with the people of maryland like no one has ever side of with the consideration of a $1 trillion omnibus spending bill that funds people of maimpled but in the m. the federal government through the end of the fiscal year on september '32. but in the process she also the house passed the measure identifies with people around with bipartisan support america. that's why she is revered in yesterday 359-67. maryland and she's been to now to live coverage of the u.s. nevada. we love her in nevada also. senate on c-span2. i don't know if anyone else could have done what she did working with the republicans in the house. i admire her so very, very much. i am very happy we're to the point where here today. the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. the chaplain, retired admiral this is after three years of barry black, will lead the senate in prayer. damaging cuts to vital social programs. this bill finally increases the chaplain: let us pray. investments in the middle class. is it perfect? of course not. there are so many good things to say about this bill. o god our shield, as we approach she, who is in a state where the national institutes of health -- the martin luther king jr. holidays, we thank you for where they are, where their raising up leaders who appeal to headquarters are -- she got an extra million dollars for them, the better angels within us. more than they got last year. it's too bad that the republican

cost-cutting that whacked $1.5 use our lawmakers to use the billion the year before. what she did with n.i.h. is exemplary with what she is done quest for justice to roll down to help america. i so -- enough about her, but i like waters and righteousness like a mighty stream. -- mr. president, should i has done something that no one else could do. as they lead our nation, guide them around the obstacles that hinder their progress, uniting them for the common good of this great land. lord, enable them to go from strength to strength, as they fulfill your purposes for their lives in this generation. may they stand for right and mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: yesterday i leave the consequences to you. said there were a number of

things that the president could announce in his north carolina we pray in your holy name. speech that would draw amen. bipartisan support and actually boost the economy. one of the things i'm particularly disappointed he the presiding officer: please join me in reciting the pledge didn't push, at least push of allegiance to the flag. harder, is trade. i pledge allegiance to as i said, this is one of the the flag of the united states of america brightest areas of his economic and to the republic agenda. for which it stands, but if we as a nation don't act one nation under god, quickly and decisively, then the indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. world is going to pass us -- literally pass us right by. we're going to miss opportunities to benefit the presiding officer: the clerk will read a communication economically, to open foreign to the senate. markets to american goods, and the clerk: washington, d.c., to america's political and january 16, 2014. to the senate: cultural influence. and when you look at the rest of under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing the developed world of europe, rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable brian canada, australia, they're schatz, a senator from the state of hawaii, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: patrick j. leahy, practically falling all over president pro tempore. themselves to negotiate more and better opportunities while we mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: i move to road to calendar number 24, the flood basically sat on our hands, a consequence of the president's

insurance legislation. inability to persuade his own the presiding officer: the clerk will report the motion. party, his own party, to expand the clerk: motion to proceed to s. 1926, a bill to dplai the trade-related jobs. so we need to catch up, but we can't do that without leadership implementation of certain provisions of the biggert-waters from the president. the kind of leadership like flood insurance reform act of 2012 and to reform the national we've seen here in the senate from the chairman of the finance association of registered agents committee, who is i am self and brokers, and for other obviously a democrat. purposes. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. he's been a tireless advocate mr. reid: on this issue alone, for trade and for american we have been trying for months to move this afford. agriculture, and yet with his on our side we have heard retirement looming on the constantly, persistently, always horizon, i am i am afraid thert senator landrieu indicating how important this is to her state not be many democrats left in and to our country. the senate willin left willing d so i would hope that we can finally have a pathway afford on this today, with a consent on this issue. that's why we need the president to step up for american workers agreement. it is my understanding that senator isakson from georgia is and increase exports by bringing going to try to come to the his own party on board with the floor soon to do that. trade promotion bill that was i want to alert torch this. if that isn't going to work, we're not going to be -- going introduced just last week. the authority in that to delay this anymore. legislation is key to enabling we'll file cloture on this and the legislation to conclude move on it when we get back next critical trade negotiations that

hold incredible promise for work period. following my remarks, american jobs and economic growth. mr. president, and those of the republican leerksd the senate with our economy in such dire will resume consideration of the straits these day, opening new house message to accompany opportunities for american goods h.r. 354, the vehicle for the through trade should be a real omnibus appropriations bill. filing deadline for first-degree no-brainer. it's an issue that used to be amendments to the house message is 1:00 p.m. today. fairly bipartisan around here under the rule, the motion to and it can be again. if the president's willing to proceed to the house message lead. millions of middle-class will be an hour after we come in families and small businesses are counting on him to do just tomorrow morning. if that's possible, i'm happy to that. so i look afford to him promoting the benefits of trade cooperate with all senators. if they would -- if the majority and the legislation i mentioned of senators would like do this in his state of the union address. earlier, we'll be happy to see i hope we'll hear about that. if we can get a consent and when he does so, republicans agreement do that. will be right there with him to also working as i've indicated move the trade promotion bill on the flood law. we'll continue to work on that. through congress in a bipartisan fashion. s. 19311 tiew for a second now, mr. president, on another reading i'm told, mr. president. matter, last week the obama the presiding officer: the administration published a clerk will read the title of the regulation that would bill for the second time. effectively ban -- ban -- the clerk: s. 1931, a bill to coal-fired power plants from poir thprovide for the extensiof

being built in the future. the head of the e.p.a., who will be testifying on this regulation certain unemployment benefits and for other purposes. today, basically admitted as much herself when she called it mr. reid: i would to b to furthr -- quote -- "significant economic lift" -- end quote. she knows that the technology proceedings i we have not this regulation requires is prohibitively expensive, that forgottening about unemployment her own agency knows it's compensation for 1 .5 million nowhere near -- nowhere near -- desperate americans. mr. president, i want to just ready for adoption, that even some white house officials spend a minute or two on this issue. we have not forgotten this. believe her plan is feasible. i want to direct everyone's and that's really the point much attention to an editorial in one the point here is to eliminate coal jobs in america. that's why i wasn't surprised by of the nation's leading e-mails that recently came to newspapers today. here's what they said. light, e-mails which appeared to "republican senators are pulling out every fake excuse they can show e.p.a. officials colluding to think of for filibustering with extremist special interests extension of jobless benefits in devising a for the long-term unemployed. possible-to-achieve regulations. the majority leader, harry reid, the e-mails even referred to was mean to us, and wouldn't let previouslier shuttered power plants as -- quote -- "defeated"

us offer amendments, they say." and we've heard that. -- end quote -- making the irm i'm really a mean person. intent behind coal-related actions abundantly clear. "democrats refuse to pay for the and here's the other thing: benefits. it's president obama's fault this new regulation is not even expected to reduce e emissions n because people can't find work because he won't approve a meaningful way. not even expected to reduce emissions in a meaningful way. keystone x.l. pipeline. the republican party simply does what it will do, however, is not believe that job workers who trigger a section of the law that would allow the have been out of wok for six administration to eventually months or longer deserve shut down coal-fired plants that government assistance. exist today. in other words, it would allow they believe giving people the administration to achieve benefits will people an its true aim of eliminating coal jobs completely. incentive to not get back to work. completely. whatever the reasons, nearly 5 for struggling middle-class families across eastern million unemployed people will kentucky, this is just the latest punch in the gut from be -- will go without benefits washington. by the end of 2014 unless the from an administration whose own republicans back down. the most appalling demand from advisors see seem to believe tha republicans was the benefits be paid for with cuts to other war on coal is exactly what's need eneeded. programs. "quags and that's certainly the some call this outrageous. truth. "for example, kelly ayotte of some say it's extremism at its

worst. higher's what i call it: new hampshire proposed paren pas -- here's what i call it -- its absolutely cruel. because here's what's lost in with children in order to receive the tax credit ... this administration's crusade for ideological purity, in its we'll have more to say about this, mr. president. crusade for coastal editorial we are not going to leave this boards, human lives are what are affected here, the lives of issue. this is a cutting-edge issue for people that i represent, folks the american people. who haven't done anything to deserve a war -- a war -- being republicans outside congress believe this is the right thing to do. declared on them. the majority of republicans. these are the kentuckyans who just want to work, provide for on another subject, their families and deliver the mr. president, the senate today type of low-cost energy that will consider the house-passed omnibus spending bill, an attracts more jobs to kentucky. important bipartisan agreement and coal is what allows so many that keeps our country on a responsible path while of them to do all that. preventing another manufactured it provides well-paying jobs. crisis. we've had so many of these. and as jimmy rose from bell mr. president, i cannot say county, kentucky, who has become enough about the work of the a rather famous country singer, puts it in his hit song "coal senior senator from maryland, senator mikulski. keeps the lights on."

