty to them. anyone who owns a small business will tell you that they can't hire more people or plan for the future if they don't know when their next paycheck is coming. getting their money more predictably and quickly will enable them to make investments that they need to grow, thrive and hire more people. the administration has recognized that small businesses are the engine that drives our economy. according to the u.s. census bureau, small businesses create an overwhelming majority of all new jobs. small businesses are also responsible for producing half the private sector g.d.p. given this, it makes sense that we need to figure out how to make sure that small businesses are getting paid on time. o.m.b. recognizes this and just

issued a new policy statement that will require all federal agencies to make payments to their small business contractors within 15 days of receiving an invoice, but the fact is a lot of small businesses serve as subcontractors to direct prime contractors. it only makes sense that we should require our large prime contractors to play by the same rules that we play by and to pay their suppliers in a timely manner. when congress passed the prompt payments act back in 1983, recognizing that the federal government needed to lead by example and that we should be paying all of our contractors in no more than 30 days after the contractors sent an invoice our way and congress went back in 1988 to create an obligation on construction contractors if they pay their suppliers within seven days of the government paying

them, but no other contractors were under the same commonsense obligation. i think that's a mistake that we should correct, especially as we are pouring billions and billions of government dollars into contingency operations overseas and all sorts of other projects that have nothing to do with construction. all suppliers working with these contractors deserve to be paid on time, and i am hoping one day we can tackle this problem for all subcontractors, not just small businesses that are subcontractors. but for now, my amendment takes a modest approach and focuses on the biggest problem -- creating certainty and predictability for small business subcontractors. the national federation of independent businesses recently conducted a survey, and they found that nearly 40% of firms reported that receivables are coming in at a slower pace. i have heard stories from companies that have not been paid in 90 days or 120 days

after being invoiceed -- or after they have invoiced. this is unacceptable. these sorts of delays affect cash flow for these small businesses and make it tough for these businesses to meet payroll obligations and pay their other basic bills like their rent. i just wanted to tell a personal story that just relates to small businesses and how important this is to them just to be paid on time or how important cash flow is. my uncle lionel kuntz was a small businessman. he died in 1994. i went to his funeral. at the funeral, a number of his business associates, people who supplied him -- he made fabric, he made quilting. people who supplied him and people whom he supplied, one

after another got up and testified to how quickly he paid or how if they couldn't pay on time, that he would cut them some slack. that's how important this is. that's how important it was to them. my uncle was a mensch. it was a big deal. it was a big deal. these guys got up and all talked about this. this is what we should do, we should do for these small business subcontractors, just make sure they get paid on time. that's all. this is a sensible and simple solution, mr. president, to a real problem that small businesses are confronting. i urge my colleagues to support me in this effort. i thank -- thank you and i yield the floor.

mr. inhofe: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. inhofe: i ask unanimous consent that my defense fellow major kevin hadley be given floor privileges during the consideration of this bill. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. inhofe: i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. casey: i ask that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. casey: thank you, mr. president. i would first of all like to thank chairman levin and ranking member mccain for their work on this national defense authorization bill, and tonight i'll speak to an amendment that i filed. i won't call it up for now, i just want to speak to it. but this is a critically important debate for the country, and i know they've worked very hard and i've had the honor and the pressure -- pleasure to work with senator levin on a number of measures over the years. one of the real concerns that we all have is what's happening to our troops as relates to i.e.d.'s, the improvised

explosive devices. it's been central to the work many of us have done, my work on the foreign relations committee and of course chairman lev and so many others working on this for a long time. and it does have a daily impact obviously on our troops, and on their families. often the best words about our soldiers and about war itself come from lincoln when he talked about those who lose their life in battle, those who gave as he said, the last full measure of devotion to their country. but he also talked about those who serve and are wounded, and come back. and his words to describe those soldiers when he spoke of him who has borne the battle. and i think about those words when i consider those who have borne the battle and come back with not just injuries but with grievous injuries and sometimes almost irreparable harm done to them because of the explosion

that they lived through with an i.e.d. i was in -- in bethesda naval hospital not too long ago, a couple of weeks ago. it's one of the real privileges of serving in the united states senate that you're given the opportunity to meet so many brave young men and women who serve, those who serve and are never hurt, those who serve and are wounded, and of course, unfortunately, you meet the families of those who lose their life in battle. but i was in -- in bethesda's naval hospital as i said, a couple weeks ago and i walked into the room of a soldier who had been injured, was recovering there. and his parents were there and broz was there and -- brother was there and you're always worried about staying too long because you feel like you're almost intruding. but for some reason that night i didn't feel that i was intruding

because he wanted to talk and he wanted to talk about his service, he wanted to talk about his love for his country, how he was injured, but he also talked about the future. what he wanted to do when he would leave that hospital bed. and it was a stunning moment for me to be talking to a soldier who was looking up from his -- from his hospital bed, and the optimism that he displayed about his future, the calm within which he could -- with which he could speak about his service was really to me stunning. he talked as if he were just recovering from a minor injury, and halfway through my visit i almost had to remind myself the injuries that he was suffering from. he had both legs blown off below the knee from an i.e.d. blast. but despite that, despite the horror of it, despite the damage done to his body, a

