well-respected catholic priest and professor. so i don't take -- >> that's too broad of language and i would love, i would like to support the language. thank you for allowing us to continue this negotiation for today. >> i've tried to follow resisting. the clerk will call the roll. [roll call] [roll call]

>> senator from texas. >> so you don't become trying to pull your leg, there was a complete substitute -- >> you're not the one who talked about my brother-in-law. >> there was a complete substitute -- [talking over each other] >> 4:16 yesterday is when we got the language. >> i was on the floor. i don't -- stuff i'm not saying you personally delivered it to our office. i'm saying your shop be mailed it to our office at 4:16 yesterday. that's my only point. >> all right. and trust me, if my brother-in-law is a good guy. >> i've had the honor of meeting your brother-in-law. >> i know you have. he's done the prayer at the opening of the session several times, and i must say, just come

has nothing to do with this thing, but one of the things that he's found the biggest thrill when he's been the visiting clergyman for the senate is having being able to spend a day on the floor. and so many senators, republicans and democrats alike, have come up to talk to him. i would point out that he's much nicer than his brother-in-law, more like his sister. i will yield to senator feinstein, who has -- senator feinstein. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. thank you very much, mr. chairman. i want to thank you for allowing me to hold the hearing. i want to just report to you that we heard from one arrest and grieving father who lost a precious son at sandy hook. -- breast we heard from the

search and their who took care of their bodies, and talked about what these weapons with the bullets do when they explode inside the body. we heard from the head of the united states costs of mayors, mayor nutter a baltimore -- excuse me, of philadelphia, who assured us of their support. we heard from chief lynn a baltimore who assured us that the support of the chiefs and talked about his city. i want to acknowledge the presence of chief johnson with a baltimore county police department is here. and we had a given station of a slide fire stock, placed in ar-15, which was able to alternate begun between semiautomatic and fully automatic fire. excuse me, let me correct.

chief lynn is from milwaukee. i've been very concerned because the calls have been coming in as if this is some kind of wild eyed scheme. it is not. every single poll that has been done in the united states has shown that a majority of people favor this legislation. we have endorsements in virtually every religious organization, every medical organization, mayors, police, women's movements, supporting this legislation. and yet it's as if having minority and substantial piece of legislation. whether it's at johns hopkins poll, 69%, mayors against illegal guns at 81%. it's been a very hard road. secondly, there's been argument by the opposition that this measure is unconstitutional.

i deeply believe that it is not unconstitutional. it is basically formed from the prior legislation, legislation which survived tests in the fourth, in the sixth, in the ninth circuit, and the d.c. circuit. no assault legislation statewide in this country has ever been found unconstitutional. and the heller decision clearly stated, and i quote, the rights secured by the second amendment is not unlimited, and quote. and quote, dangers and unusual weapons quote could be prohibited. since heller, state assault weapons, as i said, have been upheld, ma and no cords that i'm aware of has ever found an assault weapons ban to be unconstitutional. over 50 distinguished constitutional law professors,

including conservatives and libertarians from our nation's leading law schools, including harvard, stanford, yale, and chicago signed a statement confirming that an assault weapons ban is constitutional. i particularly want to thank the cosponsors on this committee. i want to acknowledge the long-standing support of the man who presented the ban in the house of representatives over 10 years ago, the distinguished senator from new york. i want to point out that senator durbin supports, and the committee was really strong and appreciated. i want to thank virtually all of the other cosponsors in this room. i want to just point out that i carefully watched senator blumenthal. i saw his care. i saw his -- and senator murphy, too. his representation of that

deeply affected community in connecticut. and i just want you to know, i have, my deepest respect goes to you for what has been a very hard venture. and i'm particularly grateful for your support of this legislation. now, what does this legislation do? it bans pacific assault weapons by name, 157 in this instance. it protects the rights of gun owners to possess weapons for legitimate hunting and sporting and defense uses. by excluding many more weapons, by make and model, over 2000 of them. it grandfathers i'll present weapons. if they're transferred, it subjects the transferee to the background check but it does not require registration. it applies military characteristic test to judge future weapons to prevent gun manufacturers from evading the

ban by silva changing the name of the weapon, or a physical characteristic of the weapon. we try to learn from the last bill and refine this bill to avoid the problem of gun manufacturers simply getting around the bill. the features that we use were originally developed for military weapons for one reason, to make the weapon more effective and efficient at killing people in combat situations. as chief flynn of the milwaukee police department testified last week, and i quote, assault weapons are built to inflict violence against humans. their military characteristics are not simply cosmetic in nature. these weapons are designed to combat. i've watched even police department get outgunned. in a nine years i was mayor of san francisco, we started out with police issues being a

.38 caliber revolver. we've seen that escalate. we've seen shotguns being removed from squad cars and replaced with assault weapons. why? because of an increasingly armed criminal element that police often have to go up against. i watched as the los angeles police department had to break into a gun store to take weapons to be able to counter what was going up against them following a robbery in los angeles. i don't know why anyone would object to drawing up the supply of these weapons over time. they are not good hunting weapons. many states have limits on the number of bullets again be on a clip. and who's going to respect a hunter with a 30 round clip and an assault weapon going after a dear? i certainly am not one.

so the intention of this is to dry up the supply over time. while homicides in general are down in this country. mass killings are not here and the fact is that these assault weapons have a great attraction for the people who go into law as they did in san francisco, and shoot down 14 people. the man who went into the aurora theatre just to kill people with 100 round in an assault weapon. we've seen it and universities. we've seen them in elementary schools. and now we have seen them used against first graders. the time has come, america, to step up and ban these weapons. the other very important part of this bill is to ban large capacity ammunition feeding devices, those that hold over 10 rounds. we have federal regulations and

state laws that prohibit hunting ducks with more than three rounds. and yet it's legal to hunt humans with 15 rounds, 30 rounds, even 150 round magazines. limiting magazine capacity is critical, because it is when a criminal, a drug dealer, a deranged individual has to pause to change magazines and reload, that the police or brave bystanders have the opportunity to take that individual down. we saw this scenario happened in tucson, arizona, where the madman who shot our former colleague, gabby giffords, was taken down when he had to change magazines. so my view is that how could i stand by to see this carnage go on? and, members, this isn't going

to stop. it's going to continue on. and we have a chance to do something about it. so i cannot tell you how much i was mayor of san francisco for nine years, i walk into places, i saw the carnage firsthand. and at that time i really dedicated the rest of my life to do something about it. so this is an opportunity. i want to thank those who are with me. i don't know that i can convince those that are not, but i intend to keep trying. so thank you, mr. chairman. >> do you have any an amendment to your amendment? >> i do not. >> are there a minute's -- amendments to senator feinstein? senator grassley.

>> sorry, i was -- i appreciate senator feinstein's sincerity. i expressed that three or four times at the last hearing. i suppose as much as i oppose rebuild. she wonders whether i appreciate her sincerity or not. this has been an important issue for her for 20 years. and we all have to feel for the victims of newtown, but there are other parents of children who were killed at sandy hook elementary school, who mourn the loss of a loved ones no less. and yet feel very differently about the ways congress should respond. on tuesday i spoke to mark, his son james was one of those victims. even in his grief he sent me a letter that he authorized me to seek consent to place in the record, and quote during the

debate. he describes how no one should have to ignore what he has endured. and, of course, no one should. he wrote quote, i can understand where knee-jerk reactions come from to ensure never again. i caution that we employ common sense and do not hand over any liberty which is protected by the constitution, and, of course. i agree. we continue to wait for the justice department constitutional analysis of the bill, despite statements by the department of justice witness at two hearings on this matter. i've yet to see an opinion from the department arguing that this bill is constitutional. i appreciate the input of other scholars who have offered their opinions as witnesses, but the justice department has or should have a different role in

providing us with the constitutional analysis. i go back to him, saying that the debate should not be about controlling guns, but controlling people who cannot control themselves, like people with mental illness and felonies. he favors making sure that people can find their moral compass, and parents who will raise their children to know right from wrong, and not expose them to violence. i agree with him on this point. then he writes quote, for those who tell me that my son and 25 others were killed that day with an assault weapon, i challenge them to consider, and if this quote, other important factors. he says that assault weapons quote, are not a threat to our safety, end of quote. and is very focused on improving mental health services.

mr. mattioli also oppose the limit on magazine capacity. he adds quote with 250 million guns in the united states, how are you going to make me safer i reducing new magazines to one, five or 10 rounds? he continues to say, you will not increase my safety, only obstruct me from protecting myself from criminals who may possess one of the existing guns out there, end of quote. mr. mattioli has great courage to have survived to this terrible ordeal, and to make the statements he has made. i think he speaks with great understanding of how to address mass killings. his words difficult to write i'm sure, are important viewpoints that we should consider. this is especially true when the constitution concerns about this legislation that arrive in light of the heller decision.

i continue to believe that this legislation is flawed under the second supreme court second amendment cases, given those flaws, i oppose the legislation your thank you. i yield the floor. >> thank you very much. i'll try to go back and forth. >> mr. chairman? >> senator blumenthal. >> i want to begin by thanking the chairman for his leadership on the illegal trafficking. i want to begin by thanking the chairman for his leadership on the illegal trafficking bill, and command him and my fellow cosponsors, thank the senator feinstein for her very kind comments, but most especially for her leadership on this bill. the plain simple blunt fact is that some, if not all, of the beautiful children who perished that day in newtown belong with

the great educators who gave their lives trying to save those children, might well be alive today if this ban had been in effect, a ban on these military style assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. as senator feinstein has already told the committee, we heard testimony from captain mark kelly who recounted what happened in tucson that day, when the shooter had to change magazines, and christina taylor, the nine year old who perished that day comes from the 13th bullet fired, probably would be alive if the magazine used by the shooter had been limited to 10 rounds. the same is true in newtown where children were able to escape because the shooter had

to change magazines on that day. more than 10 children are alive today because of his need to change magazines. and more would be if his magazine had been limited to 10 rounds as our legislation would do. don't recognize that there are concerns about it. we've heard them. the overwhelming majority of the american people are in favor of this legislation. and the opponents fail to reflect the concern that goes beyond newtown, but certainly newtown is call to action. it is created a sense of urgency that americans feel, and i hope the committee will reflect that sense of urgency in approving this legislation. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, i'd like to start by saying i agree with senator grassley, that sometimes