we came to the senate together. "coal keeps the lights on." i remind my colleagues that coal she is someone who identifies does more than just keep the lights on in kentucky. it keeps the lights on here too both figuratively and literally. from the anticoal blogger tapping out a tweet to the e.p.a. staffer cooking up a meal, millions and millions of americans rely on coal to power their homes and their offices. in recent years coal has accounted for about 40% of the energy electricity generated in our country. that compares to just 3.5% for sources like wind and solar. so even if the administration were to achieve its dream of eliminating every last coal job, it's not like they can just fire up a few windmills to cover the gap. it's going to take a very, very long time -- decades -- for alternative sources to even come close, close to providing the same level of jobs and energy as

coal. in other words, the administration's ideological crusade doesn't seem to have a logical end tkpwaeufplt it is -- end game. here's the thing. republicans say renewable energy is necessary but we believe geo thermal should be part of an energy strategy that includes coal and natural gas and the oil we can get right here in north america with americans providing the workforce. another key difference is this, republicans look at kentucky coal miners and see hardworking men and women, not an obstacle to some left-wing fantasy. that's why i along with 40 republican cosponsors including my friend and fellow kentuckian rand paul intend to file

disapproval under the congressional review act to ensure a vote to stop this devastating rule. we believe the e.p.a. regulation in question clearly meets the definition for congressional review under this statute. and i'm sending a letter to comptroller general gardaro outlining the reasons why that is the case. and if the majority leader is serious about helping kentuckians, he'd stop blocking the senate from passing my saving coal jobs act too. it is just commonsense legislation that would give elected representatives of the people a greater say in how coal is regulated in this country. there is no reason for him to keep it bottled up a moment longer. look, kentucky is facing a real crisis here. the obama administration appears to be sending signals that its latest regulation is actually just the beginning -- just the beginning -- in a new expanded front in its war on cool. already the -- war on coal.

the administration's regulations played a significant jobs in causing coal jobs in my states to plummet. these are good jobs that pay more than $1 billion in annual wages to my constituents. and for every miner with a job, three more kentuckians will hold a coal-dependent job as well. so the majority leader and his democratic caucus have a choice. are they going to stand with coal families under attack in places like west virginia and colorado or are they going to continue to stand with the powerful left-wing special interests that want to see their jobs completely eliminated? that's the choice. it's pretty clear where i stand and where most of my colleagues on this side of the aisle stand. 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 resume consideration of the house message to accompany h.r. 3547, which the clerk will report.

the clerk: house message to accompany h.r. 3547, an act to extend government liability subject to appropriation for certain third-party claims arising from commercial space launches. ms. mikulski: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. ms. mikulski: mr. president, i come to the floor today as the chairperson of the appropriations committee, a committee i'm honored to chair to support the consolidated appropriations act for fiscal year 2014. this bill passed the house on wednesday with a stunning, an amazing vote of 359-67. the purpose of this agreement is to fund the operation of the federal government for the remainder of fiscal year 2014. the vote in the house which i

hope will be parallel here in the senate shows what working together based on civility, listening to each other, being willing to compromise but not capitulate on principle but negotiating on what are the appropriate fiscal levels, show we can get the skwr-b -- job done. in today's era of shutdowns, slowdown, slam-down politics where negotiating occurs on cable tv rather than in committee rooms, we work together, setting aside partisan differences, working across the aisle and across the dome, we looked to find how we could put together a bill that both sides of the aisle in both houses could agree upon. this is what the american people deserve. us doing the business of the

country, legislating in due diligence and a regular order. they wanted a government that works as hard as they do, and working under a very stringent deadline, we were able to do this. after three years of damaging cuts that have hurt our people, hurt our efforts to help the people, this agreement turns the corner. we recognize that we needed to focus on growth in jobs and lower the unemployment rate, but not increase our debt or our deficit. we worked very hard to do that, to increase the kind of public investments that the american people would approve of, keep america strong, keep our economy strong, and to do the diligent work that we need to do. this bill is something called an omnibus bill. it includes all 12 appropriations bills. that means we have 12

subcommittees, mr. president: financial, defense, health and human services, labor and education, energy, water, financial services; and each one has to do their work to fund this. ordinarily we would bring one bill up at a time but that was not to be. so where we are is that this is a consolidated bill of all 12. we've been working on this since the president sent his budget to us this spring. we held over 50 hearings, listened and did due diligence, marked up our bills. we were ready to come to the floor in the fall, but it was not to be. we had to wait for the budget committee to do its work to give us a top line so we could get to our bottom line. on december 18, just before congress, just before christmas, congress gave us that cap on

discretionary spending. we knew what we wanted to spend, but again, we know we've got to be a more frugal government. we know we've got to be smart not only about spending but smart about saving, getting rid of dated, duplicative and dysfunctional programs. and what we were able to do is do just that. on december 18, we were given a cap on discretionary spending of $1.02 trillion. we met that cap. we worked nonstop over the holidays resolving differences in both money and in certain policy areas. what we then do today is come here with an agreement that's bipartisan. i want to emphasize that. the agreement is bipartisan. it's bicameral. that means both sides of the aisle. and it's also been one of

compromise but not on either side capitulating on principle. i'm proud to say that this agreement meets our national security needs. it ensures the readiness of our troops, keeps us safe at home. but it also meets the compelling human needs of our middle class and our most vulnerable. at the same time it also invests in america's future by strengthening our physical infrastructure and also supporting research and development to save lives, spur growth and innovation on everything from lifesaving biosciences to aeronautics. and we want to make sure we're looking not only at jobs today, but jobs tomorrow. before i detail more about this agreement, i want to highlight one of the reasons i'm very proud of something we've done in this bill. our legislation pending before the senate restores the full

cost-of-living adjustment for our working-age disabled military retirees and survivors of our departed service members. their colas were mistakenly reduced by 1% in the recent budget agreement. this agreement fixes that error. now i want to make a note, it is limited in scope. it fixes the error for the disabled military retirees and departed service members. it is not the comprehensive pension reform that is necessary. we'll await for the presidential commission that will come before the senate, and we will be able to implement and work on their recommendations in due time. i want to encourage my members that voting for this bill is to support the fix that helps our most vulnerable patriots. it is limited in scope but an

important down payment to restoring full colas for military retirees of working age who are either disabled or are part of, departed service members. this provides for our national security. it has $11 billion more for current levels for operation and maintenance. $1 billion for the national guard and reserve so our units are ready for work overseas and at home. supports the defense department's three million active duty reserve and civilian employees. this bill, if it passes, eliminates the need for civilian furloughs in 2014. and also it prioritizes readiness. the agreement also funds important areas in other protections of national security. an area that i'm very keenly interested in and is an

increasing threat to our people and our economy is cybersecurity. one can only look at the headlines from target to neiman marcus, 40 million americans or more were hit by hackers that we expect came from a non-nato member, based in a non-nato member country. there is a growing nexus between organized crime and those who have predatory -- other predatory intents to the united states. we have $11 billion in here for cybersecurity for the department of defense, the f.b.i., homeland security and important research agencies. this agreement also keeps its promises to veterans in terms of its health care, and we pay particular attention to the v.a. backlog disability. we believe that if you were in the front lines over there, you shouldn't face a long line here when you've applied for your

disability benefits. and working with the relevant authorizing committee, we believe we've been able to come up with it. this bill also makes important investments in america's human infrastructure and meets compelling human needs in health care, education, and child care. we've increased our investment in head start by $1 billion, making sure 90,000 more kids across the nation are part of an early childhood education programs that improve their school and reading and math readiness. we've also increased the child care development grants by $154 million, if meaning 22,000 more lower-income families will be able to afford child care. 24,000 in maryland alone. we believe in our committee that welfare should not be a way of life but should be a way to a better life. child care development grants

enable women to move from welfare to work. and also for those who are working at a minimum wage where often full-time work means full-time poverty, that if you're going to work, child care should not eat up half of your already modest income. the child care development grant is a tool, along with the child care tax credit, to enable people to really be are able to work and make sure work is worth it. we also were very conscious on both sides of the aisle of the federal need to support special education. we do not want a continued unfunded federal mandate where we require certain programs for special needs children but do not meet the federal responsibility for paying for it. and so we have money in there for this. so from energy assistance to help with food and housing, we've been able to do that.