20-year-old soldier, he was talking about the future, what he was going to do when he left that hospital and he was talking about his service. so when we see soldiers like that, i think it -- it inspires us all the more and really compels us to do more when it comes to protecting our troops against the scourge of i.e.d.'s. and we know and so many people here know that they're the top killer of our troops in afghanistan. the primary ingredient in i.e.d.'s found in regional commands south in afghanistan, where the presiding officer and i were in august, is a fertilizer called calcium ammonium nitrate known by the akron imc-a-n, can.

it's provide in just a few factories in pakistan but just a small percentage of what's produced in pakistan finds itself way in afghanistan and becomes the main ingredient in the i.e.d.'s. most of the calcium ammonium nitrate used the i.e.d.'s, unfortunately, comes from pakistan. over the past two years, i've led an effort to urge pakistan to do more to address this threat. i've sent letters, we passed a resolution here in the senate, and i traveled to afghanistan and pakistan last august to make the case directly to the leaders in islamabad, the capital of pakistan. as i mention perks -- mentioned, the presiding officer, senator bennet, along with senator blumenthal of connecticut traveled with us. we spent a good time in

pakistan, three days and we were i think pretty consistent in the delivery of that message that we were not just urging but we were providing i think a sense of urgency but almost a directive as best we could, urging and pushing their government as hard as we could to help us and to help themselves, by the way,. a lot of pakistanis lose their life this way as well. so during these meetings senator bennet and senator blumenthal and senator whitehouse and i that they had developed a plan, a strategy to deal with this, a plan to tighten their borders, a plan to regulate the sale of calcium ammonium nitrate and a plan which included conducting public relations -- public relations campaign to sensitize the pakistani people to the dangers posed by these materials.

this political commitment was encouraging, but given the ongoing and increasing threat to our troops, we needed to maintain a sense of urgency about it. and i think we owe our troops nothing less than that sense of urgency on this issue. during our meetings in islamabad we also discussed the serious threat that i.e.d.'s pose to the pakistani people as i mentioned a moment ago. some 500 pakistanis have been killed by i.e.d.'s since the beginning of this calendar year. this is a common threat that requires a common solution. this is something we can and should work together on, and it's no secret that the relationship between the united states and pakistan is not a good relationship right now. it is to be -- to say something which is a vast understatement, it has soured dramatically. there's an awful lot of tension

and mistrust and a real breakdown in this relationship. one of the ways -- not the only way, but one of the ways that we can build some confidence that we can begin to work together on a common threat is for the pakistani government to take action, to take concerted action on the question of i.e.d.'s. i do want to commend and thank those three senators that i mentioned who were on the trip with me, senator bennet of colorado was there for every meeting and worked very hard with us. senator whitehouse as well from rhode island. senator blumenthal was with us and he spoke i know today, i didn't see his speech today, his remarks on the floor, but my staff told me about them. and i want to thank him for those words today. and for his and senator bennet and senator whitehouse's dedication to this issues and the work that they've done

during our trip in august and since that trip. and i'm proud to join with them on this effort today and every day we've been working on it. i always -- also want to thank senator barrasso from wyoming for his leadership and willingness to work with us on this amendment. with senator bennet, senator white house, and senator blumenthal. this is a critical issue for our troops and for their families and i think it was so important that we delivered and continue to deliver a strong bipartisan message to the pakistani government, to any official in their government that has anything to do with this issue during our trip, the message we delivered and thereafter. and i think we can deliver another message by way of this amendment on this bill. this amendment would hold pakistan to its commitments. the commitments it already made to its strategic plan to counter i.e.d.'s.

mr. president, as you know well, i.e.d.'s are killing and injuring our troops at a terribly alarming rate and while we can never completely eradicate the component parts of i.e.d.'s, we can make life difficult for the bombmaker if we pass this amendment. we should recommit ourselves to this important mission and redouble our efforts to limit the availability of these component parts on the battlefield. and again, we owe nothing less than that to our troops. often i've said that when we talk about the commitment and the sacrifice of our troops, we also talk about praying for them and we all do that. thank goodness the american people pray on a regular basis for our troops. but i think we should also once in a while pray for ourselves that we may be worthy of the valor of our