congress tries to impose from washington, d.c. a one size fits all proposed solution that really is best left to localities and states. it's become clear to me if it wasn't clear before that there our cultural differences in america, between those people of grown up with guns, that know how to use them, they're comfortable with them, they use them safely for hunting or recreation or self-defense. and then there are other people who are scared by guns because they had never been around one. and perhaps they live in an urban area where the only can they ever see or hear of is one in the hands of someone committing a crime. so i think, first of all, i would just say an attempt to legislate for the entire united states in a one size fits all proposal is a mistake. and i would say that this is not

a ban on weapons. the senator from california who i have great admiration and respect and affection for acknowledged that this legislation does nothing to do with the fact that many of these weapons, which will not be outlawed, already in the hands of american citizens, law abiding american citizens. so it is not a ban. it is also not, what it is, what it does impact our semiautomatic rifles. now, you can call it an assault weapon because it looks for cosmetic purposes, it looks scary to people who are not familiar with it. but the fact of the matter is, these are semiautomatic rifles, and this bill does nothing to deal with semi automatic handguns. i'm not advocating that it

should. i'm just pointing out that it is not going to achieve the goals that the sponsors, the sponsors believe it will. and i believe one of the biggest problems we have in the country is the lack of enforcement by the department of justice of current laws. i mean, we all support keeping straw purchasers i'm buying weapons, ma and directing them to people who can't legally own them or possess them. we all believe that mental health to be a focus of our efforts year, and this bill does nothing to do with that. and we'll wonder why this department of justice won't prosecute people who lie on background checks. well, i think it does because they don't deem them sufficient priority to do so. but i guess we ought to ask the question, why, ma what is it that we might be able to do to

address the non-enforcement of current laws as opposed to passing new laws? of course congress shouldn't, president clinton tried a so-called assault weapons ban 19 years ago, and we have the benefit of hindsight, as well as some research to examine the lackluster results of the decade-long experiment. according to the department of justice's own study, it was completely ineffectual in reducing murder or of violent crime rates. now, some have talked about this 1997 study funded by the justice department, and claimed that it reduced gun murders by 6.7%. of the problem with the claim is the study reveals how weak the evidence really was. the authors said in the next senate -- sense, the evidence is not strong enough force to conclude there was any meaningful effect.

i.e., that the effect was different from zero. so are we really going to pass another law that will not, that will have zero effect and pat ourselves on the back and say, we've accomplished something wonderful? we tried this experiment once and failed, and i think it promotes symbolism over seriousness to repeat that mistake. a real concern of mine is that the effort to enact this gun boehner is distracting congress from working on areas that i believe there is a broad consensus, and keeping to ranged "mad men" from buying guns. there was a common thread in the virginia tech, tucson and a roar and newtown massacres of the mental illness of the shooter that still does nothing to do with it. the, now is not the type of guns and use. sunniest pistols.

some used rifles and a lease to shotguns were found at the scene of these crimes. the common thread was mental illness. no one wants to disturb young men or women for that matter to access to firearms. unfortunately, this legislation focuses not on the perilous intersection of mental illness and guns, but on cosmetic features of certain firearms. we should refocus our effort to make sure the current background check system works the screen of the dangerously mentally ill, mentally ill. i'm encouraged that some, including senator graham, have proposed legislation suggesting methods to patch the holes in the background check system that enabled the mentally ill to buy guns. that's the type of legislation that would bring a consensus. it would be a real solution to a real problem. but sadly, we seem to be focused on window dressing and risk putting symbolism over

substance. thank you. >> is their present discussion? >> mr. chairman? >> senator? >> hello? >> senator graham. >> i apologize for being late. we are having a hearing and it's been very informative in the armed services. to my colleagues, there seems to be some bipartisanship emerging on certain aspects of the problem. senator flake, prior, we've come together to try to fix a problem. i think everyone agrees needs be fixed if there was a young leahy who was a paranoid schizophrenic, clearly mentally unstable, tragic figure in many ways. and 2005 in south carolina, she was indicted, arrested, indicted for threatening the life of the president of united states and members of congress. very disturbed young leahy. she pled guilty, not guilty by

reason of insanity. a federal court ordered her into treatment. she went to a pretty laborious process, found incompetent to stand trial. rendered a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity. court-ordered mental health treatment in a confined environment. she was eventually released. she went to south carolina in favor of this year and was able to buy a gun. she passed a background check. the system did not record the fact that she'd been adjudicated mentally incompetent and dangerous to herself and others. she bought a .22 caliber pistol, a semiautomatic pistol. went to ashley hall private school, went into the administrators office, pulled a gun out and it did not fire. thank god. she's been arrested and she needs a lot of help.

but there's an effort in a bipartisan way to make sure that adjudications like i get into the background system. there are over 14,000 i've been told that adjudications south carolina of people of danger to themselves and others through court process that are not entered into the federal system. and my state is trying to fix that problem, and i hope they're successful in south carolina, entering these cases into the federal background check system. and there's some things senator schumer is doing, and many others, that may bear fruit, so keep trying. but as to the assault bank and i know that senator feinstein has been consistent. she's sincere, and she has the courage or conviction, and what more could you ask? that is a compliment to her. my belief is that the solution being proposed has constitutional problems and doesn't really solve the problem. 2.5% of the murders committed in

2011 involved rifles. more people killed with bare hands and that. the assault weapon is, when it's misused, is a tragedy. win any kind is misused. i think a lot of us agree that mentally unstable people, felons, should have any guns with any bullet. and sometimes a law-abiding citizen, at least might be, may need more than 10 bullets given what they may face in the real world as it is. so my objections are that this doesn't really fix the problem, and that it didn't work before, it won't work now. but since then there's been a supreme court case called the heller case, has a three-part test. second amendment protection of individual rights possess a firearm for traditional, lawful purposes such as self-defense. into my colleagues, ice president by become a dear friend of all of us, as this belief that a double-barreled shotgun is the best way to defend one's self if there's a

lawless environment and mobs come to your house. he told his wife come if ever problem, though out in the backyard and fire to blast. well, that's not an unreasonable thing, but once you shoot twice you have any more bullets so you could take some shells with you in case they don't run away. my belief is in an environment where the law and order has broken down due to hurricane, natural disasters, earthquake, cyber attack, if the dam is broken and chemicals have been released into the air and law enforcement is unable to respond and people take offense at that lawless environment, i have an ar-15. i'm not going to do anything illegally with it, but i believe that it is a better defense weapon in that environment and a double barreled shotgun. because it has more than two bullets, it's an intimidating looking weapon. and it is probably better

protected -- but that's just my opinion. you can certainly disagree. i just think what i'm saying makes sense at least in my mind, is not irrational. at the time there over 4 million ar-15's in circulation that i happen to have one of them. i would say that's common use. dangerous and unusual, absolutely, and ar-15 this use is dangerous almost like any other gun. but i would not say it's an unusual weapon. since so many people have decided to buy the weapon. so i will be voting against the legislation. i didn't think it worked before, i don't think it will work now. i think it misses the mark about the real problem is, and after heller, i really don't the constitutionality and i'm very disappointed our attorney general couldn't render an opinion on the. so thank you, mr. chairman, for allowing me to speak. >> thank you. senator grassley is returning in

just another minute, and we are going to -- he has an amendment following procedure, the amendment here, we will yield at that time to senator grassley so he can bring it has meant. but senator coons, you wish to say something first. >> while we're waiting for the return of senator grassley, if i might add a few comments. mr. chairman, i'm grateful for your leadership, and to the members of this committee, for the conversation. i was encouraged by comments i heard earlier in the discussion about s. 54, that led me to believe there was some promise or hope for bipartisanship and more strong enforcing the laws we got on the books, and coming together around the issue of stopping and it's my hope that as these bills are not just taken up by this commitment as s been moved to the floor that we will not stop listening to each other and trying to find ways to

focus and to improve them. i've gotten a great deal of input from a home state of delaware on the issues of the built in front of us today. it's been passion and it's been diverse. as senator cornyn has mentioned, there are clearly difference of cultures and regions of those have grown up with and are comfortable with hunting and with fire on, whether it's for self-defense or for sporting activities, and those who were not. i've got very strong input from lifelong friends, leaders and law enforcement, from pediatricians, from neighbors and from family pic and i'll together a lot of misconceptions about what these bills do for a number of law enforcement leaders in my community expressed strong opposition to the bill, based on the mistaken impression that it did not have an exception for law enforcement of worker in part retired. but it does. i think that's an important provision of the bill. i've heard directly from our vice president, from my governor from senator feinstein. so i respect you for commitment to doing everything we possibly

can to reduce the availability of weapons that can be used to kill and to wear. i think we have a number of important pieces of legislation here that will strengthen background checks will fight gun trafficking. and i think this is just one more in what needs to be a broad and searching effort to find the right balance and find the right solution. and so, although i think none of these bills is perfect, all of them deserve some further consideration but we cannot let the perfect the enemy of the good and as someone who is known parents of lost children, neighbors of lost family members to gun violence, i intend to vote for this bill and this committee today. thank you. >> the comment was made about support for new tech, and i would like to put a number of testimonials that of cunning indicating support for new 10. i'd also like to put in a statement from united states attorney that testified that in

the 2004 follow-up report to the national institute of justice, concluded that the use in crimes of assault weapons subject to the 94 ban declined by more than two-thirds in the first nine years the ban was in effect. and also a statement from professor tribe -- if i may speak without objection. if senator lee could hold just a moment and less you want to yield. >> i yield. >> and i would also note for scheduling purposes, you might, there is a classified matter that is going to require senator grassley and i and a couple other members of the senate to

be at, as a result we will recess at 11:45 a.m. subject to the call of the chair. may bring us back today or tomorrow, we will see, but just so, you know,. >> thank you, mr. chairman. just wanted to make a brief statement about concerns i had about this legislation. all of us are devastated by the recent acts of violence, particularly mass violence and everyone of us would choose if we could define any way we can to reduce incidents of violence like this. i am concerned about this for a couple of reasons. number one, i worried about giving the american people the false impression that we can fix this problem through federal legislation. especially in light of our experience with passed similar measures have proven unsuccessful in bringing an end to this type of violence or even bring about any significant no different, reduction any.