but, mr. president, we believe the best social program is a job. there's no doubt about it, to be able to work at a full-time job that supports your family and lets you get on the opportunity ladder for the american dream is what we hope to do. we believe, many of us, that jobs -- that by helping america's infrastructure, we meet two needs. we have an aging, decrepit, sometimes even dangerous infrastructure. the money in this bill will go through important programs like the harbor maintenance trust fund, in terms of also tiger grants to help with transportation, so that we can rebuild america's infrastructure and, at the same time, put americans to work on rebuilding our infrastructure. also, at the same time, we believe that we need to look at the jobs tomorrow, where we fund the kind of basic research that

only government can do that leads to new ideas, that will lead to new thinking in the private sector, that will create the new jobs of tomorrow. that means, for example, in the national institutes of health we increase it $1 billion. it means they will be able to do 400 additional studies. it will also deal not only with our cures for things like cancer but also the brain initiative will help also speed along finding a cure or cognitive stretchout for alzheimer's. this is good, good public investment. when we look at medicaid funding, a cure for alzheimer's or cognitive stretchout will not only save families the awful consequences of alzheimer's -- my father died of those -- but

it will also help our budget. when we look at medicaid, 80% of the beneficiaries on medicaid are children. but 80% of the money goes to long-term care for people who have either alzheimer's or other neurological impairment diseases like lou gehrig, like parkinson's and so on. so when we can find a breakthrough on alzheimer's, it'll also help lower the cost of medicaid, and we'll be ail to put it in other -- and we'll be able to put it in other programs. mr. president, there's many other things to be said about this bill and i will say it later. i see my vice-chairman is on the floor and he will want to speak. there are also others present who want to speefnlg speak. i want you to know that, i am really proud of this bill. we played the hand that was dumped us, what we've come up

with here is a good deal for the american people. we've tried to be smart about where we spent the money, and we tried to be really smart about how we tried to save money. so, mr. president, i yield the floor and look afford to continued debate and passage of this bill. the presiding officer: the senator from alabama. mr. shelby: mr. president, i join my good friend and longtime colleague, the senior senator from maryland, and the chair of the senate appropriations committee, senator barbara mikulski, in strongly supporting passage of the omnibus bill for 2014. this bill is the product of a very collegial negotiation between both parties in both houses of congress. it is in a very large part a compromise of what the house and senate produced in their respective committee processes last summer. we of course have our differences and each of us would

have many things in this bill to be dinner. but that's the nature of a goings and ultimately of a compromise. that's where -- but that's the nature of a negotiation and ultimately of a compromise. there are many thingthat's wher. it's certainly far better than the alternative, which would be another confrontation, another government shutdown, and another giant step further away from establishing some sense of regular order. mr. president, it is a matter of record that i did not support the bipartisan budget act of 2013. it is and remains my strong preference that we continue to reduce our discretionary spending levels and, more importantly, our long-term mandatory spending levels. as i've said many times, once the congress has decided that our -- what our spending levels are to be, i believe it's the

responsibility of the respective appropriations committees to decide how those funds will be spent. the bill before us does exactly that. this legislation adheres to the statutory budget caps for defense and non-defense spending set by the bipartisan budget act of 2013. it carries afford a spending level for defense program that avoids a $20 billion sequester. the bill funds total discretionary spending below the 2004 level when adjusted for inflation. enacting this funding measure will allow congress fin finallyo advance its current priorities instead of relying on the spending priorities of the past, which of course is the unavoidable consequences of a continuing resolution. seven out of 12 bills in this omnibus have been relying on appropriations priorities dictated for the fiscal year

2012. instead of giving the executive branch unfettered discretion, this bill spends limit limits ow the executive branch can spend tax dollars. it avoids the uncertainty of additional continuing resolutions. since the president took office, we've enacted 20 -- yes, 20 -- continuing resolutions. this bill today provides no new money to implement obamacare by holding flat the funding for certain accounts at the department of health and human services and the internal revenue service. it funds the financial regulators that is $424 million below the president's request. mr. president, you will hear many times today that this bill is not the bill any individual senator would have written, and that's true. it includes concessions that many would not like to make, but

it also contains funding or limits on funding for priorities that are important to members of both sides of the aisle. in my view, this is the prerequisite for a legislative compromise and is what we have achieved with this bill. i want again to thank the chair of this committee, senator mikulski, and commend her for setting a tone that made this agreement possible. i join with her in strongly urging our colleagues here today to support this measure, just as the members of the house did yesterday by a vote of 359-6. -- 359-67. i yield the floor. mr. mccain: ask unanimous consent to engage in a colloquy with my colleagues, senator graham, senator ayotte, and senator roberts. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mccain: mr. president, i bring to the attention of my colleagues the front page of the "washington post" this morning. "hill balks at shifting c.i.a. role in drone war.

congress's plan to block president obama's plan to shift the drone program from the c.i.a. to the defense department inserting a secret provision in the mace simplify government spending bill -- in the massive government spending bill introduced this week that would preserve the spy agency's role in lethal counterterrorism. the measure included in a classified annex to the $1.1 trillion federal budget plan would restrict the use of any funding to transfer unmanned aircraft or the authority to carry out drone strikes from the c.i.a. to the pentagon." the appropriations committee is supposed to appropriate. the appropriations committee has no business making this decision. how many of my colleagues knew that this provision was in this mammoth appropriations bill? i'll bet you a handful. the job of the armed services committee and the job of the intelligence committee is to authorize these things.

there was no hearing on the armed services committee. there was no hearing on the intelligence committee on this issue. instead, a major policy decision that has to do with the ability to defend this nation against the forces of violent islamic extremism is now being decided in a secret annex of a mammoth appropriations bill. it is not the first time, i say, that the appropriators have authorized. the appropriators have gotten into the business of the authorizing committees in a way that is a violation of every procedure and process that this senate is supposed to be pursuing. i'm confident now that, i believe, that senator levin, the chairman of the armed services committee, will be as outraged as i am. i believe that the chairperson of the intelligence committee will be as aing gri angry as i .

this is a function of government that has to do with national security and it's hidden in the mammoth appropriations bill. i say -- i say to the distinguished chairperson and ranking member, that is not their business. mr. president, some of us have been speaking out for more than a year about the terrorist attack of september 11, 2012, which took the lives of four american public servants in benghazi, libya, including u.s. ambassador chris stevens. we've spoken out because of the many questions that still remain unanswered and we'll continue to speak out despite efforts of partisans and proxies of the administration to weep all of -o sweep all of this under the rug.

in december in "the new york times," the surgats of the obama administration published a long report challenging some key facts about the benghazi attack. as senator daniel patrick moynihan used to say, everyone is entitled to their own opinion but not to their own facts. the facts are stubborn things. reality, what the "times" report does is propagate myths. the "times" claims "months of investigations centered on interviews with libyans in benghazi who had direct knowledge of the attack there and its contacts turned up no evidence that al qaeda or other international terrorist groups had any role in the assault." the "times" gn goes on to claim "benghazi was not intill tax rated." they were involved in the attack of september 11, 2012, "the new york times" itself reported on

october 29, 2012, "american officials said the attack included participants from ansar al shari'a and the islamic mad dray and a militant group in egypt. all of of these groups are affiliated with al qaeda. "the new york times" claims, "republican arguments appear to conflate purely local extremist organizations like ansar al shari'a with al qaeda international terrorist network." here are the facts. in an interview yesterday with cnn, the senator from california acknowledged correctly that ansar al shari'a which played a major role in the attack is linked to al qaeda. the chairwoman is drawing on the work of our intelligence committee which yesterday released its report on the benghazi attack and i aftermath. in that report, you will find numerous references by the

intelligence community before the atack that make clear the nature of the al qaeda threat in bebenghazi. the claims that al qaeda had not intill greated benghazi rest on the same rhetorical sleight of hand that holds that while groups may align itself from al qaeda, may shire similar terrorist goals as al qaeda and may evening call themselves part of al qaeda, but if they are not sitting along the pakistan-afghan border, are not part of so-called core al qaeda or al qaeda senior leadership, then somehow they are not al qaeda. this is the same bizarre language and logic that may have led then-ambassador to the u.n. susan rice to claim just days after the attack that -- quote -- "we've decimated al qaeda. this despite the fact that al qaeda-affiliated groups are

proliferating all across south africa, including in benghazi." the attack in benghazi was carried out in part by al qaeda-affiliated terrorist whose had established a safe haven in parts of eastern libya. as the intelligence report finds, the intelligence committee found ample evidence about the security trends in benghazi and the likelihood that they would further deteriorate. this was the opposite of an intelligence failure. this was clear as day. despite these clear warning signs, the state department was unprepared. our diplomatic facility in benghazi was insecure, and had already been attacked multiple times. our military is not postured and ready to respond to contingencies in a part of libya where attacks against westerners and western interests had already occurred and where the threat of more attacks is

growing. the false narrative "the new york times" is furthering happens to align with the obama administration's account of events. but again, facts are stubborn things and the intelligence committee report clearly supports the conclusion that the administration knew or should have known of the terrorist threat in benghazi during the relevant period and should have prepositioned assets or made other preparations to better protect our people serving there. the administration and its allies will continue trying to sweep benghazi under the rug, including the fact that we have still not received testimony and the presence of the individuals who were present and moved to germany the day following the attack on the embassy and the deaths of four americans. contrary to the president's repeated claim that the tide of war is receding and contrary to his administration's talking

point that al qaeda has been decimated, the reality is that al qaeda-affiliated groups are emboldened now from central asia to the middle east, north africa, all the way to west african countries like nigeria and mali. nothing brings this home more tragically than watching the pwhrag flags of al qaeda -- black flags hoisted over the iraqi city of fallujah. 95 brave soldiers died in fallujah. 600 were wounded. and today -- and today -- we see the black flags of al qaeda hoisted over the city of fallujah. the problem is getting worse, and that is in large part due to this administration's disengagement from these regions. look at libya today, a country that we and our nato allies intervened to save from the wrath of a tyrant is now full of

lawlessness and ungoverned spatials by those who seek to do harm to us and our interests. according to a report, 15 libyans who kraorpted with our investigation -- who cooperated with our investigation into the benghazi attack have been murdered. the u.s. can blame the libyans for these problems but they can't escape their share of the blame for failing to support these people who want and need our help to secure their country. that is why chris stevens was in benghazi. that's why he risked and ultimately gave his life, because he believed that it is in our interest to lead events in the world, to support our friends and those who wish to be our friends in their effort to build stable, successful societies with effective democratic governments. the greatest way we can honor his sacrifice and those of his colleagues is by recommitting ourselves to their mission.

unless america actively supports those in the broader middle east who wish to replace despair with hope and freedom, i fear the tide of war will eventually hit us again. i note that my colleague, the senator from new hampshire -- i would just ask her and perhaps my colleague from south carolina, is it not true that in this intelligence report, committee report, which is very encompassing, that except for one mentioned in the minority views, there is no one, no individual who is held responsible? so now we have a situation where the bureaucracies are responsible but individuals are not. i find that intriguing. also, my friend from south carolina who has been trying to get witnesses for a number of

months, if not years, as to, who were there at the scene of the attack, removed to germany the following day, is it true we have never been able to interview those witnesses which could have cleared up any arguments or any doubt about what the attack was all about? mr. graham: thank you for the question. i finally got to interview my first survivor about a month or so ago with senator menendez and corker. but one after all these years and months. but if i could, i want to thank the intelligence committee for doing a lot of hard work, but let's don't lose sight that this is not just about the state department. my focus is going to be comprehensive. and senator mccain has called for a joint select committee along with myself and senator ayotte for over a year now. why? you don't want to stovepipe this thing.

the intelligence committee tells us in pretty good detail about the failures of the state department. but here's my question. in the 14 september white house meeting where the intelligence committee prepared talking points for the white house that clearly established this was a terrorist attack with al qaeda people involved, who changed those talking points in that white house meeting? and i've got an e-mail i hope will come here in a moment from general petraeus. basically somebody in that meeting or before the meeting is inquiring of general petraeus, the white house wants to take references to al qaeda out and basically sanitize the talking points, and he's upset, but he says well go ahead and do what they want. nobody admires general petraeus more than i do, but quite frankly, somebody needs to revisit that. and where was the intelligence community for two weeks when the

president of the united states -- not susan rice -- was telling the entire world, we think this was a protest caused by video when the intelligence community knew differently. so to my friends in the intelligence community, you need to answer that question. what input did you give? did anybody pick up the phone and call somebody at the white house? you need to tell the president quit doing that, because it's not accurate. and another question, on the 15th, the 16th, and the 17th of september all the survivors were interviewed by the f.b.i. in germany. i've talked to one. i can tell you in a quick summary the man was brave. the people on the ground in the state department deserve medals for going through what they did. but let me tell you this. he said there was no protest. there's not one report coming from benghazi about a protest around the embassy. the turkish ambassador left not

too long before the attack. you think he'd walk out in the middle of a protest is in the people in charge of security never reported a protest because there was not one, and he said there wasn't one. he said i saw on my screen -- and he's in charge of security at the time -- 16 to 20 heavily armed people running through the gate carrying a banner in arabic. at the time i didn't know what it said, but let me tell you what the banner was. it was the banner of ansar al sharia, al qaeda affiliate. to my friends at the "new york times," journalism has died at this paper. do you really believe this wasn't a prehe planned terrorist attack -- preplanned terrorist attack with al qaeda affiliates in charge? the general said it was a coordinated military attack and they were lucky to have survived. who started this? who planned this? the man's name is como, the former gitmo detainee. i can't say his last name but i

think it is kumi. the man who started ansar al sharia came from gitmo, a former gitmo detainee, a libyan who went back to libya, started this group, the "60 minutes" report identified him and a mr. cat -- khatallah as the organizers of this attack. all i can tell you is there is no mystery about who planned this. it was an al qaeda affiliate in libya and 16 august a cable is sent back from chris stevens to washington at the state department saying we can't defend the consolate because al qaeda ten training camps of al qaeda exist in benghazi. the al qaeda flag is flying. and, oh, by the way, the red cross had left benghazi, the british had left benghazi because of attacks by terrorist groups. this was long before september 11. so don't tell me we don't know. we do know. it was terrorists.

it was a former gitmo detainee who was bin laden's body tkpwaufrpltd what did he have -- bin laden's bodyguard. what did he have to do? have a card. the guy who was in gitmo that we let go was core al qaeda. he was bin laden's bodyguard. caught him in pakistan. fought in afghanistan. now, what we don't know in this report, who in the white house changed the talking points. you want to know what chris christie did? fine, absolutely fair game. we know what he did when he found out what his people did about the traffic jam. he fired them. and he got up in front of the whole world and said i'm embarrassed, it's my fault. i'm going to fire the people who did this bad thing. name one person that has been held accountable for this bad thing called benghazi. name one person that the state,

who's been fired for ignoring repeated requests for additional security on the consolate coming from people in libya. and oh by the way, the accountability review board, what did i learn in my interview with the survivor? i found out for the first time that the places attacked in benghazi, the state department consolate, the lease had been renewed in july for an entire year. i didn't know that. for hundreds of thousands of dollars. well over $500,000. so you're going to tell me that they were going to close the consolate in december? that was the conclusion of the accountability review board. that's not accurate. i tell you what i think they were going to do. i think hillary clinton was going to go down in december and announce the permanent facility would be open in benghazi, and to her credit and to susan rice's credit, these were the two women who pushed the

president to keep benghazi from being overrun during the war with qadhafi. they got involved and to their credit they pushed the president to get involved militarily to prevent the slaughter of everybody in benghazi. and i've been told that the plan for benghazi was to have a permanent footprint and for secretary clinton to go down there as one of her last taobgts say we're here and -- as one of her last acts to say we're here and we're here to say. the problem with that scenario is the security had deteriorated because we had no plan to fall on after the fall of qadhafi. i would quickly wrap up -- mr. mccain: can i ask one question? i think a lot of people who are observers really have to view this and these actions on the part of the administration, a statement by now national security add advisor susan rice on every talk show, sunday talk show that this was the result of a hateful video, a spontaneous

demonstration. al qaeda has been decimated. that you can only view that and some of these actions in the context of the fact that it was a political campaign, a presidential campaign going on where the rhetoric time after time, rally after rally, the president of the united states and his surrogate said bin laden is dead, al qaeda is on the run. the today of war is receding. all of these events that took place at the consolate in benghazi in the death of christopher stevens contradicted that story line. and still you cannot understand why two weeks later before the united nations, the president of the united states was still talking about spontaneous demonstration and hateful video. you can only understand that, in my view, that it is -- was in the context of a story line that was propagated throughout the 2012 presidential campaign.