secondly, even more important, what we have to remember the interest of the law-abiding. there are some people in this country that are probably not going to comply with a lot of laws now matter what they say. there's another group of people in this country that will typically abide by the law, regardless of what the law says. fortunately, we in america are surrounded by people, the majority of them into the latter category but it's those people that i think we need to look out for from time to time. in light of the people, the supreme court has established a standard and heller case pursuant to which it said that people have second in the right to possess a firearm that is typically possessed by law-abiding people for lawful purposes. there are as i understand it 4 million ar-15's in this country. there are even more other weapons that would likewise fall into a been like this one. to my knowledge, the

overwhelming majority of those weapons are possessed by law-abiding people, and they are used for law-abiding purposes, hunting, target practice, self-defense and the like. i've yet to be convinced that proponents of this legislation have met their heavy burden -- heavy burden of establishing this long do more harm than good in any good that it might do would offset these interests of these law-abiding citizens. so for these reasons i can't support this legislation. >> thank you. i know that senator grassley -- [inaudible]. before we have to break. do you have an amendment? >> i do. it's alb -- requiring they turn joseph smith and and report to congress detailing a number of statistics regarding the department's prosecution of violations of federal firearm law. the admin that would require the

attorney general to provide information related to cases presented to the department from prosecution, federal, state and local, for violation of gun laws. it also requires information on cases where the department failed to file charges based upon these referrals. it requires information why cases were not charged, whether indictments are pending, whether plea agreements were entered, whether the defendant pled guilty or was found guilty, and what other charges were brought along with the prior, with the firearms laws. this report is necessary. someone to emphasize, necessary given the concerns we heard at all three hearings about the lack of prosecutions under the current laws. example, it was discussed at the subcommittee hearing how over 76,000 individuals were denied firearms under background

checks, and yet only 62 were prosecuted. this argument, the argument we heard from the department was that nearly impossible to prosecute these individuals because penalties are too low and violations too hard to prove. i think this is too simple of an argument, but understand some of the concerns. however, even if we do best any of the bills on the markup agenda today and they become law, we need to ensure that they are enforced. and if we do not acting detailed information about how the department enforces or fails to enforce, we won't know if new legislation works. so this is a necessary step to ensure that changes in federal laws have the desired impact. now understand that justice department strongly opposes. their concern is that it intrudes into prosecutorial decision-making. they also argue unnecessary

burdens of them with reports that detract from prosecution -- prosecuting criminals. these are arguments that we hear all the time from the department, and many other agencies that don't want congress overseeing it. and, of course, i don't buy it, and members shouldn't simply take their word for it. reports like this would be necessary if the department answered our letters and responded to our questions about oversight, and particularly if they did at hearings. just as an example, senator whitehouse and i pointed out to the attorney general yesterday that we still await answers to questions from the last oversight hearing we had with the attorney general in june last year. with a response time like that, we may never know how the department works. an annual report would require the department to provide this data regularly, and likely

faster than if we ask the attorney general himself to sleep urge my colleagues to support this amendment so we can collect data, we need to ensure the department prosecutes the laws on the books and i would like a roll call vote at least. >> thank you, mr. chairman. this amendment is a big, broad amendment. it seeks to determine whether a decision has been made to charge an individual with a firearms violation. in cases where no charge is made, a description of will and a -- of why no charge is that the whether an indictment, or other charges been brought against any person, whether in any case his charge, whether a firearms violations is alleged. whether in any case where a firearms violation is alleged, a plea agreement has been entered into, and whether any plea agreement resulted in a firearms conviction. and also includes in any case where there is no firearms

conviction resulted, identification of the charges for which the individual did plead guilty. and the result of any trial on an alleged firearms violation, and in any case not alleging a violation of fire arm law, the nature of the other charges brought and the result of any trial. now, having said that, i think the colonel of this is a good thing. and i think we should if we can get to the colonel of it and get that established. there are lots of the violation. some 70,000. and it's an overwhelming task. i do offer, senator, and you know, i think my word, i hope my word means something to work with you and try to work down to that kernel so we get something that is doable. senator graham had this discussion. i understand the point. i think we should have something. this is huge and broad and i think that's why justice --

>> the senate has asked for a roll call vote. senator durbin? >> i would just like to say a word of support to send a fine center in the southern district of illinois, based in a madison, sinclair county area. the u.s. attorneys faced with a situation which is troubling. my hometown where i was born, east st. louis, illinois, has the violent crime rate in murder rate come 18 times the national average. 18 times the national average. the carnage that goes on in that small town within this use of firearms is incredible. and they're doing everything they can to deal with it. because of budget cutbacks that we have imposed in congress has now reached the point where it cannot fill vacancies when u.s. attorneys retire or resign. what they have done in to solicit by advertisement those are willing to volunteer without any pages serve as an assistant

u.s. attorney in the southern district of illinois. some are coming for to do it. it's an indication of the workload they face a desperate this bridge their into try to take control of what is a violent, terrible thing menacing a lot of innocent people. senator grassley, this is an incredible amount of paperwork you're asking for. for every possible case that is reported to them by federal, state and local sources, they are required to fill a luminous, filed voluminous paperwork and the sponsor your amendment. instead of pursuing the criminals and those who are responsible for wrongdoing, they we find forms with the department of justice. i think we know what the problem is. this is a paperwork offense under the current law. we want to make it a serious offense and that's why some of the changes were considering today will make that difference, i really think that senator feinstein is right. let's get to the root of the problem, regular reporting but please don't impose this kind of paperwork requirement on many

offices that are struggling to survive spent i disagree with you. there such a big gap between prosecution and violation of the laws, we've got to know why these are not being prosecuted. and if they don't prosecute them, they ought to be telling us why they don't prosecute them. and i think this report answers the those questions and will help fill the gap. about that we will get more prosecutions. >> mr. chairman? >> the clerk will call -- i don't want to cut anybody off. we know we are going to be recessing spent i will put on the record later. >> would like to get this bill finished it this morning before we do. does the senator wish -- >> is on the record later. we don't have enough time. >> clerk will call the roll. [roll call]

>> [roll call] >> then the amendment fails. >> senator feinstein does work well with me and other people on the committee, and i hope we can work out something to a call to some of the goals i want to publish. this is my last amendment. do we have -- you have an amendment?

i'll go through my very fast. i hope we can both vote on this bill today and get this behind us. this is amendment alb 13193, requiring the director of nij to conduct a study to examine the impact of violent adult themed video games may have on massachusetts. this amendment is not about blaming an industry for the horrific acts of mass shooters. it's dashing it simply examines the role that violent games may play in recent mass shootings. according to media reports, the perpetrators of mass shooting in a roar, newtown were both avid players of violent videogames. the norway mess shooter who killed 77 went so far as to describe in his manifesto have utilize a few games to train for his attack. this is troubling giving the number of these games that are sold annually in the united

states and around the world. our videogame called, when videogame called, call of duty modern warfare 2. included opening level where the player of the game serves as an undercover operative. in his role, the player guides the player as part of a terror attack at a russian airport. the player takes part as a teen shooter, gun -- guns down innocent civilians waiting at an airport. well, my amendment is a healthy 13141. -- alb 131 for win. i ask consent to place these pictures and the record that we have a. i'm going to put the rest of the state in the record. i think everybody knows what i'm talking about. and i know that senator coons

has an amendment, to my amendment or some sort of amendment to i ask you to support his and in as well senator coons? >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'd like to offer a second degree amendment. i believe what we're discussing here is actually alb 13141, calling for a specific focus on violence against. my second degree amendment focuses on the fact that i believe there's a very wide range of possible causes of mass casualty incidents. i want to specifically commend my second degree amendment as has been circulated so he specifically says depictions of violence in the videogame, media and entertainment industry. so it's clear that i recognized the desirability of considering violent video games. but the enemy, the second degree that i'm offering, lives a full series of factors for this nij study. pakistan for childhood to the

child abuse, the bowling to mental illness which has been signed by a number of my colleagues and development of mental health services and many others. i will not take the time to go through them all spea speed up y understanding is the senator from iowa except your second degree, is that correct? >> yes. >> then without objection the senator from iowa's amendment is amended with the amendment of the senator from delaware. the ayes appear to have it. child abuse, the bullying to the ayes do have. either further amendments? >> senator cornyn i think has the last. >> senator cornyn spent actual i have several of amendments but i wanted to draw my close attention to senator feinstein's the exception in her legislation for certain classes of americans, namely retired law enforcement officers. i think any exception to the ban

is remarkable concession by the authors and cosponsors of the bill. that's because cosponsors have long declared that so-called assault weapons are purely -- [inaudible] as in design for killing. hence the name of assault weapon. but, in fact, i believe this exception concedes that there are at least some americans are should be allowed to possess these weapons for purposes of defending themselves, their families and their communities. so i would ask my colleagues, why should this exception be limited only to retired law enforcement officers? is a because we believe have some special competency in training to use these weapons to defend themselves and others? or is it because we think they and their families are worthy of special protection? i want to be clear. i think every law-abiding american has the right to choose how best to defend themselves and their families. that's what i strong oppose this

legislation. i wholeheartedly agree with the authors and the sponsors of this legislation that weapons this bill can and are used lawfully or self and family defense. for the purpose of the amendments, and i have a number of them, is to highlight the dangers of a blanket ban and industry why we shouldn't be that law abiding citizens from holding self-defense weapons. if you don't believe that the guns banned by this bill can be used lawfully for self-defense, then you should be offering an amendment to strike the exception for retired law enforcement. but, of course, i don't expect that. spink does the senator have an amendments? >> i would like to call it my amendment, i think it is one of 3115. >> 13115 is before us spent this amendment would allow members of the armed forces, veterans, to obtain and possess the self-defense weapons prohibited by this legislation. members and veterans of the

armed forces are the most highly trained and qualified individuals to own these weapons for self-defense purposes. we should think long and hard before disarming these heroes. >> thank you. senator feinstein? >> if i understand this, this adds an extension of retired military. as i understand our bill, no issue has arose in this regard during the 10 years the expired ban was in effect, and what we did in the other bill was exempt position by the united states or a department or agency of the united states. so that included active

military. the problem with expanding this is that, you know, with the advent of ptsd, which i think is a new phenomenon as a part of the iraq war, it's not clear how the seller or transfer of a firearm covered by this bill would verify that an individual was a member or veteran, and that there was no in payment of the individual with respect to having a weapon like this. -- impairment. so i would be happy to sit down with you again and see if we can work something out, but i think we have, if you going to do this, find a way that veterans who are incapacitated, for one

reason or another, mentally, don't have access to this kind of weapon. >> i would suggest this may be one that should be worked on before this comes to the floor. the senator from california knows that some problems with the overall legislation, but i'm going to vote for it to get the matter out on the floor so it's not just those of us in this room will get a chance to talk about it or act on it. but the whole senate, all 100 of us. so on the amendment, the clerk will call the roll. >> couldn't i just respond bravely? ptsd sufferers are already prohibited by law. and i think it's a mistake to paint so broadly as to say any active duty military or veterans can't use these kinds of weapons or any other lawful weapons for self-defense.

certainly i would want to suggest that we think people have served in the military all suffer from some debilitating illness that would prohibit them from being able to -- >> that suggestion has not been made by anybody on either side of the aisle. the clerk will call the roll. [roll call] >> [roll call] >> the amendment fails.

mr. grassley? >> can ask, is it going to be possible to get this done before the chairman and i go for a briefing? spent i don't believe so. i do know about your schedule but i have a number of other amendments that are be happy to take -- >> in that case, we will, we're not going to be able to finish by the time because of, unfortunately, neither senator grassley nor senator feinstein or i are able to talk about the nature of this. we will, we will recess subject to the call of the chair. and we will get this bill completed. i appreciate the honesty. we stand in recess subject to the call of the chair. [inaudible conversations]

>> [inaudible conversations] >> the u.s. senate is about to gavel in. senators will spend the morning on general speeches. this afternoon, they will turn to continue to government funding past march 27.

the federal government is operating under spending authority that runs out at the end of this month. live coverage now of the senate here on c-span2. the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. the chaplain, dr. barry black, will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. eternal god, we place our hopes in you, for our future is in your hands. strong deliverer, be our shelter in these challenging times.

lord, give our lawmakers the understanding, humility, and clarity they need to keep america strong. may they be good stewards of the generous gifts you have showered upon our land, laboring valiantly to assure that justice and righteousness will prevail. help them to commit their plans to you, believing that you know what is best for our nation and world. we pray in your gracious name. amen. the presiding officer: please join me in reciting

the pledge of allegiance to our flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the presiding officer: the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington d.c., march 12, 2013. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable william cowan, a senator from the commonwealth of massachusetts, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: patrick j. leahy, president pro tempore. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: following leader remarked senate will be in morning business until 12:30 today. the majority will control the first 30 minutes; republicans the second 30 minutes. chairman mikulski and ranking member shelby are expected to make opening statements at 11:00

this morning. just as an aside, mr. president, this is a new day in the senate. we're so grateful for the hard work of mikulski and shelby. the amendment that's offered is their amendment, their substitute amendment. and i'm very proud of the work that they did. we're going to have to work through a number of amendments, but when it's all over with, we're going to send a bill that i hope the house will accept. if not, we'll have a quick conference. i hope that's not necessary. and continue the work on our other appropriations bills and finish the problems we've had in being behind now. the c.r. will fund the government until october 1, and then we would hope by then we could complete work on our appropriations bills, in 2014 we won't have to go all this again. we'll recess from 12:30 to 2:15 today for weekly caucus

meetings. we've extended that an extra 15 minutes because the president will be here today. we expect to be in consideration of h.r. 933, which is the appropriations bill i just talked about. following the caucus meetings, we're going to have. mr. president, earlier this year, the november's elections losses fresh on their minds, top republicans promised a kinder, gentler republican party, a republican party that cared about every american achieving their dreams. that was a quote. convince -- republicans made overtures toward women and hispanics. house majority leader cantor spoke of -- quote -- "an agenda based on a shared vision of creating conditions for health, happiness and prosperity for more americans and their family." close quote. rebranding we thought was underway. then a few weeks passed and the

republicans emphasis on fairness equity made a direct u-turn, back to where they started. today the house budget committee chairman paul ryan will unveil an extreme budget that's anything but balanced. this budget reflects the same skewed priorities the republican party has championed for years, the same skewed priorities americans rejected in november. the ryan republican budget will call for more tax breaks for the wealthy and an end to medicare as we know it and draconian cuts to education and other programs to help america's economy grow and prosper. we've heard it many times, and i'll repeat it, yogi bera famously said this. it's deja vu all over again, mr. president, and it really is, mr. president. we've seen this before, deja vu all over again. the ryan budget will shower more tax breaks on millionaires and raise taxes for the middle

class. i know congressman ryan has held to be out this guru who understands things so well. what he understands is gimmickry, and that's what he's done so well. he's pulled the wool over the eyes of those people in the house, and they continue following him. but, mr. president, his budget is anything but balanced, anything but fair. and members of the house should look at what they're being led into or out of. this plan, just like last year, refuses to close a single tax loophole in order to reduce the deficit. yet it gets investments in education -- guts investments in education, waverly -- and waverly. the ryan budget would force seniors into a voucher program. it would ax preventive health care and charge seniors more for prescriptions and reduce funding for food inspectors, police and first responders generally.

and if protecting special interests isn't bad enough the republican budget devastates the economy. not only is this the wrong approach, it's the same old approach. to make matters worse, the paul ryan budget uses the same fuzzy math and gimmickry as the previous two budgets. it relies on accounting that is creative at best and fraudulent worst. we believe it's critical that we stabilize the deficit. but it will take more than accounting gimmicks to achieve real deficit reduction. at a time when corporations are making record profits, the stock market is soaring and wealthy americans' income continues to rise, the deficit reduction should not be at the expense of middle-families, seniors and the poor. all americans have demanded a fair approach.

they want a fair approach to deficit reduction that makes sensible cuts and asks corporations and wealthiest among us to share the burden. balance. we've been listening, mr. president, that's why budget chair patty murray will introduce a budget that reflects those balanced priorities. her plan, the democratic plan, will cut wasteful spending and reduce the deficit, close tax loopholes that benefit the rich and will go really hard to continue to build, to grow. it will encourage a strong middle class. congressman ryan and his republican colleagues in congress have taken a different approach, an approach that makes it plain they missed the message in the november elections. their budget will once again put money of the special interests ahead of middle-class families.

mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: as we know, premised this year's legal deadline to submit a budget to congress, just like he has nearly every year of his presidency. but this year it's even worse. we now know he doesn't even plan to submit a budget until after the house and senate have already acted to pass one. this never happened in more than 90 years that have gone by since the modern budgeting process was established in the 1920's. somehow presidents manage to submit budgets on time in the middle of world war ii, during the great depression. but somehow not today.

there is simply no excuse. rather than helping lead congress toward a reasonable outcome, it appears the president is happy to drop a bomb on the congressional budget process instead by releasing his budget plan after -- after -- the house and senate have already acted. now presumably this is so he can campaign against republicans if the process fails, as he no doubt hopes. let's hope he doesn't trot out that tired political play book again. the president should send over his budget now. not next week or next month, but today. so both sides can consider it at a time when it might be helpful rather than destructive to the entire process. and speaking of serious delays, for four years my constituents in kentucky and americans across the country have been asking senate democrats a simple

question: where's the budget? where's the budget? most families put one together. they want to know what democrats who run the senate have planned. but for four years senate democrats have ignored these concerns. year after year they have neglected one of the most important legislative responsibilities. but evidently that's about to change. senate democrats are now pledging to finally -- finally -- produce a budget. it will be interesting to see what they put forward. i hope senate democrats take this exercise seriously and propose real spending reforms that can put our country on a stronger more sustainable fiscal path, reforms that can control spending and lead to robust private-sector growth and job creation. we'll find out soon. what about republicans? well, republicans lead the house, and they produce budgets every year right on schedule,

budgets that would finally put our country on a path to growth and job creation. it would put our creeky entitlement programs on sound fiscal footing. so they're around when people need them. today house republicans will unveil this year's budget blueprint. if the past is any indication, the reforms it contains would jump-start our economy, help more americans join the middle class and begin to tackle the debt that threatens all of our futures. because republicans understand we need to grow the economy, not grow the government. what's more, it would get us back to a balanced budget within just a few short years. call me a skeptic, but there is little chance the budget my senate democratic friends put forward will balance either today, ten years from today or ever. and i doubt it will contain much in the way of spending reform either. we'll probably just get more of what we've come to expect from them the past few years: lots of budget gimmickry, lots of

wasteful spending and even more tax hikes. that type of budget won't grow the economy, nor will it shrink the debt. but here's the thing. the budgeting process is a great way for both parties to outline their priorities for the country, and that's something senate democrats have refused to do until now. so if they want to put forward a budget that allows medicare to go bankrupt, that hikes up taxes on families and small businesses that can least afford them and that proposes a future of massive deficits without end, if that's really how they wanted to find themselves for the american people, then let the battle of ideas begin. but we need to see their budget first, so it's time to end the years of delays and put those ideas out there on the table. and it's well past time for the president to do the same. not after congress acts, but before. republicans have managed to play by the rules every year and

produce serious budgets for our country. i hope democrats are finally ready to get to work to do the same. mr. president, i yield the floor the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. under the previous order, the senate will be in a period of morning business until 12:30 p.m. with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each, with the time equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees, with the majority controlling the first 30 minutes and the republicans controlling the second 30 minutes. the clerk will call the roll. the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: i ask you please suspend the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: mr. president, i understand we're in morning business and the democrats have the first half. is that correct? the presiding officer: the senator is correct. mr. durbin: mr. president, let me say that this is an historic

week because we will see presentations of the congressional budgets. and i believe we'll see some sharp contrast. congressman paul ryan, from nearby wisconsin, my home state of illinois, is going to prepare and present to the republicans in the house of representatives a budget which he says will bring our overall federal budget into balance over ten years. it is a daunting task, and i commend him for his effort. but i also have to say that we've been there before. we've heard this budget before. we know what it contains. there are several elements in the ryan budget, as he's aons nod -- or at least have some announced in advance, which repeat the mistakes of his earlier budgets, and some of them are grievous. we need thawe understand that wd entitlement reforms that make sure that programs like medicare, medicaid, and social security continue for years to come and we understand there

will be some hard choices with those efforts to make those programs more solvent. but the ryan approach continues to be something called premium support. what it boils down to it this: in the outer years, congressman ryan and the house republicans want to offer to seniors across america less money to pay for their medicare insurance. they want to privatize the medicare insurance system. we are dedicated on our side of the aisle -- bodge in th both ie and the senate -- to some basic principles. one is to make sure that men and women from working families have a fighting chance, to make sure the tax code is responsive to their needs, to make sure that the programs that they count on will be there when they need them. most american workers in states like massachusetts and illinois every hour of every day pay into our social security and medicare system with the brief that when the time comes for -- with the

belief that when the time comes for retirement, social security and medicare will be there. unfortunately, what congressman ryan is proposing is to really break that promise. to say to seniors across america, you can pay in for a lifetime but when the time colls and you really need medicare, when you really need health insurance and you're retired, you may not be able to afford t you can't come up with enough known pay the premiums. what good is a medicare system you've paid into for a lifetime if it can't provide you the basic protection you need in retirement? oh, you can balance the books, but at the cost of coverage, at the cost of the medicare promise that's been made for generations? therein lies the real crux of the difference between democrats and republicans when we look at these entitlement programs. we know reform is necessary, but reform should be based on best medical practices, on reducing the obvious waste in the medicaid program, and not on

penalizing seniors on fixed income who can't afford increasingly high medicare premiums. that's the paul ryan approach. privatizing medicare. it's not a good approach for america. that's a real difference. and, of course, there is in dedication on the part of congressman ryan to reduce the tax rates for the wealt wealthit people in america. those rates, after the fiscal cliff negotiation, goe go as his 39% on the highest income. paul ryan's budget wants to bring them down to 25%, a dramatic decline in the income tax rate for the wealthiest americans. how will he achieve this? he says he'll achieve it by changing the tax code to bring the rate down to 25%. mr. president, i've set through these negotiations in the simpson-bowles commission and other places, and i will tell you shall the math does not work. if you are going to try to bring down income tax rates for the wealthiest 25%, sadly, you are

going to eliminate the most basic income tax deductions for working families and middle-income families across america. that's the reality. you cannot reach that number otherwise. so we have to look at this. if the paul ryan budget means the wealthiest americans get a tax cut while working families see a tax increase, if the paul ryan budget means that medicare will be fiscally solvent but unaffordable for most working americans, this is a budget we need to reject out of hand. we'll see that budget in its entirety today. and impi tomorro by tomorrow thc alternative here in the senate, which has been worked on and prepared by senator patty murray of washington and her colleagues in the senate budget committee, will be presented as well. and it will be a stark contrast. but senator murray and the senate budget committee will -- what senator murray and the

senate budget committee will produce is a balanced approach which says yes, deficit reduction but the rye way. we -- but the right way. we need to make sure we have revenues coming in from those who can afford it. we need spending cuts and we need entitlement reform that is thoughtful, sensitive, reform that rulely makes sure that's -- really makes sure that's programs are here for generations to come. i think that america will applaud the efforts on the senate side. i think they'll have many questions to ask on the house side. and the debate begins. those of us on the appropriations committee wait for this to be completed because the budget resolution is basically our blueprint for what we can achieve during the remainder of the year for the next budget year that starts october the 1st. let me say there are a couple things that are part of the budget process that i would like to address very quukly. -- very quickly. i am very concerned about the impact of sequestration on

health care. reporters back in illinois asked me over the weekend, so, what's the big deal? sequestration came and life didn't end. it seems like we're going on in a normal way. well, unfortunately, they overlooked some obviously impacts. community health centers are the front line for premayor health care -- for primary health care in america. i always leave them with a sense of hope and a positionive feeling fl the -- and a positive feeling. they are quality medical institutions. they serve people with limited insurance or no insurance and they serve them in the most professional way. i have said it with confidence that if i happen to get sick some day or someone in my family did, i would feel confident walking into these community health centers. they are that good. some 22 million people across america rely on them as the point of care for millions of

uninsured and low-income people, they provide preventive services that help avoid expensive procedures and emergency room visits. at a time when millions more americans are about to get health insurance, the across-the-board cuts are taking $115 million out of community health centers in year alone. flatlnationally, almost 900,000 patients will lose access. eerie family health center in chicago is one of the best. they will do their best to protect clinical care but the wrap-around services that make erie so effective will be reduced. now is not the time to cut community health center funding. we should expand these centers so low-income families get the care they need. regardless of where someone lives or where they go to see the doctor, the cut to the

national institutes of health threatens all of us. and that's what these cuts are going to do to medical research. cutting $1.6 billion from the national institutes of health. i've always said i'll take this issue to any corner of america, any group, liberal or conservative, young or old, and make my case that an investment in health care research is one of the most important investments our government makes. and when we shortchange medical research, we shortchange our future. great medical care is only as good as the science behind it. drugs and devices work only as well as our yo you understandinf the -- as we will as our understanding of the medical treatment. we lead the world and should be proud of it. we have the bright minds, the curious scientists shall th scie innovative labs. today countless people are engaged in work that lead to treatments forage right ice, alzheimer's, aids, diabetes, cancer, the list goes on.

biomedical research supported by the n.i.h. has established the united states as a leader in the world and we are right on the verge of making life-changing discoveries throughout this research. but sequestration, which is in our in place, will have a ripple effect that could curb medical discoveries and weaken economies across the country. the director of the n.i.h. says there's no question that sequestration will slow the development of a an cancer vacce and cancer research. "we're going to maim our innovatindication capabilities if you do these abrupt cuts at any any. it will impact science for generations to come." right now when so much good research is moving us forward, we should be doubling down on medical education, innovation and infrastructure. cutting back on biomedical research at n.i.h. is so

shortsighted. medical research saves lives, keeps america's place as a leader in science and it generates economic growth and frankly these cuts really shake the confidence of people in this field, trying to decide whether they should dedicate their lives to medical research with the uncertainty of sequestration is unfair. for over a century, n.i.h.-supported scientists have letted way for important -- have led the way for important breakthroughs. through the discovery of things like the m.r.i., extending life expectancy for people with cystic fibrosis, ref rulingsizing our -- revolutionizing our understanding of cancer. president obama has called congress leaders to come together to create an alternative to sequestration. a balanced mix of smarter spending cuts and revenue from closing loopholes that benefit higher-income individuals will mean that we can keep our

commitment to medical research. we're going to start the debate, mr. president, this week on the continuing resolution. one of the early amendments that's going to be offered by senator by senator harkin who chairs the health, education, labor, and pensionhelp.he is deo everything he can to give the senate the opportunity to continue to cut the deficit but do it in way that will not make dramatic negative cuts in medical research. i hope we can get a bipartisan consensus for this. diseases and the threats of ill health strike us all regardless of party affiliation. we could come together in a bipartisan basis to support increasing medical research and maintaining america's lead in the world. mr. president, i yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the republican whip. mr. cornyn: mr. president, i would ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be rescinded. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cornyn: mr. president, i want to start my remarks today by remembering a great texan who passed away just yesterday. sandy, my wife, and i are deeply saddened by the loss of b off the ravin, a respected leader and patriot and loving wife. bora rose through the ranks of the united states army achieving the rank of lieutenant colonel. a of pour than two decades of serving her nation in the army, she poured her energy and sense

of duty into helping our state. frequently offering frank advice only bora could do, she was a leader by example and a great friend. bora's low-incomec a's legacy wy ways including the young texans she helped me collect for service to our state's military academies. sandy joins me in sending our thoughts and prayers to bora's husband, their families and all those who bora touched throughout her journey in life. mr. president, on another note, i would like to mark this 1,413th day that the senate has not had a budget. we will be talking a lot about the budget this week, as we

should, in a debate that's been long overdue. since the budget and accounting act was passed in 1921, no president has missed the legal deadline for submitting a budget to congress. unfortunately, for the fourth time in five years, president obama will miss that deadline. given that our gross national debt did larger than our economy and given that we're facing more than $1 trillion in liabilities, you would think that the president would make this a priority and would feel a greater sense of urgency. in fact, not only will president obama be late with his budget this year, he won't even be submitting it to the house and the senate until after we've released our own budgets. so the president will not have any input whatsoever by submitting his budget, which he should have done on february 4.

he won't have any input whatsoever on the house's and senate's deliberations as we take up our proposed budgets. as i say, since the budget and accounting act was passed in 19 12eu, no u.s. president has ever done that. the white house has always gone first. in fact, the president is the leader of our nation, not only a commander in chief but also the with unthat the constitution looks to in the laws to bear the responsibility to make at least an initial budget proposal. the white house has always gone first providing a blueprint that helped guide negotiations here on capitol hill. but not under this president. the budget process is an opportunity for the president to outline his priorities. it is an opportunity for the president to tell the american people what we can afford and how we're going to pay for it. above all, it is an opportunity for the president to show real leadership on issues of national importance.

as admiral mike mullen, former chairman of the joint chiefs of staff said,ings the greatest are national security threat to the united states is our budget. what he incumbent by thato we're not going to believe rabel a ford even the safety net of the most vulnerable of our people nor are we going to be able-to-a ford the national security that helped keep america strong and america and its allies safe. but, unfortunately, the president has failed to demonstrate his required leadership in this area. he has also ignored the recommendations of his own bipartisan fiscal commission. he submitted two consecutive budget proposals that have failed to receive a single vote in this chamber. his administration has racked up $6 trillion in new debt since he became president, and he created a massive new entitlement funded

by a $1 trillion tax increase, something known as obamacare. now he's refusing to send us a budget until after the senate and the house vote on their own budget proposals. if the president really wants to play a constructive role in the budget process, he will send us his proposal right away. further delays will only complicate and hinder our negotiations. mr. president, i yield the floor and i'd suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

ms. ayotte: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new hampshire. ms. ayotte: thank you, mr. president. i rise today -- the presiding officer: the senate is in a quorum call. ms. ayotte: may the quorum call be vitiated. thank you. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. ms. ayotte: thank you. thank you, mr. president. i rise today to talk about an issue that i'm very, very concerned about, and that involves a man who was recently captured, and he was captured overseas. his name is suli man abugaith. he is osama bin laden's son-in-law. we have a picture of him right

here sitting next to osama bin laden. he appeared with osama bin laden right after september 11, the attacks on our country. again here he is right next to osama bin laden. he is osama bin laden's son-in-law, and he was captured overseas and brought here to the united states of america, and the attorney general has made the announcement that osama bin laden's son-in-law will be tried in new york city for a civilian trial rather than being brought to guantanamo bay for further interrogation and held in military custody. i am very concerned about this issue because who based on the relationship he had with osama bin laden, in 2001 and 2002, he

served as a spokesman for al qaeda. he urged others to swear alleyans to osama bin laden. in -- on september 12 of 2001, in fact, he appeared with osama bin laden and oman zawahiri and warned the united states that a great army is against you. he also promised more 9/11-style attacks. now, this is right after our country was attacked, on september 11 he appeared with osama bin laden warning of more 9/11 attacks. in fact, he said the storm shall not stop, especially the airplane's storm. in 2002, he reportedly arranged to be smuggled to iran where he

was held under some form of house arrest. and obviously we need to understand why the iranians were allowing such a prominent member of al qaeda to be kept in their country, and we have deep concerns about iran of course is the largest state sponsor of terrorism in the world and is threatening our country and is right now marching towards nuclear weapons capability. of course it threatened to annihilate israel and threatened our country. that is where he was under loose house arrest after his direct allegiance with osama bin laden. in addition, american authorities tied him to an october 8, 2002, attack on the united states marines training in an island off the coast of kuwait. and that was a situation where one of our marines was killed

and another was seriously injured. the attack was conducted by al qaeda fighters with direct ties to mr. abu-ghaith who is osama bin laden's son-in-law. kuwait actually stripped mr. abu-ghaith of his citizenship because of his rule in recruiting kuwaitis in becoming members of al qaeda. last week he pled guilty to charges in the federal court in new york city, and i am concerned because when we take a top member of al qaeda like osama bin laden's son-in-law, and we take him from capturing him overseas and bringing him to our courts in new york city, then all the full rights of our civilian court system apply to that individual, including the rights when you are in custody and are interrogated to hear your miranda rights.

my former role was as attorney general of the state of new hampshire. i have great respect for our civilian system. however, our civilian system was not designed to deal with situations where we are at war. and mr. a pw*u-ghaith falls -- mr. a pw*u-ghaith falls within the definition of an enemy belligerent. when we bring him to new york city, we have to mirandize him, tell him he has the right to remain silent, and we lose valuable opportunities to gather intelligence to protect our country, to find out if he was with osama bin laden, which we have pictures with him one day after the september 11 attacks, what does he know about al qaeda? who else was involved? what does he know about their network? the time that he spent in iran

communicating, was he still communicating with members of al qaeda? obviously he was because we have alleged he helped commit an attack in 2002 in kuwait which killed at least one marine. and what -- who was he communicating -- what future attacks were they planning? what associations has he made with other members of al qaeda? when we tell someone like that that they have the right to remain silent and we give them a lawyer, we lose opportunities to protect our country. and when we're at war, as we are with al qaeda, we need to focus on making sure that we know as much information as possible about al qaeda, who they are targeting, who are members of al qaeda. and obviously all of us supported the president's decision to take out osama bin laden, but what other members of his network? what information are we losing when we bring him to a civilian court system instead of bringing him where he belongs as an enemy

belligerent in guantanamo bay? it seems to me inconsistent that the administration would take the position -- and i support them on this, that they would kill top members of al qaeda overseas, yet they are so averse when they capture someone to bringing them to guantanamo bay that it is their preference to take them into a civilian court system in the united states of america to read miranda rights to that individual rather than take them where they belong, to guantanamo bay, which i have visited, which is a secure detention facility where people are treated with -- humanely, yet they are kept very securely, not on united states soil. and we can keep them in guantanamo bay under the law of war and interrogate the individual as long as we need to. let me remind everyone that the intelligence that we gathered, that allowed us to find and to

take out osama bin laden took a matter not just of months, but of years to gather. and so to take someone like abu ghaith and immediately after he's captured, very quickly bring him to new york city, we lose the opportunity to go back over a period of time to make sure we understand the full amount of information that he may have about al qaeda. and that is why we have a distinction under our law between the law of war and our civilian system. he is now a bank robber. he's not -- he is not an average criminal that should be treated the same way as any other crime in america. he is someone who has sworn to kill americans, has asked others to take the oath for al qaeda, who are at war with our country. and so i'm very worried about the fact that the administration

seems to be very bent on bringing these foreign terrorists to the united states to give them all of our rights of our civilian court system rather than focusing on making sure that we have all the intelligence we need to protect our country. i would like to also talk about an individual with inconsistency that we have here. this is anwar al-alwaki. anwar al-alwaki is someone who the administration, he was an american citizen. he was radicalized. he had both american and yemeni citizenship. he became an influential leader in al qaeda in the arraignan peninsula -- in the arabian peninsula. he has been linked to a dozen

terrorist operations in the united states, including links to the september 11 attacks against our country, links to the november 5, 2009 fort hood shooting, and the administration made the decision in september of 2011 to take out mr. al-alwaki overseas where he was in yemen, and i certainly support their decision in that regard. i want to point out how inconsistent it is that we're willing to use the drone program to take out someone like awlaki, yet we won't use all the tools in our toolbox to make sure that osama bin laden's son-in-law is fully held at guantanamo and is fully interrogated and give us the time we need to make sure that we gather the full information that he has. it's very inconsistent, and i think that the administration should be detaining enemy

belligerents in guantanamo and making sure they are interrogated. i want to make one final point, because i know that my time is coming up. cakhalid sheikh mohammed, the mastermind of 9/11, was to bring him to new york city for a civilian trial, close to ground zero, just like they're making the decision now with osama bin laden's son in lawful the public outrage over bringing khalid sheikh mohammed was so great to new york city, just the amount of security it would take to secure someone like that the concerns that he should be treated as an enemy of our country and tried in a military commission at guantanamo, and he was transferred there eventually by the administrationment, but only after great pressure from both sides of the aisle and dong

say, this is aappropriately where the mastermind of 9/11 belongs, in guantanamo before a military commission. i think we find ourselves in the same situation now with osama bin laden's son-in-law. there can be no doubt that he is a top member of al qaeda, that he had close relationships with osama bin laden, that he is charged with conspiring to kill americans. these are very serious charges, and there can be no doubt that he is -- falls within our authorization of use of military force, that he is an enemy of ow -- of our country, and that we should be treating him like we treated khalid sheikh mohammed and we need to prioritize intelligence gathering to prevent future attacks against our country, rather than focusing on bringing them immediately in our civilian court system because a man like

osama bin laden's son-in-law should never hear the words "you have the right to remain silent." we can't afford to have him being silent. we need to know everything he knows to protect our country, its citizens, and prevent future attacks on america and our allies. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. ms. mikulski: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. ms. mikulski: mr. president, parliamentary inquiry. has all time expired from the respective parties utilizing their morning business aloe cigs? the presiding officer: it has. cull dull, mr. president. mr. president, i'm -- ms. mikulski: thank you, mr. president. i'm rising to speak on the continuing resolution to keep government functioning for the rest of the year. i have six unanimous consent requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. they have the approval of both the majority and minority leaders and i ask unanimous

consent that these requests be agreed to and that these requests be printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. ms. mikulski: thank you very much, mr. president. i now rise for the reason i'm here. i chair the full committee of the appropriations committee. my very able and esteemed colleague, senator shell by, is the vic vice-chairman. we tomorrow the floor to -- we come to the moore to talk about our legislation, which is an amendment to the house c.r. to fund the federal government for the rest of the fiscal year. it continues the bipartisan tradition of the appropriations committee, working closely with both sides of the aisle, and i want to thank senator shelby for his excellent cooperation and his wise counsel in doing this and actually cosponsoring this. our leadership -- senators reid and mcconnell -- have really been critical to bringing this

-- allows this to come to the floor to be debated openly, to have appropriate amendments, and voted on by the full senate. in today's toxic environment in washington, i am i must say our conversations have been characterized by civility, collegiality, and absolute candor -- what can we do, what can we not do. not what we'd like to do but what we must do to g.i. kee to e government doors open. i want to comment on the excellent tone and conversation that we've had with the house. specifically, our house counterparts, congressman hal rogers, the chairman over in the house appropriations, and congresswoman lily. we've talked about each other, we've worked together and if we continue to do that in other -- there are not intervening dynamics, we can get this bill done.

now, mr. chairman, before i go into our bill to offer the content, i want everybody to understand there are three things a the play in -- at play in washington this week. we use arcane language so nobody knows what's going on. so there's the sequester, there's the continuing resolution, an and there's the budget committee. so everybody is going to get confused. everybody is getting it commingled. and all of it is getting press and the american people don't understand that there are three separate solutions to three separate problems. let me go to the budget committee which will be on the floor next week and which senator murray is a^seud with usually and persist at any timely working on her bill. that is for fiscal 2014. that is the framework on how we're going-to-a pproach our overall budget. what are we going to spend in what revenues we're going to have to raise, if any, and also

a review of mandatory speeching. that's going on over there. that's for fiscal 2014. what the mikulski-shelby continuing resolution is, which is really the appropriations bill -- not a personality bill -- that this will fund the government through 2013. the american people should say, didn't you do that in october? isn't our fiscal new year's eve october 1? well, not really, because what happened if we were going into the heat and passion and prickliness of an election year. it was the wise head to extend it where cooler heads would prevail into march. well, here we are. we're the cooler heads and we're ready to prevail. what we have here is the legislation. on march 27 -- and everybody needs to understand this -- on march 27, that continuing

resolution expires. if we do not pass our bill and then have an agreement between the house and the senate that is signed by the president, we could face a government showdown. now, there is no will on either side of this institution that wants to do that. we are absolutely committed to no shutdown, no showdown, no lockdown, no slamdown. we want to do the job. and that's why we've been working very carefully to do that. well, what we will offer here today is funding through the fiscal year, which will take us through october 1, which meets the mandatory cap assigned to us by the budget committee of $1.4

trillion. that's a lot of money. but it is a big government with big responsibility. it includes everything from defense, defending us there, to the border patrol, defending us here, to meeting compelling human need and making investments in science and technology while ensuring that we do it what we need to do. our legislation is quite simple and straightforward. it includes five appropriations bills. two are already in it from the house. defense, military construction, and veterans. it will also include agriculture, homeland security, and a subcommittee that senator shelby and i are chair and vice chair of that funds the entire justice department. that means f.b.i., federal law enforcement, science, and

commerce. so we have a., c.j.s., homeland security, and defense. military and military construction are identical to the house. agriculture, c.j.s. and homeland security are consistent with bipartisan and bicameral agreements negotiated last fall. we're reaching across the aisle. we're reaching across the dome. that's how we're trying to do it. however, there's several -- seven remaining bills in the continuing resolution, and they are energy and water -- that's money for, like, corps of engineers; interior and environment; financial services; transportation; labor-h.h.s., state-foreign opposes; and the legislative branch. some very limited changes to fix pressing problems. these are called anomalies.

the senate version totaled, $1.43 trillion, equal to the house c.r. so the top line is the same. it's how we achieve national goals. it is equal to the house continuing resolution. and it is the same as required by the budget control act. we are in absolute compliance with the budget control act. now, sequester mandates another $86 billion in cuts. that comes over what we do, and that solution is to be negotiated by the president and the leadership, with the concurrence of both bodies. that's part of the charm offensive that's going on. now -- okay? now, sequester needs a balanced solution, and we will be listening and waiting their ideas. -- and awaiting their ideas. but right now what we are looking for is our bills that include bipartisan amendments, minimize the problems of operating and return to 0

regular order for fiscal 2014. the amendment that we offer is much better than an extension of the current continuing resolution. that means, why don't you just take a date, you know, and just change 2012 to 2013. we do that because our bill makes reforms. we actually get more value for the dollar. if we just extended it, we would sometimes be spending money on unneeded programs. one of which would be, in our bill, c.j.s. $500 million for a space shuttle that doesn't exist. we want to change that and put it where it belongs in properly defending the nation and investing in science and technology. so so a date change in the continuing resolution is just not workable. the senate amendment improves the house c.r. by adding those three domestic bills, and as i said includes a number of

changes. i could go through eve and every one of those changes, like in agriculture -- and what i want to do is just explain the process now. i do want to explain the content of my bill. however, what i'd like to do is take a minute now and yield to senator shelby for his opening statement and then i'd like to be able to come back and explain the details of actual funding. but i must say we have again -- what i appreciated was not only the civility and the collegiality but the conder. we had to lock at not what we would like do and not even what we should do but what we must do to keep not ale when we say government on the, it is to achieve the national goals that america wants. our national security -- both those who wear the uniform of the united states military but others who defend the nation like border patrol, federal law

enforcement, local law enforcement at the local level, food safety and drug safety inspectors, to make sure we meet the compelling human need in the fields of, like, education, biomedical research. this ithis is what we're trying. weather satellites that predict, you know, future natural a disasters. so again we're not -- we don't have a bill here that's what we would like to do. but we have a bill that what we must do. and if we all work together, we ask those who have amendments to be working with our leadership, we believe that we can move this bill by the middle of this week. that by the week's end, the certainty of government funding will be established and we can show that we can govern. mr. president, i yield the floor so that my vice-chairman can say what he wishes to do to add to the debate. mr. shelby: mr. president? the presiding officer: the? er from alabama. mr. shelby: mr. president, first of all, this morning i'd

like to thank chairwoman mikulski for her willingness to work together in good faith and to introduce the bill that keeps the government running for the rest of the fiscal year. the chair and i have had what i would characterize as a long and productive working relationship. i think this bill, mr. president, is a very clear signal that we intend to continue that relationship for the good of the legislative process here and the american people. mr. president, i believe congress must learn to deal with the spending constraints that have become a necessary reality for all of us. much more work remains to be done to secure our fiscal future, including fixing entitlement programs and reforming our tax code. but today, however, we've taken the first step to show the american people that congress can come together on important

issues. my hope is that we will continue to do so. i'm pleased to say that chairwoman mikulski and i have accomplished three shared goals in this proposed legislation. first, this bill will prevent a government shutdown. nobody wants that in america. moving from one continuing resolution to the next only delays our problems and creates added uncertainty. i hope, mr. president, that we can return to the regular order of producing budgets and appropriations bills to avoid the threat of a shutdown in the future. second, mr. president, this bill will provide more flexibility for the remainder of the year so that government agencies can deal with the reality of the sequester which remains fully in place here. third, mr. president, i believe that this bill is a product that both parties in both houses can support.

it prioritizes spending and aims to steer clear of divisive issues. in addition, discretionary spending is subject to the caps put in place by the budget control act, and this bill complies with those levels. as noted, spending cuts made by the sequester will come on top of these constraints. i support moving forward with this bill and encourage my colleagues to join together to do the same. many americans have lost faith that republicans and democrats can work together on anything. i believe, mr. president, that this bill demonstrates that it's possible. and i hope it will pave the way for a more productive relationship in the future. and while we're sure to disagree on many things, i remain positive that we can restore regular order in the congress and deal with pressing fiscal matters in a timely bipartisan manner. i think i speak for both of us when i say that we're committed.

yes, we're committed to putting the budget and appropriations process back on track. we look forward to working with our colleagues who share that goals and are willing to join us in this effort. this is a new beginning here, mr. president. thank you. ms. mikulski: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. ms. mikulski: you can see our tone. and we need everybody's cooperation to really, if they have amendments, to bring them to us and also to the leadership that's helping us negotiate which ones will come up. and i think we can get this bill done this week, and we intend to. but i'd like to say why getting it done is worthwhile. i want to speak about agriculture. i'd like to speak about some of the content that we have and do it in alphabetical order, because it's easier for folks to follow.

in agriculture, our amendment really makes sure that we fund the food safety modernization act, which is not included in the house bill. what this does is the first major reform of food safety laws in 70 years. and it's much-needed. c.d.c. says 48 million americans suffer from foodborne illness each year. and as, you know, this morning before i came to the floor, i attended a hearing on the select committee on intelligence, mr. president, that i'm a member of. general james clapper, the head of the director of national intelligence along with key people from the military, civilian agencies, like f.b.i. director mueller gave us a 30-page report on threats to the united states. one of the things they talked about was the safety of our food supply. we immediate to make sure we have inspectors on the ground

for what might occur through bacteria or what might also be induced. so we need to know that food safety is a big issue. this amendment is also better in improving clean water to rural communities and provides 165 rural communities with clean water and waste disposal, creating construction jobs today and improving community health. i represent over 2,000 -- along with senator cardin -- 2,000 miles of the chesapeake bay. we have older communities. we have issues related to wastewater treatment that are not only polluting the bay, but are very difficult to repair because of the very nature of our population. wonderful, patriotic people who don't have a lot of cash to pay a lot of taxes for wastewater. but in helping them, we improve

public health, we save the chesapeake bay with all its seafood industry. that's just me. but we could go everywhere. on commerce, justice, science, that's a subcommittee i chair. boy, do i like it. why do i like it? it goes to everything we're talking about: about jobs, about justice, about jobs today and jobs tomorrow. when we look at our department of commerce, which should be the point place for american business, really promoting private-sector initiatives and, most of all, promoting exports. mr. chairman, not sending jobs overseas, but sending products and services. that's where the trade negotiation goes. this is where we are part of our economic vitality. this is where we have bipartisan agreement. let's engage in free and open and fair trade. that negotiation staff and so on is funded through our subcommittee. and also, though, when we send

jobs -- we don't want to send jobs overseas. we also want to protect our borders. that's going to be in homeland security. but in the justice department, this is where -- or in our justice funding, we fund federal law enforcement and provide funds to local communities on a competitive basis to put cops on the beat and to give them the appropriate -- the appropriate -- things they need to protect themselves. let's look at the -- okay. so let's look at the byrne grants, the main federal tool that helps state and local law enforcement. we provide more money. that means more money for body armor, more money for them to learn the latest tips and so on in stopping the gang threat. it also provides cops on the beat grant. both of those are modest -- modest -- increases over the house funding. when i say "modest," you know what i'm talking about?

for all the local law enforcement does, we're going to provide $15 million. that's not a lot of money by washington's terms. but to the local police departments, it will be a help. commerce-justice also supports innovation. it is in this subcommittee that we fund the national science foundation. $220 million more than the house means that we will be able to provide more help to 7,000 scientists and teachers making new discoveries for new products that will lead to new companies and new jobs. this is what we do. we're better than the house also in homeland security. this amendment does more to protect the nation from cyber warfare. cyber warfare is one of the greatest threats facing america. again, in this 30-page report that we've got on threats, the

first five pages -- okay -- the first five pages were devoted to just all of the cyber problems. what kind of cyber problems? cyber attacks, cyber espionage, and the growing nexus between organized crime and nation-states, presenting hacking, stealing our state skraets, -- secrets, our trade secrets and human trafficking in women, weapons of mass destruction, where you sell women and children as a commodity across the borders of the world through organized crime and corrupt government officials, you'll also sell other kinds of things, including weapons of mass destruction. this is where we need to fund. homeland security, the department of defense, the f.b.i., our contribution to

inter poll. all of that is in the bill, and we do better. we are frugal. again, not what we would like to do, but what we must do. also under homeland security, we make sure we look out to those things that put people in harm's way. in my own state and through others, there is the whole issue of fires. now, most fire departments in big cities are run by professionals. but in most rural communities, they're run by the great volunteer fire departments. we have a fire grant program that i helped start that trains and equips local firefighters. what we do here is that we provide more money -- $33 million above the house -- to help provide those grants. and we also provide additional funds to help state and local fire departments. in the area of compelling human

need, i want to talk about the subcommittee on education, labor, and human services. in this committee, what we do -- this is the subcommittee that funds compelling human need. and what do we do here? we look out for child-care development block grant help. we support care for 9,000 more children. and we also make sure we adequately fund head start and provide modest sums in there. and in addition to that, we also provide more money to the national institutes of health. $71 billion. now put that into context that they're going to take $1.5 billion hit in sequester. mr. president, i know you represent a great state. you represent hawaii. who wouldn't love hawaii? but i wish you'd look at maryland. you'd be crazy about maryland. not only do we have the

wonderful chesapeake bay, a super bowl championship, but we have other super bowl winners. they're called the national institutes of health, the national security agency, the national weather agency. just the other day when i was over at n.i.h., they told me, and told america through their communications, that n.i.h.'s work has resulted working with clinicians and the private life science sector, we have reduced cancer rates in the united states of america by 15%. 15% in breast cancer, prostate cancer, lung cancer. and it's all those wonderful researchers going on at the bethesda campus and in academic centers of excellence all over america. but instead of pinning medals on those people and encouraging

young people to come into science, we could end up giving them a pink slip. what are we doing? i'm going to not only lower cancer rates, but i'm going to improve and raise the discovery rate. this is what we do in the c.r. we are working with on a bipartisan basis. this is helping american people and giving us products that are approved by f.d.a., that we can sell and ship around the world, particularly to countries that could never do it. so i'm all about jobs, jobs today and jobs tomorrow. that's why what we do in transportation, housing and urban development is also a big step forward. in addition to looking out for the homeless, we provide also an additional amount of money, an additional amount of money for highway and road safety programs, where people actually working with funds going to governors at the local level --

not some shovel-ready gimmick -- but identify projects in the pipeline, we can generate jobs in construction. we can improve public safety by improved smart highways. and literally we can help get america rolling again. we have a fragile economy. so i could go on about this bill. what i want to say is this is a general outline, and i will talk more about it. i feel very passionately about it because we have squeezed every nickel. we've looked at it very assiduously to make sure we are well below -- i mean, that we are right within our mandated spending gap. but they assessed our national priorities. national security, compelling human needs, how we can help create jobs, look out for the middle class, and make those investments that improve the lives of the american people and generate jobs tomorrow. i think we have a very good bill. i ask everyone's cooperation to

get it passed. mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from virginia. mr. kaine: thank you, mr. president. i rise in support of the work that chairwoman mikulski and the appropriations committee have done, and the place they'll bring us to on the floor of the senate this week as we take an important step forward to fix the fy 2013 budget. i will be meeting tomorrow as many legislators do during the course of the year with my governor. all of the sr-pblg delegation will be sitting -- all the virginia delegation will be sitting down with governor mcdonnell and he and the state will consider this good news as we talk about this work product. i made my first speech on the floor about two weeks ago and it was a speech that was kind of a plea, a plea to avoid the economic self-inflicted wound of sequester. as all knows, we were not able to do that at the time. there were two bills and neither

of which were able to get sufficient votes to move forward. the nextgenive consequences from that sequester -- the negative consequences from that sequester have been felt in the commonwealth, whether it is repairs to ships, planned furloughs of d.o.d. civilian employees or the delay o in a carrier deployment. the good news is we can fix it and improve it and the appropriations committee's work discussed today is a way to begin to do that. we have a chance to get it right and to reduce the negative effects of sequester by dealing effectively with the expiring c.r. for fiscal year 2013 and then producing a pro-growth 2014 budget. this is the work before this body in the next few weeks and we need to do our very best work. on the continuing resolution, it has been made clear in the comments before, we do not have a fiscal year 2013 budget or appropriations bills at the current time, and so since

october we've been operating out of 2012 appropriation bills pushed forward for a few months at a time. this leads us to a situation where we're not forward-focused but we're operating out of an old playbook. we need to align our spending around this year's priorities and not be locked into funding the priorities of the past. the department of defense, just to focus on this for a minute, because defense is critical to the commonwealth as it is to all states, is very constrained by the continuing resolution that is currently if place. there is an $11 billion operations and maintenance shortfall that is difficult for d.o.d. to manage in a way that will keep us safe. there is a lack of flexibility to adjust to new needs. there's no new starts on important projects including in the shipbuilding and naval site and that has already led to a delay in the construction of one of the aircraft carriers, the

u.s.s. kenzie, with a potential loss of jobs. other agencies throughout the federal government have been similarly affected. but the good news is there is a solution and chairwoman mikulski and senator shelby have worked together to lay that out today. this week we will work together on a true appropriations bill for the remainder of fiscal year 2013 for department of defense, military construction, the v.a., but also homeland security, agriculture, commerce, justice, science, other gunfightal functions that will continue to operate under the f.y. c.r., but in many ways we won't be working on a backward looking document. we can look at a forward-looking document. i want to congratulate chairwoman mikulski and senator shelby for working so hard to put us in this posture. a true appropriations approach to the remainder of f.y.2013

fills many of the problems outlined earlier. it will allow us to go forward on the ship-building contract to construct the second carrier, the u.s.s. john kennedy. that will be wonderful news to the shipyard that is the largest private employer in virginia. it will allow us to move forward on significant ship refurbishment and repair contracts, the repair and refueling of the su u.u.s.s. roosevelt and lincoln were delayed as a result of the uncertainty of the budget but the work the committee is doing will enable us to move forward. we will be able to not completely eliminate the operations and maintenance deficits but at least to make moves among various accounts to mitigate the effect of the deficit and that will be across service branches. and just last friday as i left the senate and drove back to richmond, i stopped and did an

economic development tour with a contractor in the fredericks area that works on robotics projects. they talked about the fact that the c.r. was really putting a crimp in their plan -- expansions, their ability to hire students who are graduating from engineering promises around virginia and around the nation this fall. the c.r. fix going forward will give this company and so many others some certainty that will enable them to do the woo, that we need to do and also help expand employment. other agencies have a similar up side from the fix of this f.y. 2013c.r., as the chairwoman was outlined, improvements in international food aid which is not only good for the most vulnerable people in the world but also good for the american farmer. improvements in state and local law enforcement support, immigration enforcement, workforce training, early childhood education, there are many aspects going forward that are far preferable to the c.r.

and certainly preferrable to flirting around the possibility of any kind of a shutdown after march 27. that's why i strongly support the approach that the appropriations committee under its leadership has worked on. it is tabooed for the united states, and it is good for virginia and it represents a move to forward-looking budgeting rather than playing out of last year's playbook. now, make no mistake, the sequester is still? place and still having significant effects. the f.y. 2013 appropriations bill that we are discuss willing mitigate the effects, but there will still be a operations and maintenance shortfall within d.o.d. every service is still facing potential cuts in training and other readiness functions. last monday, a week ago yesterday, i went to the pentagon and visited with secretary hagel, deputy secretary carter, general odierno, spent time with general welsh last week and not just with the brass but then i went

down into the cal cafeteria andi heard the real deal from folks who are having lunch. these were active duty assigned to the pentagon, d.o.d. civilian, guardsmen and women who were back just coincidentally to do training relattraining-related meetings t day and veterans who were back having lunch with their friends. as i went table to table and talked about scwerveghts i heard about continuing effects and concerns regarding the furlough of defensivelyians and potential cuts to contractors. and so those are still out there. but the good news is this bill will address and improve and then we have a second chance to do so as well as we begin in short order to deal with a proposed f.y. 2014 budget. there is a strong budget process already under way that will bear fruit in the committee within the next couple of days. the budget committee under the leadership of chairman murray has worked very hard and has started the process that will lead to committee discussion and then voting and amendment and

debate later this week. the basic goal of what we're trying to do is pretty simple, under the chairman's direction -- let's grow the economy and create jobs while reducing our deficit and debt. if we do this right, together with the appropriations approach discussed today, we can help reduce and then shape the negative effect that sequester has had on the commonwealth and the country by replacing a blunt, nonstrategic, across-the-board set of cuts with more strategic and targeted approaches. you know, we have a long way to go obviously, whether it is on finding -- finding the path forward just on this bill -- and it, looks like there's very strong bipartisan support, and that's positive, but certainly on moving forward on the budget and then finding the possibility of some compromise with the house. there's going to be vast differences in the approaches, and we can't sugarcoat that. but i think it's maybe important at least to stop and acknowledge

some positive steps at year end before i joined the body, the two houses did come together and found a compromise on the bush tax cuts, which was positive. there were things not to like about it, but like all compromises. but the fact of compromise was a positive. the house has agreed earlier in calendar year 2013 that they would not use the debt ceiling as leverage over the american economy or leverage over these discussions. that in an earlier i instance ld to america's credit being downgraded so stepping away from that is positive. on the senate we're returning to normal budgetary order under minority leaderral timeology. that's a -- under normal timing. both sides have agreed to avoid brinksmanship and have worked to avoid it. this compromise through the f.y.2013c.r c.r. is so positive.

and the prospects which i think are very good of both houses actually producing budgets on time for the first time in a number of years is also positive. so while there are real and significant differences and we will lay those on the table the and debate them with vigor over the next few days and weeks, the american public will see this process unfold. they expect us to debate, listen, find reasonable compromises. we have seen in the last few days -- i guess i'll conclude and say this. we've seen some recent economic positive news. the jobs report friday, some of the news about housing, the stock market. there are some positive economic trends that are starting to develop. congress can accelerate these trends. congress can accelerate the improvement of the american economy if we keep taking these reasonable steps forward to find a reasonable budgetary path. and this work on the c.r. bill defined and appropriations path

for the remainder of the year is one of those positive steps much i applaud the committee leadership for doing so. with that, madamchair, i yield the floor. ms. mikulski: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. ms. mikulski: i would like to thank the gentleman from virginia for his comments. he's -- he and senator warner are on the other side of the potomac and sometimes we're friends, sometimes we're rivals. but it is such a dynamic state. and the junior senator from virginia knows his state has some of the greatest federal assets there -- the pentagon, the central intelligence agency, it is the home of vibrant technology. that's where we sometimes become rivals. but i want to ask a question of the gentleman from virginia, if the senator will yield --

when we are moving the continuing resolution and you've talked about going -- being in the cafeteria and going table to table -- something i do myself, and i know you enjoy it. but isn't your point that we protect the men and women in uniform, but the civilian employees, many of whom are veterans, would be at risk? a senator: absolutely. i'm just coming from an armed services hearing, senator mikulski, where we were talking about that. the armed services mission of course requires that we protect the men and women in uniform but so many of the d.o.d. civilians are absolutely critical to them doing their appropriate jobs. 60% of the staff, for example, of strategic men, strateg, strae

doing work around cyberrer security. the nurses that care for the wounds warriors that i visited at fort belvoir are d.o.d. civilians. and so the furloughs that affect more broadly the civilian employees should be need for significant concern and again we are taking a positive step toward addressing some of these issues by embracing the appropriations approach that you all have worked on and will have an additional opportunity to address. address. ms. mikulski: to prove our policy goal here is that we cannot have a -- we cannot have government funding expire. the consequences of a government shutdown would be wh horrendous. what would they be on the virginia economy? mr. kaine: -- senator, it is like that old commercial about the price of various things but something is priceless.

there is no way to estimate it. just off the top of my head, there's been analyses of the degree to which the federal governmenfederalbudget impacts f each state. a recent study had virginia as the state most affected by the federal budget. and so the prospect of more brinksmanship around shutdown -- which has shaped in the past, even if it doesn't occur, it creates great anxiety. but if it were to occur, whether it is the nurses caring four ow wounded warriors, whether tls the researchers that are helping us figure out how to stay ahead of the cyber attacks that are frankly happening on our nation every day, or whether it is the shipyard repairs at newport news shipyard who manufacture the largest manufactured items in the world -- nuclear aircraft carriers, which should be a story of american pride, who would find their jobs at risk. a shutdown -- and even the negative consequences of playing out of last year's c.r., which