mr. graham: and i think the white house, in my view, this is a reasonable conclusion but not a fair conclusion because we don't know exactly what happened yet. but i can tell you this, somebody at the white house on 14 september pressured the intelligence community to change the story of benghazi. and on the 15th of september, why did they pick susan rice? she says secretary clinton was tired and went through a lot of trauma. i'm sure that's true, but i know secretary clinton pretty well. i think she's tough. let's put it this way, she couldn't be on tv to talk about what happened at the state department because she was distraut? i don't buy that. does anybody believe that about secretary clinton? and if it's true, it's something the american people need to consider. i don't believe it's true. i don't believe she was incapable of going on television, as susan rice says.

i believe they picked the person who would say whatever needed to be said. and what she said was so far away from the truth, it needs to be investigated, and what she said was so beneficial to the president's reelection, it needs to be investigated. she was speaking definitively about benghazi on 15 september while the f.b.i. was interviewing survivors. on the 15th, the 16th, and the 17th. why would any administration go on national television and tell the world what happened in benghazi while the f.b.i. is still interviewing people who were in the attack? and where did the f.b.i.'s interviews go? i talked to the deputy director of the f.b.i., who is now retired. he said, not one person interviewed by the f.b.i. in germany ever said there was a protest. all of them said it was a terrorist attack.

so how could the f.b.i. have interviews from every person on the ground in benghazi who worked for the state department saying there was no protest, it was a terrorist attack, and that not get into the system? did the f.b.i. just sit on those interviews? who did they give those interviews to? and how could susan rice tell the american people and the world, we know what happened in benghazi before interviews were over? she went on television to spin this story. how could the president of the united states, after the interviews were taken, go before the american people time and time again for weeks and tell a story about a protest that never occurred? ladies and gentlemen, this may not be a big deal to you, but it is a hell of a big deal to me. and when abu ghraib blew up, senator mccain and myself said, this is not a few rotten apples. this is system failure. and before the surge, when iraq was falling apart, we said, this

is not working, no matter what people in the bush administration are telling you. the and when gitmo was a mess, we didn't sweep it under the rug. we worked with senator levin and senator feinstein, two great americans, to get the definitive truth we could, as best we could, to get info about the failures. mr. mccain: and we called for the resignation of the secretary of defense because of the failures in iraq. mr. graham: yes, you did. now here we are years later, the families have no clue as to what happened to their loved ones and quit blaming the dead guy. this suggestion that chris stevens had fault for his own death, chris stevens was in benghazi, because that's where he was supposed to be, doing what he was supposed to do,

trying to hold libya together. senator ayotte, you have followed this as well as anybody. can you tell us, from your point of view, the unanswered questions and whether or not you think there's evidence that this was a preplanned terrorist attack versus a protest? ms. ayotte: i want to thank my colleagues, the senator south carolina and the senator from arizona, who have been relentless in finding the truth about what happened in benghazi where our ambassador and three brave americans were murdered. let me -- there are so many questions. i would start with the accountability question that the senator from south carolina raised. no one has been held accountab accountable. who's been held accountable for the failures? and if you look at this intel report, it's very clear that the intelligence community, according to this report, provided ample strategic warning that our people in benghazi were

at risk. there were failures, and no one has been held accountable. why? i would like to know, as i lukei would like to know, as i look at those talking points, why was the researchers frothe reference talking pointsness is bu points? there is no reference in these talking points to a video. look at the actual language of the talking points. so why is it that the spokesman for the president on january 13 is out there saying that the protests we're seeing -- that this is a reaction to this movie? why is it that susan rice, the ambassador, is on television on multiple shows blaming the vid

video? not only was it absolutely wrong when she said al qaeda was decimated and i, and it was mis misleading, but there's no reference in the talking points to a video. so who in the administration mapped the video story -- made up the video story? i think that's important to know because it wasn't just ambassador susan rice to relied on the video story. it was our president of the united states who talked about the video and talked about it, frankly, after the ambassador went on all of the sunday shows on september 16. in fact, the president said as late as september 18, when asked, basically he talked about the video and said, "you had a video that was released by somebody who lives, sort of a

shadowy characteristic, who had made an extreme comment." then on september 20, you have the president saying on univision network responding to the possible involvement of al qaeda, he's asked, is al qaeda involved? here's what we do no know: thate natural protests because of the outrage of the video were used by extremists to see if they could harm u.s. interests. well, where did the video come from? even when the intel community came up with, which clearly was subject to political influence because it removed the reference to al qaeda, has no reference to a voidio. so i think there is a lot of questions that need to be answered. here is the most important question: why has no one been brought to justice? the president stood on, i

believe it was september 12 and said, we will find out who did this, we will bring them to justice. to those families, those victims, no one has been broadcast to justicbroughtto ju. you have a former commander of al ansar shah leah sitting in cafes in libya giving press interviews and yet we have -- and there is much to believe that he is likely to be involved in this and many other terrorists, no one has been brought to justice. so why is that? how come no one has the curiosity not only to answer the questions of what happened that night but also to ensure that justice -- mr. graham: would the senator yield? i am trying to find the press statement on september 10 from a white house official that says the president has consulted with his national security team about the threats we face throughout the world, and we are ready. this is on september 10.

what does this report tell us about september 11? we were so far away from being ready that it is unnerving. so there's a lot to be asked. why would somebody in the white house issue a statement on 10 september talking em being ready for any contingency anywhere and basically assuring the american people the president is on top of this when, clearly, he was not? mr. mccain: another question, i would say to my colleagues, is the attack in benghazi occurred oifer a period of some nine hours. over that period of time with the hundreds of airplanes, aircraft that we have, and ships and other military capabilities that we have in the area in the mediterranean, we were not able to get any real significant help. now, there's a number of things

where a team supposedly landed, were held at the airport, were not allowed to move in, all of that. all of these are questions that have not been answered. general hamm told you and i over the phone that he didn't have any assets that were capable of reaching benghazi. you think we don't have the capability over an eight- or nine-hour period to get some relief to an ongoing attack? and, again, what was -- what was the hangup that kept people at the airport that finally did get there sn? mr. graham: if i could follow along with that thought. it is a very good question. if the secretary of defense and the joint chiefs knew it was a good idea and told the white house, how did that get lost? how can you start talking about a protest and a video when your own secretary of defense and the

chairman of the joint chiefs in real time tell the white house -- but they only talked to the president once -- mr. mccain: we still don't know what the president did that evening. mr. graham: well, we know -- he's answered one question. he said he wanted to be transparent and open and let everybody read the story of benghazi. we've destroyed a small forest asking questions, and he answered one question finally: did you call anybody in libya, mr. president, that night? no. you got a rescue team held up at the benghazi airport for two and a half hours. ms. ayotte: you know, the president -- we heard testimony that obviously the secretary of defense, others knew right away this is a terrorist attack. and let's not forget the "60 minutes" interview. he said, it's too early to tell

what this is all about. what's so sad about this is no one has been held accountable. the warnings were there. not only were the warnings there from the august 16 cable that came from the embassy from dozen stevens saying that the consulate would not withstand a coordinated attack, but what's been lost in all of this, with we talk about "the new york times" trying to erase al qaeda from this, well, the day before that, the head of al qaeda released a video just before september 11 of 2012, just before this terrorist attack, which by the way occurred on september 11, of course, which should have given us a pretty direct clue that this was a terrorist attack. but zhawahiri issued a statement

calling for terrorist attacks u aal-libi was a libyan who served as the second in command in libya and was a top leader in the libyan islamic fighting group. think about it. the evidence that was there before not only what we didn't ddo to protect that consulate bt the warnings of that terrorist attack was coming. mr. graham: who was the person who decided to approve a year's lease on this piece of property in july after it had been attacked in june? they blew hole in th the wall tt 40 people could go through on june 10. somebody said, hey, this is a great sigh site. let's extend the lease untilall 2013 and never -- until july 2013 and never reinforced t never added any appreciable security, denied all the

security requests. this goes on and on . if you want to know about the bridge, great. if you want to know what chris christie knew when and what he should have known, great. does anybody care about what our president did that night? does anybody really care if the president of the united states for two weeks talks about a protest that never happened and just all the evidence suggests otherwise? does anybody really care that the consulate was a deathtrap and nobody in washington ever responded? does anybody care that nobody has been brought to justice? does anybody in this country care that somebody in the white house on the 14th of september obviously for political reasons took the intelligence and turned it upside down? does anybody care that susan rice, who has nothing to do with benghazi, was the spokesman for the country, telling a story not

founded in fact, founded in political advantage? well, i think americans do care. ms. ayotte: let me ask the senator from south carolina, does anyone care that the secretary of state chaimed that she -- claimed that she knew nothing about this august 16 cable, didn't know about these cables leading up to the fact that what has happened in ben gas disirks the warning that the red cross left, the blown hole through the consulate, the august 16 cable? yet secretary panetta was aware of it, chairman dempsey was aware of it when he came before the armed services committee. but the secretary of state -- mr. graham: how could the secretary of state not know? all i can say is it does matter. mr. mccain: no one -- no one to this day has been held responsible for the tragic edges of four brave americans -- the

tragic deaths of four brave americans. the intelligence committee property i appreciate. the whole bureaucracy is responsible. individuals are the ones that run democracies. i am descrapted that the intelligence committee -- i am disappointed that the intelligence committee could not have the courage it name the names of the people responsible. mr. president, i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new mexico. mr. udall: thank you. mr. president. let me first thank senator shelby and senator mikulski for their really, really hard work on this omnibus appropriations bill, and that's what i'm down here to speak on. the american people sent us here to make choices, sometimes very tough choices. they don't expect perfection but they do expect us to be fair and to get the job done. americans are tired of shutdowns, of sequestration, of

stopgap funding. and today we are making decisions we were sent here to make. the annual appropriations process is the right way to do the people's business. instead of kicking the can and passing the buck, lurching from crisis to crisis, i think we are making some significant progress. this was my first year on the appropriations committee, and i especially want to thank chairman mikulski for her leadership, her unfailing support and for doing such an amazing job. she once said it's not how long i serve but how well i serve. senator mikulski has proven once again on both counts she is truly exceptional. this bill returns some sanity to the budget process in washington, and i'm pleased that for the most part it does well by new mexico. new mexico plays a unique role

in our nation's national security. this bill provides strong funding levels for safety and security of our nation's nuclear deterrent, including the important b-61 project at sandia national labs. the president's request of $537 million is fully funded. the highly qualified employees at sandia will continue their vital mission, making sure these weapons are managed safely and securely. this is not something we should shortchange. this bill also provides equally important funding for los alamos national laboratory in northern new mexico. the workforce there has been reduced in recent years. this bill will stabilize things for 2014. both of these labs are critical for nuclear security, but they are much more than that. they are also engines for innovation in aerospace,

biotech, cybersecurity and new energy technology. new mexico is proud to host both of these labs, but the department of energy also has an obligation to our states and other states on the legacy cleanup. the funding levels do not fully meet our request but they do provide strong increases over 2013 for cleanup at los alamos and at the waste isolation project at carlsbad, new mexico. these cleanup activities are a serious obligation of the federal government and are a source of skilled, well-paid jobs for many new mexico families. new mexico is also home to three air force bases and the army white sands missile range. this bill contains nearly $150 million in construction and infrastructure projects, including $60 million for a

tricare facility at holloman air force base. these projects will benefit national security. they will create jobs and will meet our obligations to the men and women who are serving their country. the federal government also plays a very important role in new mexico's water infrastructure. we are an arid western state, prudent water management is crucial for our economy. we cannot afford the waste that comes from neglected infrastructure. this bill contains over $120 million in funding for federal water assets in our state and includes the navajo pipeline and the middle rio grande project. we've been struggling with intense drought. rural areas in small towns in particular have been deeply affected. some small communities are seeing their wells run dry. they need help and they need it

now. the $1.7 billion in the usda rural development water funding is absolutely essential. this historic drought requires that we rethink how we use water throughout the west. we need to be smart about our strategy and we need strategies that work for individual communities. that's why i advocated for greater funding for the water smart grants, helping local governments in water districts improve water efficiency. the conference report promotes an innovative drought water-sharing arrangement along the rio grande where we are facing difficult trade-offs between agriculture, the environment, and urban users. this bill also helps meet our obligations to our nation's veterans. the backlog at the v.a. is unacceptable. frankly, it's an outrage. no veteran should wait a year or

more on their claim. this bill funds a ten-part plan to resolve this problem, improving i.t. infrastructure, better training and hiring additional personnel. we dedicated $250 million specifically to carry out the v.a.'s rural health initiative to ensure that veterans in rural and remote areas are not left behind. utilizing telehouse solutions and mobile clinics, bringing veterans the care they deserve without long drives. i will keep fighting for veterans in new mexico, including those in rural areas, making sure they have access to the health care they have earned. many veterans are understandably upset with the recent change in the cola for working-age military retirees, and i'm outraged too. this cut was included in the recent two-year budget agreement, passed in december.

i did not support this provision, and i'm working hard to repeal it. thankfully this bill ensures disabled veterans and spousal benefits will not be subject to the cut. congress has the rest of 2014 to do the right thing. we need to fix this mistake for good for all veterans. this year i had the privilege to chair the appropriations subcommittee on financial services and general government. i'm proud of the work we have done to safeguard our financial system, to protect consumers, to support job creation, and to strengthen our federal courts. the bill provides $112 million for the financial crimes enforcement network, fighting terrorist financing, money laundering, narcotics trafficking and other illicit financial activity. to protect the public and consumers, the bill fully funds three key agencies. for the cpsc, $118 million to

help protect the public against risk from injury of consumer products. for the f.t.c., $298 million to combat consumer fraud, fight identity theft and promote consumer privacy. for the f.c.c., $340 million to maintain robust networks for emergency communications, political debate, social interaction and business transactions, to support job creation the bill provides $929 million for the small business administration. it also supports the small business development centers to provide critical guidance to small businesses and emerging entrepreneurs. the bill supports community development in underserved areas including tribal nations, providing $226 million for the cdfi fund. for the federal courts, the bill

provides a much-needed increase, $6.5 billion in discretionary funding, 5% above the fiscal year level of 2013. budget cuts forced the courts to downsize and furlough staff. this bill provides the judiciary the staffing and resources it needs for court offices, probation and pretrial services and, in particular, federal defender offices will be adequately staffed. the bill also calls for significant investments in the government's capital projects. for the first time in three years it provides the general services administration a total of $1.6503 billion for construction and repair of federal buildings and courthouses. i would like to thank my ranking member, senator johanns, for his efforts this year. he was friendly, honest and straightforward and it's been a real privilege to work with him.

finally i must thank our subcommittee staff, mary anne upton, diana hamilton, emily sharp. and like all the committee staff, they have spent time over the holidays, on weekends and uncounted long hours to help complete the final bill. now in closing, i'm very happy to be here talking about the good work of the appropriations committee and that good work that has been produced in this bill that's before us. for new mexico and for the nation. but i must mention one problem that remains, and it's a great concern for many of us from the west. funding for the payment in lieu of taxes program, known as pilt, has expired. these funds compensate counties in new mexico and throughout the country where the federal government owns a good deal of land, land that cannot be taxed, cannot be developed, cannot be used to help pay for services like roads and schools and

public health and public safety. pilt is a lifeline to my constituents in many rural communities in new mexico. i joined with my friend, senator enzi of wyoming, urging that this crucial funding be included in this bill. unfortunately, it was not. i realize that pilt has not been in the appropriations bill for several years. in fact, it is preferable for it to receive mandatory long-term funding, but we must find a solution and we must find that solution soon. i'm calling for pilt to be included in the upcoming farm bill conference report. it's a commonsense solution to this very real problem. pilt is a long-term funding program. our rural communities across the west need consistency. they need to be able to plan for long-term projects. mandatory long-term funding is the only real solution.

i hope my -- i hope that my colleagues will work with me on this. and with that, i would urge all of my colleagues to vote "yes" on the omnibus appropriations bill. and with that, seeing no one wishing to speak, i would note the absence of a quorum. ms. mikulski: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. ms. mikulski: mr. president, if i might respond to the gentleman from new mexico's very generous comments about the work of the committee. but i'd also like to respond to his comments about pilt. the senator from new mexico, as other senators from the west, have spoken very eloquently about the need for this payment in lieu of taxes. you know, mr. president, you're a newcomer here. i'm sure you find we speak a

different language, and our constituents say when we use pilt and silt, they wonder if we're tilting in the right direction. but to use plain english in plain needs of states that have large land that is held by the federal government, pilt stands for payment in lieu of taxes. so, there is tremendous land owned by the federal government in new mexico. am i correct, senator? mr. udall: you are absolutely correct, madam chair. some of our counties, 70% of the land in the county is federal government land. and so what happens, as you've pointed out, is the federal government says because that can't be developed and it can't be taxed we're going to pay you in lieu of taxes. ms. mikulski: rather than paying you? mr. udall: no. the program which has been in place a very long time is expired.

we've run out of money. and these counties need to be able to plan for their projects. that is really where we are on this. ms. mikulski: i think this is an issue of fairness and justice. mr. president, i know you come to the senate as a mayor. i came through the route of starting in the city council. we're local government people, and we know how we had to struggle with unfunded mandates. many of us have large federal institutions in our state that we love, like the united states naval academy in mine, that doesn't pay taxes. but my gosh, we're happy to have them. and i think we have to resolve this pilt issue. i want to say to the gentleman from new mexico who's spoken ardently and frequently to me about this issue and to all other senators from the west who on both sides of the aisle, let's work on this. and i pledge to you that as we move on this year's, the fiscal

2015, if it's appropriate to being in appropriations we'll be doing it. but i will also work with other relevant authorizing committees. we've got to crack this problem. it's been languishing far too long. and i think it's a justice issue that if the federal government owns land for which it doesn't pay taxes, prohibits it from then being placed in other developmental use that could be taxed, we have to in some way pay our fair share. isn't that kind of the gentleman's perspective? mr. udall: that's exactly my perspective. this county -- the programs run out. the counties count on the money because they've been getting the money for years. i with a nts to applaud you, chairwoman mikulski, there are people, as you know, western senators, there are democrats,

republicans, they've all talked to you, we've been talking to the authorizing committees, we've talked to senator stabenow at a agriculture in terms of the farm bill. we think there is a way this can be worked owvment i am very encouraged to here tha hear thao believe it can be worked out and that you're willing to take a look at it next year in the appropriations process and work with the authorizers to so that this gets done. ms. mikulski: as someone who comes out of local government and knows the challenges that local governments face, that we work on this on a bipartisan basis. i have spoken to senator stab stabenow. i believe she's willing to proceed on how we could do this swvment thank the gentleman for his comments. i think we have a path afford to talk with senator stabenow and others who are involved in the farm bill and to move afford and

yet move forward on this bill and lay the ground work for 2015 that we don't have this reoccurring problem. mr. udall: and i can't tell you how much all of the senators that care about this issue appreciate your hard work on this, and i think we just -- we need to stay focused on it because what happens with these counties is they like to know early on, and if they -- where the money is coming and how much. if they don't know, then they aren't able to spend it wisely. ms. mikulski: well, counties are at a different -- if i could respond to the gentleman queen. mr. udall: please. ms. mikulski: counties -- a municipality government is usually in a different year. baltimore calendar january july 1. the federal government is october 1. and we're finally getting

settled on january 21 -- today's date is january 16. we're a little behind the schedule but we're not behind the eight ball. before the gentleman leaves, i thank you for your work along with senator johanns, a former secretary of agriculture and governor, i might add, and the way he worked on the finance services. as you know ras a senator from new jersey, you took the seat of the late and beloved senator frank lautenberg. well, you've taken the senate seevment hseat. he took senator lawsuitenburg's seat as the chair of the financial services comeetd. senator lautenberg would really be happy to see this today, though he'd like to be here. the i fact that you two are here

really is very good. and you essential gloit a battlefield promotion, senator udall. and i want noi you proceed with such dill jennings. you hayou had enormous controvet i.r.s. and you had to step in to some very complicated issues. your faithful no, sir your duty, the way you went about it with such diligence and verve is indeed to be commended. i know senator lautenberg would feel that his gavel passed to very capable hand. we want to thank you and we want to really thank senator johanns because he really helped carry the momentum of the committee. this was the way the senate ought to be, even at a time of great sadness, we were able to continue to do our job. mr. president, i yield the floor.

i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: the presiding officer: the senator from washington. mrs. murray: i ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business. the presiding officer: the senate is in a quorum call. mrs. murray: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. murray: i ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. murray: as the chairwoman of the appropriations committee leaves, i want to than thank her her tremendous leadership. mr. president, i did come today to talk about another topic and that is that unfortunately for over 1.4 million americans who have lost their unemployment benefits and the over 70,000 who continue to lose them each week now, the senate has found itself in an all-too-familiar place. once again some republicans are refusing to be able to say "yes" even to the most reasonable of

offers, and it's a problem that we have seen in this body too many times. over the course of the 16-day shutdown last october, we tried time and time again to find compromises to end that manufactured crisis and return federal workers to the job and reopen our federal parks and buildings. but for too long republicans refused to listen to the american people and embrace compromise. instead, they were standing firm any a partisan corner, and it is a pattern that we saw last year in our efforts to pass a budget. back in march of last year, as every senator here i'm sure will remember, we spent a week here on the floor debating on amendment after amendment after amendment until the very wii -- until the very wee hours of the morning. i thought at that time that the next step would be to start a

conference as quick lace possible. i thought it was no of had brainer. this is what the american people were expecting. the two sides to get in a room, work out our difference and avoid another crisis. but, mr. president, every time we tried to start that budget conference, 2 ^1 times here in the senate, a matter is republican stood up and said, no. they no longer wanted to go to conference. they no longer wanted to follow regular order. they just wanted to obstruct. that, mr. president, took us to a government shutdown and a debt limit crisis and a lot of pain for families and communities across the country before we could get them in a room with us in a budget conference and agree to the deal that the american people expected. but, mr. president, that's been sort of the republican playbook here. they say "no" for as long as they can. they play politics for as long as they can. they hold out and be a instruct for as long as they can until the pressure from angry

americans finally reaches a fever pitch and then when it's far too late hopefully come to their senses. well, mr. president, it is getting to be far too late for every single american who lost their unemployment benefits. in fact, as last week's unemployment report showed, nearly 456 a million americans recently gave up entirely, and those who haven't given up spend every single day desperately working to get on the job. and unemployment benefits make all the difference for them and their families while they scour the want-ads and pound the paste and send out resume after resume. in fact, i have heard from many people in my home state of washington story after story from men and women. one of those was from a man named garry, who lives in spokane. gary wrote to me about his wife linda and how at 56 years young

with a degree in accounting and an m.b.a. in finance, linda is still unable to find work. and after exhausting their unemployment benefits, garry and linda are now forced to live off his social security disability insurance. they are now facing monthly medical expenses and rent over $1,000 a month just to stay healthy and keep a roof over their heads. gary's benefits cover about $900 of those expenses. so with each passing day that this congress fails to act, gary and linda find themselves further and further behind. and gary concluded in his note to me with a simple plea, written in all capital letters that said, "please, please, please help." i also recently heard from a woman who was laid off from her job at plant in keyport, washington. she told me, "this year i have applied for over 200 jobs, and

in spite of a stellar resume, i've only gotten four phone interviews. i've lowered my standards throughout the year. i have applied to jobs for below my pay grade, and i truly worry about losing my home and displacing my children." these are real people, mr. president. as you well know. i've heard from tracy, a former executive assistant, 20 years experience in everett, washington. after taking time after from work because she had 20 kerry care for her -- she had to care for her dying mother, tracy found herself without a job. after her mother passed away, tracy fell ill and it made it hard for her to look for work. so while tracy was receiving unemployment benefits that were barely enough to cover the care her daughter required, she was just barely making it. she told me that now she cannot

afford afford and has los food 0 pounds. she told me, "i just need some time for someone to give me a chance." a chance, that's all she is asking us fomplet that's all they're -- all of these people. they don't want a handout. they don't want to be a bumpletd they need some support while they get back on their feet and on the job. we here in the senate need reins republican support -- we here in the senate need republican support to do that. we're ready and willing to go afford. we have worked to find compromise. when republicans wanted this extension to be paid for, even though it was -- has been extended time and time again without pay-fors under republican congresses and republican presidents, we said okay, we'll try and find that. mr. president, that wasn't enough. when republicans signaled that they didn't want to pay for an extension by closing trasm closp

foals for the wealthiest americans, we looked for a compromise. when we put affor forward savinm policies that either been agreed to by both sides or taken from proposals championed by republicans, they once again said it wasn't good enough. when they asked for amendments, we offered amendments. they again said no. mr. president, unfortunately republicans have now verted once again to pure politics aimed not at the vast voter of american people who want to see this extended but instead squarely at their most conservative audience possible. and nowhere is that more evident than in the pay-fors they have come here to offer, whether it is the minority leader's amendment that predictably seeks to undercut health care reform or the ayotte amendment, which is a very disturbing signal that

after joining us in passing comprehensive immigration legislation, republicans are now doing a complete 180. senate republicans are now indicating that they are actually going to begin targeting u.s. citizens, children who are u.s. citizens, simply because they were born town documented workers. and i think that's shame full and i'm shocked that we've gotten to this point. mr. president, these policies aren't going anywhere. republicans know that. and in the end, all they amount to is nothing more than delaying tactics while american families' lives are lying in the balance. make no mistake, families across the country are teetering on the brain today. nowhere is that more clear than the last heartbreaking story that i came here to share with awful you. i got this yesterday from a

woman named she'll la who for the last 13 years has worked a middle management job at a national corporation in my state. she started her letter by saying, and i quote, "i've never written to any government official, but i'm compelled to do so today." then she told me how she and her husband and two children had lived a fairly comfortable life. but all that changed last year when her employer decided to downsize. she was one of the many americans who was laid off. her husband, who works in real estate, was struggling in a very weak market, as we all know. suddenly, suddenly, sheilah's family of four found themselves relying on just over $500 a week in unemployment assistance. having graduate graduated from e and business school, she will larks like so many others who have found herself in need of these benefits, wrote, "never in

a million years did she think she would be in that spot." she said -- quote -- "i worked for so many years, paid my taxes, did the right thing for others. now i need help." in october sheila's family lost their house. they're now renting. they don't know if their daughter will still qualify for the student loans she's currently receiving. sheila's checking account is now overdrawn. her car payments are past due. she started getting notices from her utility companies. as my staff talked with her yesterday, she said she was headed out the door to apply for food stamps. mr. president, because of republicans' refusal to work with us, we will once again be going home to constituents like sheila to explain why this extension hasn't gotten done. i know that i'll be pointing out

the fact that we've compromised time and time again to try and get something done here, that we have all but begged republicans from the start to work with us on this effort. but i can't help but wonder how republicans are going to explain their actions. and while i normally don't come here to the floor to give advice to my friends on the other side of the aisle, i certainly would like to suggest that they don't stare into the eyes of someone who just had to apply for food stamps for the very first time in their life and explain that they can't act until obamacare is destroyed. and i hope they don't tell those who care about -- who are about to lose their home that they can't help them until they find a way to cut child-care credits for u.s. children. and i hope they don't tell americans who spend their days apply for jobs and working hard, that pay a fraction of what they

have been making, that they will only be willing to help if all of their political demands are met. and, mr. president, i especially hope that they don't think that making arguments about procedure or amendments or arcane rules of the senate that only people here in d.c. pay attention to is an excuse for walking away from 1.4 million americans at a time when all they want to see is results. mr. president, what i do hope is that the experiences they have coming face-to-face with these families will change their tone when they come back here in a week. i hope the stories like the ones that i shared here today will once again be the pressure that republicans have required over and over again to finally act. and i hope that soon they will join us in passing our nonpartisan commonsense bill and

finally deliver some certainty and some security for struggling americans who deserve it. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. ms. mikulski: will the gentlelady yield for a question? i want to thank her for the outstanding work she did on the budget committee, because without that budget that you worked so diligently with on a bipartisan basis and with paul ryan, enabled us to have the allocation for discretionary spending that enabled us to come here today to make sure that government will function, that it will work as hard as the taxpayers who pay for it and that we will have no government shutdown and no crisis environment. so i really want to thank the gentlelady. the other is in your role as the chair on the subcommittee on transportation, has the

gentlelady had a chance to look at what she thinks will be the positive job impact of what you've been able to do because the gentlelady funds the transportation funding for the united states, those tyker graphs that are so important to maryland and the port of baltimore and also the issue related to housing. in my own hometown, the renovation of housing for the elderly, many of it was built in the 1970's and 1980's under presidents carter and reagan. they need to be rehabilitated. they need to be reformed. they need to meet new a.d.a. standards, all of which would put men and women to work, where in my state the job rate among construction workers is enormously high. so building bridges and building homes would sure go a long way.

has the gentlelady had a chance to look at any of that? mrs. murray: mr. president, let me respond to the chairwoman of the appropriations committee. i came here to the floor today to talk about millions of americans who are in need of extended unemployment benefits. but i would tell you everyone i've ever talked to on unemployment would much rather have a job. and the question that you ask me is about in my role as the chair of the subcommittee on transportation and housing and the bill that we are about to pass here in the senate will have an impact on creating jobs and building that infrastructure so that people have that job certainty. it is extremely important. on the transportation side of my appropriations bill, the tiger grant program that you have described will bring not only jobs to communities but real projects that will help build the foundation for future economic growth. there is no -- there is no one who questions that

transportation infrastructure brings jobs today, provides economic development for the future and is absolutely the way that people get to work and home in a timely manner, bringing certainty for so many families that we know. that is a critical part of my subcommittee. the other part of my subcommittee, as you mentioned, is the housing issues that are so important, and i think most people forget that if you don't have a place to live it's pretty hard to go to work. providing some of these programs that we do, like section 8, some of the reforms we put into here are just absolutely critical for so many americans to be able to have the stability to get out and get a job so that we don't have to be arguing over unemployment extension here, but actually how we can make the investments so that this country can work and survive. so i hope that we can provide those extensions today as we struggle to get back on our feet, but meanwhile pass this critical bill that you have authored so that we can provide jobs and economic support, which

is what people really want. ms. mikulski: i thank the gentlelady for her tireless effort. mr. president, i'd like to just comment on the work that the gentlelady from washington state did in her role, sharing the subcommittee on transportation and housing. what a bipartisan effort that subcommittee was. it was the gentlelady from washington state, senator murray, and the gentlelady from maine, senator susan collins. they worked on a bipartisan basis on transportation -- that's what the committee funds -- and on housing. now it's housing that is primarily related to meeting compelling human need. it also has the money for community development block grants. going back to the days when i referred to you as mr. mayor, now mr. president, the presiding

officer, we know city council barb and former mayor cory booker, what local community block grant means in our communities. in my state, community development block grant money is key to local government solving local problems without a one-size-fits-all from washington. what i like about the community development block grant money, its criteria for funding is it has to deal with blight, it has to deal with unemployment, it has to meet compelling human need. and whatever they do, it also usually results in good-paying jobs in construction. but it's not decided by washington. thou shalt build such and such under such and such washington rules. it's decided in newark, in

baltimore, in phoenix, what's so important about the cdbg money and the transportation and housing is the money comes locally. there's federal criteria. again, eliminate blight, deal with unemployment. it has to meet a documented need. but it's decided locally by mayors and city cowan seurblgs by county -- mayors and city councils. this is what the county did. they worked on a bipartisan basis for adequate funding for cdbg to meet compelling need in the area of housing, particularly housing for the elderly, the so-called section 202's, many of which were built a long time ago and now need to be retrofitted and remodeled; again, meeting need, coming up to the compliance of what we now

know things like universal design to keep people out of long-term care, assisted living. and this is just a wonderful way to meet human need and also generate jobs. so they've done a great job. but i'd also like to comment was the leadership that they provided, and it was across all of the appropriations committee. you know, because we're not a committee that makes a lot of fuss, we're not usually a bunch of chest pounders about a policy, we're, we were once referred to in a major historical book about our work as the quiet guardians of the purse. we're mott quiet when -- we're not quiet when we're with each other but often the work is not well known or well noticed because we've done it in a tone of solving problems, in keeping the problem the problem and not making personalities the problem. that has been done by every

single subcommittee in the appropriations committee in the senate. i'm really proud of them, and i think the transportation-housing has been an exemplary one. but you'll hear this today from others who will be coming up to speak about it. we've done a good job, and i hope that other senators will come to the floor to talk about the work of the committee. if they have any questions, they want to debate or comment, we're open to those discussions. i do hope that we could move the bill along. i know that our -- the rules under cloture doesn't expire until tomorrow. but, gosh, if we all come and everyone could have their say, i think we could finish today. it might be late, but i think we could finish, and then go on with other pressing senate business. so i urge those who would like

to speak on the bill to come to the floor. we have an order here. while we're waiting, i have 11 unanimous consent requests for the committees to meet during today's session of the senate. they do have the approval of the majority and minority leaders. so, mr. president, i therefore ask unanimous consent that these requests be agreed to and that these requests also be printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. mikulski: thank you, mr. president. i know some other senators will be coming. i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call: