leader leaves, as the senator from maryland, i, too, would like to join with great respect in condolences for master sergeant torian's family. for all of us who are senators that have constituent families where people have died, we all have to be in this together. you know, these are the times when we're not the republican party or the democratic party, we're not red or whriew -- blue, we've got to be red, white and blue. so fr just from this -- from this side of the aisle to the other side of the aisle, thank you for bringing to the attention of the senate this wonderful young man. we have to stand by those families. the widow, the children who are going to need an education. let's do it shoulder to shoulder. mr. mcconnell: mr. president, i thank my colleague from maryland for her additional comments about this wonderful young man.

ms. mikulski: mr. president, today we bring to the floor on a bipartisan basis the annual appropriation bills of the commerce, justice, science bill, the subcommittee on transportation, housing and urban development, and also agriculture and food and drug administration. i want to thank all the members of the appropriation committee for their tremendous work on these bills. first, i want to say a special word about my vice-chairman richard shelby who has done the hard work and the due diligence of helping move the entire process, but also moving particularly our bill that funds the commerce department, justice department and the science programs like our space program. in terms of transportation, we have the able leadership of senator murray with her vice-chairman senator collins and on agriculture chairman mark

pryor and again his vice-chairman roy blunt. this process is about moving america forward. this legislation that we are putting before the senate today puts america's middle-class families first, creating opportunity by creating jobs today with investments in physical infrastructure, in the transportation-housing bill, we're talking about building roads, bridges, repairing them, updating transit lines and rail lines so we literally and figuratively can keep america on the move. and at the same time, we're also meeting america's compelling human needs by our investment in homeownership. not only -- and in housing and in urban and economic development. we also create jobs tomorrow with investments in research and

discovery. what we do in these important science agencies is drive innovation leading to new products and new jobs, and guess what? science saves lives. if we look at under the commerce, justice, science, we fund the national ocean and atmospheric agency. a lot of words with a lot of alphabet, synonyms and acronyms and so on, but at the end of the day, we fund the weather service. what is the -- what does the weather service do? they predict weather. they predict weather in the immediate, like is it going to rain this afternoon, and in the emergency, whether we're going to have a tornado. our hearts go out. again on the other side of the aisle to the people of kansas where they were hit by a double tornado, an unprecedented weather event. they are calling it the twin sisters about what happened is

is -- in nebraska. they were the ugly sisters but they were made less ugly because of the way the weather service could help alert the people in this community. that's what we fund here. we protect the american people by making sure we fight crime and terrorism, by funding federal law enforcement, by making sure that our medicines and medical device are safe, by funding the food and drug administration, and we meet compelling human needs, whether we're talking about affordable housing or affordable food. and while we're doing it, we're also reforming agencies. sure, they talk about appropriators are spenders, but we have a sense in this committee, both sides of the aisle, and i must say senator shelby has helped lead this, that we need to be a more frugal government, we need to get value for our dollar, showing that we need to be able to save money or use money that we're going to spend very wisely.

it's been three years since we were able to bring in appropriation to the floor. i'm not going to go to all the reasons why. why doesn't get the job done. what we need to do is return to regular order. what does that mean today? it means we have the three bills that are pending. it means we need to enact all our appropriation bills by october 1. we want to keep government operating. not on auto pilot, not on shutdown nor on lavish spending. we have to reduce our federal deficit, but we also have to reduce other deficits, particularly in the area of deficits related to innovation and also the fact that our crime rates are on the rise in many cities and we need to reduce this. no one, not the american people today, wants to make sure that we do not have a government that they could count on, but they need to count on not only that we're open and doing business, but then when we are, we are

smarter about it. vice-chairman shelby and i have been working on a bipartisan basis. we have been working on a bicameral basis. that means hands across the aisle, hands across the dome to restore regular order and civility in this process. i look forward to moving this bill, and i would say to my colleagues who are listening, many of you saw a few months ago the way senator lamar alexander, tom harkin, senator richard burr and i moved a bipartisan bill on the child care and development block grant. that had not been reauthorized since 1996, but we showed that we could do it. we cleared 18 amendments. we had actually votes on amendments. we had an open process where amendments could be offered, discussed, debated, and at the end of the day voted on because we had a process that worked. and senators who work together, we were able to pass that bill.

senator shelby and i are providing leadership today to be able to do that, so we ask our colleagues to support us and come into an agreement on the motion to proceed so that we can move on this bill. we are making progress. these bills have been passed. there are several bills that we have already moved out of the full committee, and we will be moving more, but right now today we want to move these three bills and do it in a way that we're proud of what we do. we're proud of our process. we're proud of our conduct, and we're proud that we did it with the right way of debate, discussion and the votes that are required. mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. shelby: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from alabama. mr. shelby: thank you, mr. president. this morning, i want to join my

long-time colleague and friend, the senior senator from maryland, and chair of the senate appropriation committee. senator barbara mikulski in supporting the consideration of the three bills before us today. mr. president, all three bills received strong bipartisan support at the full committee on appropriation level, and i'm pleased that we have begun to re-establish regular order in the appropriation cross. we started that last year, and we need to continue this, and we are. after the uncertainty of sequestration and last year's disagreement over the budget control act caps, this past december's murray-ryan budget deal provided the clarity needed to move us towards a regular budget and a regular appropriation process. the murray-ryan deal, mr. president, which became the

bipartisan budget act, provided a compromise solution that ended the congressional deadlock over top-line discretionary spending. and while i appreciate that the carrierwoman was operating in a tight -- that the chairwoman was operating in a tight fiscal environment, we did not ultimately agree everywhere on how to allocate funds within the new caps. all 14 republican members of the appropriation committee wrote to the chair on may 21 of this year expressing our concerns over the use of budgetary mechanisms in subcommittee allocations. mr. president, in that letter, we also stated and we continue to express, our opposition to increase in the level of total chips in the discretionary budget level beyond current levels. while we continue to have concerns about how the majority reached total 302-b allocations,

the bills before us today for the most part reached their allocations by making tough choices -- that is, shifting resources for -- from lower to higher priority programs. the allocations for the c.j.s., transportation and housing and agricultural bills conform to the intent of the murray-ryan deal. both the commerce, justice and science bill and the agricultural bill actually decrease spending compared to the current enacted levels, while still being sufficient to meet the needs of the agencies. mr. president, i'm pleased to have worked with the chairwoman to ensure that the c.j.s. bill successfully balanced the important and competing interests of law enforcement, scientific advancement and u.s. competitiveness. the transportation, housing and urban development bill has a moderate increase of only 1.4%. after taking into account the

scorekeeping difference tweenl o.m.b. and c.b.o. -- between o.m.b. and c.b.o. on f.h.a. loan receipts. passing these funding measures i believe will give congress a voice in government spending that it was constitutionally intended to have. instead, mr. president, of creeding spending discretion to the executive branch or simply locking in place priorities that have become outdated as a continuing resolution would do, this bill includes hundreds of limits on how taxpayer dollars can be spent. and while i might not agree with every item in each bill, i think we have found solid middle ground upon which both sides of the aisle can comfortably stand. once again, i thank the chair, senator mikulski, for her willingness to work together, and i encourage my colleagues to come to the floor and offer their amendments so we can debate the merits of them. thank you. i yield the floor.

ms. mikulski: i thank the vice-chairman, senator shelby, for his -- the presiding officer: the senator from maryland is recognized. ms. mikulski: i thank the vice-chairman for his remarks. i think he makes excellent points. we had a tough top line to meet. the c.b.o. scored -- i mean, these are really -- these budgets speak words, and the people are trying to follow it. the congressional budget office actually says how much things will cost, and when they took a look at what our f.h.a. program and certain mortgage rates will cost, they found out we overestimated the revenue by $4 billion, so that's a lot of money, even by washington's standards, so we have had to adjust accordingly, and it's not been easy. but i will tell you, we are now coming now to talk about what we are really doing. what are the agencies we want to

fund, why we want to fund them at the amount they do, and what are the problems they actually solve for the american people. the american people have a right to ask at the end of the day not did you spend money but what did you spend it on and what did we get for it. are we a stronger country? do we have a better economy? do our children have a brighter future? are we meeting compelling human need? and i think in these three bills, the answer is yes. when we look at the commerce, justice, science, we just want to tell you what we've done. the commerce, justice, science really funds several different agencies, and it comes to a total of $51.2 billion. it's consistent with the c.j.s. allocation, and it's $398 billion less. i want to say this clearly.

what we're doing in the commerce, justice, science bill, we are spending less money than we did last year, but we think we're getting more value for the dollar. we are $398 million below what we spent, but at the same time we have kept our communities safe, we have promoted jobs and we have promoted innovation. we used our spending to guide federal decisions from law enforcement, federal law enforcement to space exploration. the c.j.s. bill provides $28 billion for the justice department. this is $260 million more than 2014. we did this because we believe the justice department is an agency the people in local communities feel that they need to be able to count on. it keeps america safe from crime and terrorism. it protects communities at the local level and families against

domestic violence and sexual predators, and the job of the justice department is to administer justice fairly. this bill funds key law enforcement and prosecution agencies. what do we mean by thatam ? federal law enforcement is made up of the f.b.i., the drug enforcement administration, the bureau of alcohol and fires service and the attorneys that prosecute the bad guys and the bad gals for everything from mortgage fraud, cyberterrorism to drug dealing and drug cartels. so they can keep us safe from all of this. protecting us against gangs, drug dealers. why is it important? federal law enforcement goes after gang activity, fraudsters trying to be more predatory, and what is the result in this

funding? we've done a lot. in my own home state of maryland, over the last year we have -- our federal law enforcement have arrested 280 violent fugitives. federal law enforcement brought down child porn og grafers and traffickers, bank robbers and took a big whack at the heroin trafficking rings. i'm really proud of them. i'm proud of that they do in maryland and i'm proud of what they do around the world. look at howe how -- look at how our f.b.i. working with our special operations brought to heel and brought into our custody one of the men who killed our embassy personnel in benghazi. let's do a big hurrah for the f.b.i. and special ops but let's do our hurrah not only with words but putting the money in the federal checkbook so that they get to be able to continue

to do the job of keeping america safe. there are many other things in this bill that are important. this is why we look out for our state and local departments, we've also put in an important investment in violence against women. we're spending $430 million to give grants to prevent and prosecute domestic violence and also to be able to deal and help with rape victims. this bill puts money in the federal checkbook to put more for officers on the beat but i like the fact that we're actually protecting them with more bulletproof vests and being able to do other things. this bill also addresses the backlog of stawlts, making -- sexual assaults. we have seen time and time again that evidence is gathered and that somehow or another it's in some box in some lab or some police department.

rape victims cannot be dually assaulted, one by the predator who attacked them and then by a lackluster prosecutorial system. if you gather the evidence, tested and use it to make sure we have the right predator, prosecute the predator, see if they're a serial predator and let's not doubly assault the victim by not only what happened to them on the street but also what happens to them in the criminal justice system. so we're doing a lot here. so we also, i feel very strongly about this but i also feel very strongly about the need to create jobs. this bill provides $86 billion for the department of commerce, which helps them protect our patents, promotes trade, and economic development. it helps our coastal economies with sustainable fisheries and healthy oceans. it exports american goods and

services and supports more than 11 million jobs. this bill does a lot by putting our commercial service officers, those who 18-wheel work in embassies, to work with business, to be able to help them and we make sure that they're not only in europe but they're in asia and africa where the new opportunities are. our dynamic secretary of commerce has focused on bringing foreign investment to the united states, and we see what they've meant in maryland and what they've meant in alabama and what they've meant in america. we also through the commerce department fund severe -- help with our weather bureau. i'm going to say more about it, but what i do want to talk about right now is the national science foundation, one of our other main agencies, because it does the basic research in science, technology, and engineering. then then there's nasa. i'm going to say more about nasa later. i know that we have others waiting to speak. nasa actually, we have done

more than what the president wanted to do because we wanted to have a balanced space program. we've particularly emphasized human space flight, a reliable transportation system, and space science. mr. president, we have here where we're creating jobs, we're protecting people in their communities, and we're laying the groundwork for what jobs are in the future. there are many other things that i will talk about as the bill unfolds. the other thing that i want to just say is that i have worked very close, senator shelby and i have worked very closely with senator coburn. everybody knows that senator coburn prides himself on being a watchdog on federal spending. and you know what, he has been. i love some of his ideas. some give me a little pause but we actually met, we actually met to see what could we do to be able to reform our government so that we could get more value for the dollar.

i'm going to have a separate speech just on that so that the american people know when they say watch what you spend, barb, i really i am doing it, so is senator shelby, so are the members of our committee. mr. president, i'm going to yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from alabama. mr. shelby: mr. president, again i rise today in support of the commerce, specifically the commerce, justice, science appropriation bill where i am the ranking person. the republicans. i appreciate the leadership, as i've said earlier, of the chair on this particular bill. we worked together for many years, i've chaired this subcommittee at one time and i believe that the bill being considered today reflects a strong, mr. president, bipartisan effort. the competing interests of commerce commerce, justice, science appropriation bill also prove challenging, but i believe that

this bill strikes the appropriate balance. the allocation for the c.j.s. bill, that is, c.j.s., commerce, justice, science, is $51.2 billion, which is just below the fiscal year 2014 enacted level. yes, below. working within this allocation, we sought to balance priorities, hold agencies accountable for their work, and demand efficiencies to stretch limited federal dollars. ultimately, these efforts ensure that federal resources are spent efficiently and effectively. the bill before us provides robust, you funding for the department of justice and law enforcement grant programs totaling $28 billion. it focuses attention and resources on some of the most difficult issues plaguing the nation including human trafficking, gang violence, child predation, a growing

heroin crisis, threats to cybersecurity and domestic terrorism. grant programs such as valor, byron, veteran courts, crime lab improvements, violence against women and the cops program will receive funding to violence the important work being done at the state and local level in our nation. moreover, the bill ensures that the department maintains focus on evidence-based programs and activities that have a proven record of effectiveness. this requirement emphasizes the committee's commitment to ensuring that federal dollars are not just spent but be are spent -- but are spent wisely. the bill also includes, mr. president, $8.6 billion for the department of commerce, which is responsible for a range of issues, including weather forecasting, economic development, trade promotion, and fisheries conservation,

among others. the bill prioritizes resources to support noaa's satellites to continue to provide timely warnings for dangerous weather outbreaks that we all experience. to ensure that these weather satellites stay on budget and are delivered on time, the bill continues and expands stringent oversight requirements involving the inspector general. mr. president, i believe that our nation cannot afford cost increases and schedule delays in these programs and we expect these oversight requirements will help avoid such a scenario. the satellites are essential to weather forecasters across the country. without them, forecasters would be unable to provide important warnings about devastating storms, tornado outbreaks, hurricanes, including the --

putting the safety of the american people at risk. the bill also provides sufficient resources and directions to improve the management of the nation's fisheries, including new approaches to manage red snapper in the gulf of mexico. these new approaches should provide a more equitable system for commercial fishermen and increase the number of fishing days for recreational anglers. the bill, mr. president, also provides $18 billion for nasa, the national air aeronautics and space administration. in order to preserve the plan launch schedule in 2017 for the heavy launch vic or s. slmplet, the bill includes $1.7 billion for the s.l.s. rocket development which is crucial. it also maintains focus on these efforts by requiring nasa to follow its own internal guidance regarding joint confidence

levels in future funding requests. the bill, mr. president, also preserves important funding for ongoing activities of the international space station and other vital science research missions. in addition the bill safeguards the advancement of efforts underway to develop the u.s. vehicle to transport our astronauts to the space station. those efforts must continue in a transparent way believe to ensure that the government is not saddled with mounting bills and no recourse. i commend the chairwoman for working with me to include language that requires certified costs and pricing data for the crew vehicle development contract. the goal of the language is not to upend a fixed price contract. rather, the goal is to make certain that the price nasa has agreed to pay for vehicle development matches actual

development expenditures. nasa and its contractors have a history of cost overruns and schedule delays, whether the contract has a fixed price or not. with no other u.s.-based options to get to the space station, i believe we cannot find ourselves at the 11th hour with an overburdened program that requires a bailout to succeed. once again, these measures are included to ensure that the government is not just spending taxpayer money but that it's doing so in a cost-effective manner. mr. president, i want to reiterate my belief that the bill here reflects the senate's priorities and the needs of our nation and i urge my colleagues to support this bill. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from washington. mrs. murray: i am pleased that the senate is now considering appropriation bills that fund important segments of our

federal government, those include the agencies responsible for scientific research, for justice, and nutrition programs, as well as the departments of transportation and housing and urban development. it has been some time since we've been able to fund the operations of the government through regular order so it's encouraging that leaders on both sides of the aisle have been able to work together now to pursue that goal. as we are here today considering these bills, i think it's helpful to remember where we were at this time last year. we were unable to start a budget conference. there was a government shutdown looming just a few months ahead. and businesses and families across the country had absolutely no certainty about whether their government could even keep the lights on. today, we have got more certainty, thanks to the two-year budget agreement and building on the bipartisan work we all did to reach that agreement, the members of our committee, senator collins, and i have been able to put

together a transportation and housing bill that makes responsible investments in infrastructure and community development and helps protect the most vulnerable among us. less than two weeks ago, the appropriations committee approved the transportation and housing bill by a vote of 29-1, an extremely strong show of bipartisan support. this bill received such remarkable support because it helps families and communities, it gets workers back on the job, and it lays down a strong foundation for long-term and broad-based economic growth. and it does this in a manner that's fiscally responsible with growth of just a little more than 1% over the fiscal year 2014 level when looking at the program funding levels and fact organize in -- factoring in f.h.a. receipts which vary year to year. after agisting for inflation this funding in this bill is

2.5% less than what it was in 2008 as a result of the spending cuts we have now applied to discretionary appropriations. madam president, this bill is timely. it makes critical targeted investments to address concerns that have developed over the past year. in light of the growth in domestic energy production, it includes new resources to strengthen oversight of energy shipments by rail to keep our communities safe, including funding for additional rail safety and hazardous materials inspectors, training for first responders, more track inspections, research into the volatility of crude oil, and requirements for stronger tank car designs. this bill includes $10 million to do vehicle safety analysis and investigations to make sure we do not see a repeat of the department of transportation's failure to detect unsafe parts in general motors and other manufacturers' vehicles.

this bill provides an additional 10,000 vouchers to move us closer to finally eliminating homelessness among our nation's veterans. due to these investments, we have been able to reduce the number of homeless vets on our nation's streets by 24% since 2010 and we are well on our way to eliminating it altogether. our bill includes direction to help communities implement the violence against women act in federal housing programs as well as resources to improve coordination between housing programs and domestic violence survivor services. it makes it possible for h.u.d. to support youth aging out of foster care, giving them more time to find stability and save money, thereby helping to reduce the elevated risk of homelessness facing these vulnerable young people. this bill invests in our communities, it provides $3 billion for community development grants to states and local governments to help

communities fund projects that meet their unique needs and support efforts to create jobs. and $950 million for the home program, to help create affordable housing. it ensures the f.a.a. has sufficient funding to continue rebuilding its work force after the disruptive effects of last year's sequestration. it fully funds the f.a.a.'s airport grants and research programs as well as the contract towers and essential air service programs that so many of our rural communities depend on. it includes sufficient funding for h.u.d.'s housing and homeless assistance programs to preserve this vital piece of the nation's safety net. more than half of the $5.4 million very low-income households that depend upon the housing assistance provided in this bill, includes someone who's elderly, disabled or both. without these programs, many of these individuals would be homeless.

the bill includes $90 million for choice neighborhoods. that's a program that helps tear down and rebuild distressed public housing as well as language making it possible for more local authorities to access private capital through the rental assistance demonstration to renovate our aging housing stock. and, notably, it includes reforms to make the programs in this bill more accountable and more effective. these include provisions to make it easier for public housing authorities to manage their capital and operations needs as well as resources for h.u.d. to use the lessons it has learned since hurricane katrina to develop templates that communities can quickly implement to speed recovery effectively following a disaster. the bill streamlines environmental reviews for native american housing. it works to ensure accountability for property owners that don't maintain the quality of their h.u.d. housin housing -- assisted housing. and it increases accountability

in the cdbg program. so, madam president, that's our bill and we do make tough choices. to fund increases for inflation and other uncontrollable costs, we made the very difficult choice of trimming funding for programs that members care abo about, including the tiger and home programs. in short, this bill is a good bill. i note that most of the transportation funding, a total of just over $50 billion, comes from our highway trust fund. and as we all know, right now the highway trust fund is headed towards a crisis. the department of transportation expects the balances in this fund to reach critical levels later this summer. to deal with this uncertainty, states now are already bracing for the worst-case scenario. some states, like arkansas, have already put their projects on hold. this crisis could also hurt workers in the construction industry who depend on jobs to repair our roads and bridges. if congress does not act, a shortfall in the highway trust fund will put at risk the

funding that we have included here in our thud bill. we need immediate action to solve that crisis well before october, when the new fiscal year starts, and we need to work together to avoid that unnecessary and preventable crisis. but in the meantime, i'm glad we are turning to the transportation and housing bill and getting the work of the appropriations done. together with the senator from maine, senator collins, i encourage members to bring their amendments to the floor and to work with us to make it even better. mr. president, this bill enjoys broad bipartisan support because it takes a practical approach to addressing the real needs we find in the transportation and housing sectors. the investments it make would improve safety, increase efficiency and help our communities and lay down a strong foundation for long-term and broad-based economic growth and help position our country and our economy to compete and win in the 21st century global economy. so i urge our colleagues to

support our bipartisan bill and i hope that we can move rapidly to final passage. madam president, before i yield, i do want to thank chairwoman mikulski for her support and leadership. as the former chair of the v.a.-h.u.d. subcommittee, she appreciates the importance of the investments in our bill. this bill includes priorities of members on both sides of the aisle, reflecting the appropriations committee bipartisan tradition. so i want to thank our entire committee for their work, and i especially want to take a moment to express my thanks to my ranking member, senator collins, and her staff for all of their hard work and cooperation throughout this process. i'm proud that together we have written a bill that works for families and communities and investing in families and communities and long-term economic growth should not be a partisan issue. i think that the bipartisan work that went into this bill and the strong support it received in committee proves it doesn't have to be. with that, i would yield to my friend and partner, senator

collins. ms. collins: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from maine. ms. collins: madam president, i'm told that the senator from washington state has the -- has a very brief statement she would like to make, so i would ask unanimous consent that she be allowed up to three minutes to make her statement before i reclaim the floor. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. cantwell: thank you, madam president. i thank the senator from maine and i'll explain to her later how maine continues to play a very interesting role in such an important issue. but, madam president, i come to the floor because the patent office has just ruled that the name of the washington football team is not patentable because it is a slur. so we're so excited to know that finally people are recognizing that this issue can no longer be a business case for the nfl to use this patent. they will not be able to

forcefully exclude other people for having derivatives of this logo or the name and thereby it's putting a big dent in the business case that the nfl has. now, so many people have helped in this effort and i want to applaud them, from senator reid and his leadership, to amanda blackhorse and susan harjo. these are the people who have been fighting this case before the patent office, and to all the people who have watched the video on mascot.org, a web site that basically depicts why native americans want to be viewed as human beings and not a mascot. we want to thank all of them. so this is not the end of this case but this is a landmark decision by the patent office that says that the nfl team near washington, d.c., does not have a patentable name and that this is an offensive term, not patentable by the patent office, and so i hope that all the business decisions over there at the team will understand that this is no longer a business case and will get off of this

slurous name that we need to change. so i thank my colleague from maine for yielding me this opportunity to speak on this breaking, important issue. so -- and i thank my colleagues here on the floor. ms. collins: madam president, i would ask unanimous consent that senator cantwell's statement be placed at an appropriate location in the record so that it does not interrupt the debate. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. collins: thank you, madam president. madam president, i'm pleased to join with chairman murray as we hope to begin floor consideration of the bipartisan fiscal year 2015 appropriations bill for transportation, housing, and urban development and related agencies. as usual, it has been a great pleasure to work with chairman murray. she is extremely fair-minded and

bipartisan in the approach that she has taken to this bill. and i also want to thank her staff for working closely with my staff as we sought to craft a bill that i believe deserves the support of all of our colleagues. let me also take this opportunity to thank chairwoman mikulski and vice chairman shelby for their extraordinary leadership in advancing these three appropriations bills through what at times is turning out to be a daunting process. it is my hope and expectation that we can give members of this body the opportunity to debate all three of these bills, to offer amendments and ultimately to pass them and that we have an open and transparent process. i would encourage cooperation on

both sides of the aisle. it is in the best interest of this country for us to do our work in the regular order, in normal process, and to pass these bills and then to hold conferences with the house to iron out any differences. just last week, madam president, the house did approve its own version of the thud appropriations bill. this is an important step in the process which will eventually allow the two chambers to meet in conference and produce a final bill to send to the president for his signature. i commend the leaders of the appropriations committee and also the floor leaders for making sure we had the time available to bring these bills to the floor. there is no reason, madam chair,

that we cannot -- madam president, that we cannot pass each one of the appropriations bills, have a conference with the house and get them to the president before the start of the fiscal year so that we can avoid gigantic omnibus bills that are a poor way to legislate or, even worse, continuing resolutions that lock into law increased costs and priorities that may no longer reflect today's needs. madam president, the thud before us today is th is essentially as bill. it provides $54.4 billion in responsible investments in transportation and housing programs and it includes input

from members on both sides of the aisle. madam president, every senator has unmet transportation and housing needs in his or her state. from crumbling roads and unsafe bridges to a growing population of vulnerable low-income families, seniors and disabled individuals in need of housing assistance. chairman murray and i worked very hard to accommodate the input from many members in this bill that we bring before you, received overwhelming support in the full appropriations committee. in fact, as chairman murray mentioned, the vote was 29-1 to report this bill to the full senate. it's essential to acknowledge that this year's thud bill is

directly affected by a nearly $3 billion reduction in federal housing authority receipts for fiscal year 2015. as a result, we were faced with making very difficult decisions to ensure that the federal investments in this bill were prioritized to meet the most critical needs. madam president, one of the most pressing issues that this bill addresses has not received a great deal of attention so i want to spend just a moment on it and that is the safe transportation of crude oil and other hazardous materials by rail. and i know that the presiding officer is very familiar with this issue. i'm pleased to say that our transportation bill strengthens three components to help ensure

the safe transportation of crude oil and other hazardous materials. it focuses on prevention, mitigation and response. and if you talk to any emergency responders, they will tell you that those are the three critical components. we -- we do so without adopting the president's poorly concede proposal which would have created another level of bureaucracy in the secretary's office. instead, we chose what i believe to be a wiser course. we provided funding directly to the agencies to support additional rail inspectors, advanced research efforts and to establish cooperative training programs. madam president, i know

firsthand how horrific these disasters can be, because just last year there was a terrible derailment in quebec, just 30 miles from the border of maine, that caused 47 lives -- that cost 47 lives and syncly destroyed this picturesque village. i was very proud that 30 maine firefighters responded to the call for help from their canadian counterparts. senator murray and i held an oversight hearing to look at rail safety, and the fire chief from rangely, maine, tim pelleran testified before our committee at our oversight hearing. he provided gripping testimony about this extraordinarily

dangerous experience as well as thoughtful recommendations about what should be done, and i want to tell the chief that we listened to him and a lot of the recommendations in our bill, particularly with regard to training, reflect the advice that he gave us as a first responder on that very dangerous scene. madam president, turning to another issue, this bill provides $550 million for the tiger program, an effective initiative that helps advance transportation infrastructure projects. we have seen firsthand how tiger projects create good jobs and support economic growth in our home states. turning now to air travel, the aviation investments included in our bill will continue to

modernize our nation's air traffic system. these investments are creating safer skies and a more efficient airspace to move the flying public. in addition to transportation programs, our bill provides sufficient but not generous funding to keep pace with the rising costs of housing vulnerable families. more than four million families will continue to receive critical rental assistance for their housing. without it, madam president, many of these families would otherwise become homeless. chairman murray and i continue to share a strong commitment, indeed a passion to reducing homelessness in this country. for that reason, we have included more than $2 billion

for homeless assistance grants. since 2010, we have reduced overall chronic homelessness by 16% and veterans' homelessness by 24%. these programs are working, madam president, and we have the data to prove it, and that is why our bill builds on these successes and provides an additional 10,000 h.u.d.-backed vouchers to serve our nation's veterans. we have an obligation to our nation's veterans. that has been very much on our minds recently, and we can point with pride to the reduction by 24% in homelessness among

veterans, but we want to complete the job. we don't want any veteran to be homeless, and we are making progress through this well-conceived program. while our bill helps families in need and our nation's veterans, it also invests in our communities. boosting local economies is critical to job creation, and helping families obtain financial security. our legislation supports these local development efforts by providing more than $3 billion for community development block grants. madam president, i am sure you have had the experience, as most members have, of talking to state and local officials about the community development block grant program. it is an extremely popular program with states and

communities because it allows them to tailor the federal funds to support locally driven economic and job creation projects. it isn't washington telling them how this money should be spent but rather giving the flexibility so they can meet local economic development needs and help to create new jobs. madam president, the bill before us does not solve all of the problems in either the department of transportation or in the department of housing and urban development. we don't have the money to do that. most notably, the administration's budget does not come up with a realistic way to address the urgent need to prevent the highway trust fund

from becoming insolvent in august. and there should be no doubt about any -- in the mind of any member of this body. if the administration and congress do not take action before the august recess, state departments of transportation will not be reimbursed for work that has already been completed, and new projects likely will grind to a halt, and jobs, good construction jobs, will be lost. the administration must present an achievable plan to avoid this disruption, these lost jobs, these stalled transportation projects, and congress must work in good faith to secure passage.

transportation is the lifeline of our economy, supporting millions of jobs and moving people and products. when coupled with the housing and economic development projects, the fiscal year twist transportation and housing appropriation bill will create jobs now when they are needed most and will establish the foundation for future growth. just as important to our economic future, however, is reigning in -- reining in excessive federal spending and getting our national debt under control, which must be a priority governmentwide. we have met the budget allocations that have been provided to us, and in striking -- in setting priorities for fiscal year 2015, i believe our t-h.u.d. bill

strikes the right balance between thoughtful investment and the necessary fiscal restraint. madam president, i appreciate the opportunity to present this legislation to the members of this chamber. as we begin the debate -- as we continue the debate on these bills, i urge my colleagues to consider how important it is that we complete our work on time, and i hope they will support the efforts of the appropriation committee. thank you, madam president. ms. mikulski: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. ms. mikulski: madam president, i yield to the majority leader. mr. reid: i appreciate the chairman of the committee being so kind. we're not in a quorum call, are we? okay. madam president, there are 27 tribes in the state of nevada,

native americans. the issue regarding the name redskins is very important to every one of those tribes. every time they hear this name, it is a sad reminder of a long tradition of racism and bigotry. a month or so ago, daniel snyder, the owner of the team, had some people come to nevada and agreed to buy one of the indian tribes a car if they would say nice things about the redskins. they refused that. this is extremely important to native americans all over the country that they no longer use this name. it's racist. daniel snyder says it's about tradition. i ask what tradition? a tradition of racism. that's all that that name leaves in its wake. the writing is on the wall. it's on the wall in giant, blinking, neon lights. the names will change for the tribes in nevada and across the nation who care so deeply about this issue. the patent and copyright office today took away all the

trademarks. the redskins no longer have trademarks. they are gone. and so as i understand the law, the presiding officer -- if the presiding officer wants to use the name redskins to sell some shirts, you can do that. there is no trademark anymore for the redskins. daniel snyder may be the last person in the world to realize this, but it's just a matter of time until he is forced to do the right thing and change the name. and, madam president, i do want to say this in closing. i know there is a lot of talk, people want to say something. the leader on this issue is the junior senator from the state of washington. senator cantwell has been tireless in showing the american people how unfair it is for the redskins' name to be used as it is. i think she is one of the leading causes that the u.s. patent and copyright office said no longer, it's no longer a trademark. they did that this morning.

ms. mikulski: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. ms. mikulski: madam president, i know that senator collins and murray are leaving the floor to go to the department of d.o.d. h secretary hagel, and we look forward to their return this afternoon, but i want to really acknowledge the great role that they play in -- played in putting together the appropriation on transportation funding for the entire united states of america, as well as the department of housing and urban development. we're going to talk more about transportation because it literally keeps america rolling, whether it's the kind of problems that we solve with the issues around safety, congestion , it's -- they are absolutely crucial. but often what's not talked about in their bill is housing and urban development and how

it's also the famous h.u.d. bill does not only do urban development. i note that the presiding officer is from the state of north dakota, whose terrain and challenges are very different than my state, a coastal state. but the chairlady would be interested to know because she has been hit by some bad weather, that when hurricane sandy hit, my state was hit by two things -- a hurricane, a hurricane down on my eastern shore in which a whole town was under water and literally people had to be rescued by zodiacs and by boats and so on. and then up in western maryland, my mountain counties were people who the blizzard -- we were hit by a blizzard, and it was so bad that regular snowplows and local

government and private sector weren't working. the governor had to bring in the national guard. and god bless our state troopers and first responders. we were bringing out -- they were bringing out senior citizens on snowmobiles and things strapped to their chest to get them to safety because the free zone was there. and i tell you that poignant story because while we look to -- looked to fema to rescue, it was really the community development block grant money that helped local communities come back. fema was there for readiness so we were ready to respond, it was ready to respond, but the big job of rehandlings always comes through cdbg. i'm going to talk about it because it's a lot of letters, one more agency with a lot of letters, but it's also a big impact, and what we need to be able to focus on is this is federal spending with local decisionmaking. it is money that comes to local communities to eliminate blight and to create jobs, and blight

can come from a natural disaster or communities that are aging or the kind of impact. so we hope we have support for the bill, but gee, they did a good job and they did it with diligence, civility, collegiality, i think, and common sense as is characteristic. i'd point out we've tried to be common sense, too. working with senator shelby, i'm going to emphasize the word "frugality." how do we make sure we get value for the taxpayer dollars. it's something that i strongly believe in and my colleague really has been a federal watchdog, and he, like i, believes in the funding of these agencies. these watchdog agencies are absolutely crucial, and the appropriations committee under my chairmanship but with the

strong con concurrence of the vice chairman, we believe in the inspector generals. you know, congress can hold an investigation and we can pound our chest and put glasses on our nose and ask tough questions, but we need the kind of really drilling down to know what our agencies are doing and are they making sure that we avoid boondoggles, waste, stupidity, and at the same time terrible cost overruns. thanks to working on a bipartisan basis, we have insisted that inspector generals be at every hearing. this has been a new innovation of the leadership of senator shelby and i. we want the inspector generals to be part of our official record, so we know the top ten issues they brought to our

attention to stand sentry. and we put money in the federal checkbook to fund them. we funded the commerce department i.g. at 30z $6 million, his -- $30.6 million, for justice to make sure those grant programs were well mrd, for -- administered, for nasa to avoid techno boondoggles and the n.s.f. too. we'll talk more about the problems they identified and the problems we solved but i note on the floor now is senator pryor, the gentleman from arkansas who has chaired the subcommittee on agriculture and f.d.a., an important subcommittee that's part of our overall bill today. so i yield the floor to senator pryor. mr. pryor: thank you. the presiding officer: the senator from arkansas. mr. pryor: thank you madam

chairwoman. before i start, i'd like to ask unanimous consent that bob ross and colette pollard be granted floor privileges during the rrgs of h.r. 4660. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. pryor: madam president, today i want to rise in support of the fy 15 agriculture appropriations bill. i know that senator blunt, the ranking member, is on his way over. we were just in another subcommittee hearing, and we were asking questions and whatnot, so he's on his way over. but before i say anything else i just want to thank senator blunt, because he has been great in terms of a great partner to work with, and he has really just been outstanding. he knows this stuff, he works hard, he knows how to work the system. he's been great and he's one of those guys that you can trust and he's very bipartisan, and

if we had more folks like senator blunt around here, we'd get a lot more done. he's really doing great work for the country by doing what he's doing. this is a commonsense and a bipartisan bin bill. it did pass unanimously coming out of the full committee, the appropriations committee last month and i'm confident that my colleagues when they have a chance to see it, they will like it. and i would heartily encourage everyone to take a good look at it and support it and support it for final passage. you know, agriculture is something, madam president, that you know very well is something that america does better than anybody else in the world. and really we are the envy of the world when it comes to agriculture. we do it right. we're the gold standard. we're what every other nation in the world wants to be. and, of course, what that means is that is, of course, rural america's number-one industry. and so when you talk about agriculture, you talk about

rural america, it's doing something that we can be extremely proud of in this body and in this country because they do it better than anybody else. and i learned a little lesson a year or two ago when senator stabenow took over as chairwoman of the senate agriculture committee. she told me, she said, you know, everybody thinks of michigan and they think of automobile manufacturing, heavy industry, as the number-one industry. and it is in michigan. but agriculture is number two. if you go around a map of the united states that's what you see is pretty much in almost every state agriculture is either the number-one industry in that state or number two, in a few cases it's the number three industry. in arkansas as an example, i could go around all 50 states but in arkansas as an example, agriculture equals a full 25% of our state's economy. 25% of our state's economy is

agriculture or ag-related. if you look around the country you'll see numbers like that in many, many states. it contributes $17 billion in economic activity to arkansas, and it also supports thousands and thousands and thousands of jobs. in fact, madam president, about one in six jobs. we could put a chart up like this for just about any state in the union because these numbers, they may change from state to state but they're going to be generally the same. and the agriculture appropriations bill that we are talking about today builds on the strengths of our agriculture industry. it invests in the farm service agency. it prohibits the closure of f.s.a. offices which provide vital services to our farmers and ranchers and it provides funding for farm ownership loans. it also invests in the agricultural research service and the natural resources

conservation service, so america can continue to innovate and make our agricultural products more efficiently. this is another area where that america truly leads the world in, is the agricultural innovation. agriculture is very science-based, very innovate, it always doesn't get credit for being high tech but it actually is and so much of that basic research and the things that really make a difference out in the field happen in this legislation. but that's not all that the bill does. it also makes smart investments to help improve job opportunities and quality of life for families in rural america. you know, one thing we don't want to see is we don't want to see the old tale of two americas where urban and suburban gets all the money, gets the latest and the greatest and the best and the cutting edge, and rural america is left behind. well, that can happen around here and that does happen in washington, unfortunately, quite a bit. but not in this bill. this bill really does focus its

primary emphasis is on rural america, one of the few bills that we talk about in any given congress that really does focus on rural america. and it makes smart investments there. it maintains funding for the rural development water and waste disposal program to help our communities, many of these very small communities, obtain clean water and sanitary waste disposal systems. here again just because you live in small-town america doesn't mean you shouldn't have clean water. everybody in this country should have clean water and so this bill is one of those that makes sure that happens. it increases funding for the f.d.a., the food and drug administration, to ensure that our food and our drug supply remains the safest and the most reliable in the world. there again, the f.d.a. is in this bill, everybody in the world wants to be like f.d.a. everybody wants the integrity that we have in our system here for our food and our drugs in this country.

we fund f.d.a. here. it provides funding for the food safety and inspection service to keep our food supply safe. and it sustains the school meals equipment grant so our schools can continue to provide healthy meals for kids. we also have included in this legislation money for disaster relief. and some people have asked me why. why should you do that? madam president, i have a photograph that was recently taken in arkansas and it's some of the just -- just one example of the devastating effects of the tornado. and here you look at what used to be someone's home, and you have to remember that this house, these people worked all their lives to have this house and in about 45 seconds, this is what was left of it. and if you look closely, it may be hard to see on the television, but right here is a motorcycle, you see a pickup truck there, you see a power line laying here in the side

yard, you see a few appliances, of course you see people hugging and whatnot but one thing you see is that pride, that pride in america where they put up the flag in most adverse circumstances, they pulled together to make it happen. so we put disaster money in this legislation because our country needs disaster money. we need to make sure that disasters are fully funded and that we have the resources when our neighbors who need it the most, we have it when they do need it. you know, in this storm lives were lost, homes were completely wiped out and many communities were left in ruins. and arkansas is not unique in that. i wish i could say this didn't happen but it does happen periodically around the country. this bill provides funding to help states respond when natural disasters strike and so my view is that supporting this legislation really is a no-brainer. it's bipartisan, it's good, commonsense, solid piece of

legislation. it sustains our agriculture producers, our communities and our families and it strengthens our economy and it secures the future of our nation. just in closing before i turn it over to my colleague from missouri -- and i do want to hear from him, i know we're all anxious to hear what he says -- there's been a question that i've talked to many, many of my colleagues, both on the democratic and on the republican side, about whether we will allow amendments. and the answer is absolutely yes. we would like to see amendments. i cannot speak for everyone in the chamber but for -- of the members of the appropriations committee who are involved in this legislation including the chairwoman and the ranking member, yes, we want to talk to senators about their amendments, it a little like the statue of liberty, give me your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free. we want to see those amendments. we're hoping we we believe be ae

to find chron ground and make this bill better as it goes through the process. certainly we don't want a lot of funny business on that, we want real amendments, good amendments, amendments that are important to moving this forward. so i know that many of my colleagues have been frustrated, but we would like to talk to as many members as possible about their amendments and i know i'll be on the floor on and off most of the day, on or near the floor all day, so if anyone's office wants to talk to me about amendments or any member wants to come over and talk about amendments, i'll be glad to do that. with that, madam president, i'd like to yield the the floor to y colleague from missouri. mr. blunt: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from missouri. mr. blunt: i'm pleased to join the senator from arkansas in introducing this bill. he's been a great person to work with. i also want to fully associate myself with his comments about our colleagues' ability to amend these bills.

senator mikulski and senator shelby have been real advocates for us getting back to the process the way it essentially worked in the country for a couple hundred years. and we got out of the habit of bringing these bills to the floor, letting members come to the floor and offer better ways to spend this money and if they want to propose not to spend it at all, that's one of the proposals they can make. the senator from arkansas and i have worked to make the tough choices but seldom is a bill so perfect it can't be improved, and, by the way, there's nothing wrong with defending the decisions we've made. you know, one of the real losses i believe to the country and the senate of these bills not coming to the floor in recent years is that members of the senate haven't had to hear the debate. members who bring the bills to the floor haven't had to defend the bill and before you know it if you don't have to defend what you're for, you have a hard time remembering why you're for

what you're for. this process makes sense if you do it the right way. searnld senator pryor has want -- certainly senator pryor has wanted to approach it that way and from the point of view of he and i both, senator mikulski and senator shelby have been advocating that we bring these bills to the floor, we debate these priorities, and i'm particularly pleased to join with senator pryor in introducing this bill, bringing this bill to the floor, the fiscal year 2015 appropriations bill for agriculture, for rural development, for the food and drug administration, and the things that relate to those, the agencies that relate to those agencies. the senator made a good point already about how important this industry is. in missouri as in arkansas, it's the number-one industry, agriculture, in my state, responsible for 16% of the state work force.

and, frankly, as world food needs develop, i believe the percentage of our work force that will have jobs because of agriculture, growing it, producing it, processing it, figuring out how to get it to markets around the world, will even be a higher percentage in the future. in most states, i think agriculture is the number-one industry in most states, and if it's not the number-one industry, it's right there at the top. and, madam president, for 150 years now, the federal government, through what would become the department of agriculture after a bill that president lincoln signed in 18 1862, has been doing many of the things that we want to continue to do in this bill. this is not a newfound object gaig on the part of the federal government. this is not something that the federal government just decided that it needed to have some responsibility for but something

that 150 years ago, the federal government said, you know, we don't need to have as the land grant universities were founded, the federal government said, we need to help these universities manage the research they're doing so that what they're doing is shared throughout our country so it's not needlessly duplicated, so it's properly not only allocated but funded. and so the activities in these -- in this bill includes one of our priorities, one of my priorities, agricultural research. it includes conservation activities. housing and business loans for rural communities. domestic and international nutrition programs. and then food and drug safety. and certainly all of those have a top priority on the list of different individual members of the senate. but it would be hard to find a senator that didn't have near the top of their priority list one of the things that this bill

does. the senator from arkansas and i have made difficult decisions in drafting this bill. aside from the disaster recovery efforts, the bill is $90 million below last year's bill. it represents i think a responsible approach to funding these priorities but at the same time tightening our belts as we work to live within our means. we prioritize programs that protect public health, maintain the strength of our nation's agricultural economy. agriculture is one of the few sectors in our economy that consistently enjoys a trade surplus. last year was our strongest export year in ag products in the history of the country. recent information from the department of agriculture would indicate that 2014 is going to set a new record. we need to continue to work

through the u.s. department of agriculture to open new markets and we're -- we're doing that, particularly markets in asia and europe that need to be more open to our products, expanding agricultural exports is vital. every $1 billion in agricultural exports supports an estimated 8,000 american jobs. and if we need to have a domestic priority in the congress today, it's more private-sector jobs. one way to do that is to continue to do the things we're doing in this bill and do those things even better. opening export markets is only one piece of the puzzle that maintains our agricultural economy. the american farmers is the best in the world at producing products that are desired worldwide, desired in the global marketplace. smart investments in ag research

has helped us get to that point. we're -- we have products with a quality, with a market sensitivity, with a health and nutrition value that people all over the world want. this bill places significant emphasis on maintaining research in our land grant universities, in our non-land grant university systems that have a commitment to agriculture, and funding competitive research beyond that, in things like the agricultural and food research initiative. these programs are critical to our increased production. every dollar spent in agricultural research results in around $20 returned to the u.s. economy. when we can make a commitment like that and -- and, by the way, that comes year after year once you create that -- that notch and work to try to improve it, it continues to come. this bill also will provide our

rural communities with the -- with even more ability to compete both here and abroad. we've fully funded in a bill where many times didn't get the funding that was requested, we fully funded the food and drug administration request. it's important to the chairman, important to our committee and important as we look at the health and safety of the products that the food and drug administration is responsible for. again, i want to thank the senator from arkansas for his leadership in this regard. i want to thank our chairman and ranking member of the full committee for working so hard to see these bills debated on the floor. i look forward to working with our colleagues as they come up with ways to improve this bill. it's one of the three bills that are on the floor this week. i hope we can return to a day very quickly where all the appropriations bills are on the floor in as small groups as

possible, that they're all open to amendment. and we have to get back to the practice of remembering why we're for what we're for and why we've decided to propose that the hard-earned dollars of american families should be spent for these things as opposed to not spending them all or spending them for something else. it's a process that will work if the senate shares the commitment of the chairman and senator shelby. and i think everybody on the appropriations committee should try to get back into the business of doing this business publicly and openly and in the right way. as a matter of fact, senator pryor. mr. pryor: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from arkansas. mr. pryor: i just had a few more comments after listening to my colleague from missouri. i did want to mention a few things. one is exports. we all know that we have a bad trade deficit. we know that. but it would be horrendous if it

were not for agriculture. agriculture is really a huge net plus for us when it comes to exports. and you may ask yourself why. well, that's because we grow the safest, highest quality food in the world. and other people want it. and there are -- there's no question that when that food shows up on the shelves in a foreign country, if it says "made in the u.s.a.," yeah, sometimes they can charge a premium because they know when it has that usda seal of approval, they know it is of the highest quality that you can find anywhere in the world. so exports are very important. we've heard the president -- not just this president, the previous president -- talk about exports and how many jobs that exports create. we need to get back in the exportation business and agriculture's a gray way to do it. another -- is a great way to do it. another thing i wanted to comment on is senator blunt alluded to research. and there are some tremendous

numbers for research. for every dollar you put into research, you get $20 back to the economy. that's a no-brainer. it's the smart thing to do and good for the economy. but also both of us had an experience a few weeks ago where bill gates, who founded microsoft, came in and talked to us about american agriculture research and how important it is in feeding the world. and one thing that struck me is here's a man, bill gates, who's been an economic revolutionary, he has changed the world with microsoft and the digital revolution and the high-tech and all the things that he's been involved with, he has been at the cutting edge of so much of that change we've seen in -- in our me and the world's economy the last, you know, 20, 30-plus years. it's phenomenal. but here he is in the autumn of his life and what does he come back to? agriculture, something that's so basic that we take for granted.

but he knows because he's seen the work through the bill and linda gates foundation, he's seen the work around the world, he's seen the abject poverty, he's seen the starvation. he knows that when they get their hands on american products like seed, fertilizer, things like that -- again, that we take for granted -- he knows that that will be a life changer for those people around the world. and i think it was senator blunt who said that his experience is that when people have been eating bad food all of their life, once they get a chance to eat good food, they don't want to go back to bad food. and that's what bill gates is talking about. but that's where ag research comes in. that's where this piece of the puzzle fits. another thing i want to say just about rural america generally. in this legislation, we have provisions for rural water, rural housing, rural broadband, rural electricity. and, again, we just have to understand, everybody needs to understand the economics of that.

if you want to add broadband somewhere and if you want to do it, say, in suburban washington, d.c., obviously you have, you know, relatively -- in many cases, relatively high income levels, you have population density, you have things that make it economically feasible. but if you're out in rural america, you want those people to have access to broadband but you get so many fewer customers per mile and that's why we help. this is sort of the premise of the old universal service fund that we've had for a long time in telephone to help people -- to help expand that network to every single home in america. and now, of course, we have a lot of wireless technologies and what-not. so we want to make that readily available to rural america. and then the last thing on substance i wanted to mention that senator blunt mentioned is the food and drug administrati administration. i'm not sure that there is a more -- an agency that's responsible for more innovation

than the f.d.a. we need to keep the f.d.a. stable. we need to keep them well-funded. they need to be able to approve drugs and do the testing they need to do. one of the new frontiers that they're dealing with is nano technology. we're seeing nano product enter the marketplace all over the economy and there's been very little testing on that for human safety. so f.d.a.'s doing that. we need to continue to fund them so they can do their job. we don't want them to be an obstacle to innovation. we want them to be a partner to innovation. let them -- let these companies come in and have these great products, whatever they are -- could be cosmetics, could be food, could be drug, whatever -- let them innovate and do that and, again, create those american jobs and enhance the marketplace, but in order for f.d.a. to do that, we've got to fund them. and the last thing i was going to say is this. senator blunt is right. we have the best system of government in the world, bar none, and the united states

senate always has its moments where you may have a little few rough edges -- this is democracy at its finest -- you get a few rough edges, people don't always agree, they fuss and fight, things get balled up here and there. but -- but -- our system works and it works great if we let it work. and i think what the chairwoman and the ranking member of the full committee are saying is, we want the process to work. we want it to work. we want to talk about amendments. we want to have amendments. we want to have votes. we want to get back to regular order, whatever it means in the senate. but most of us know what it means. it means getting back to where senators can participate in the process but it's also common goodwill and in good faith. so with that, madam president -- also done with goodwill and in good faith. so, with that, madam president, i would yield the floor. but i would like my colleagues to look very closely at this and support this legislation. the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. ms. mikulski: madam president, i note the distinguished senator from arizona is on the floor.

we want to be sure he has an opportunity to speak. i have a housekeeping thing to take care of and just a few things, about three sentences about ag. and i know senator shelby, we want the senator from arizona to be able to have the floor. madam president, i have 11 unanimous consent requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. they do have the approval of the majority and minority leaders. and i, therefore, ask unanimous consent that these requests be agreed to and that these requests be entered into the record. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. mikulski: madam president, i do want to comment on the agricultural bill but i'll do that later on in the day. i'll be on the floor and -- along with senator shelby trying to move this bill to a way that we could complete the motion to proceed and that we could move to amendments. during that time, i -- but right now i want to compliment both the senator from arkansas and the senator from missouri,

senators pryor and blunt, for the excellent way they've moved the agriculture/f.d.a. bill. they've worked on a bipartisan basis. they've met compelling human need -- in other words, feed america first; see how we can feed others in need around the world -- look out from everyone from the family farm to also food safety, because now so much of our food is also imported. and at the same time they have supported the food and drug administration. that's an agency located in maryland that is responsible for oversight of the food supply but also our pharmaceuticals, biotech and medical devices. my colleagues have spoken eloquently about exports, particularly in the area of fo food. i will speak later on today about the exports of pharmaceuticals, biotech and medical devices because there are countries around the world

that what to look out for their own people but they don't have an f.d.a. so when we have products, life science products that save lives or improve lives and they have been stamped by the f.d.a. as safe and effective, then countries know that they can buy them with confidence. and this means that those areas of endeavors are not only great for jobs in our country, great for improving the lives of people in our country, but they're also a major source of the new american export economy. i think they did a great job, and i'll say more about it. but right now i want to see if senator shelby has something to say that we can go it our senate colleague from arizona. the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. mccain: i ask unanimous consent to observe -- to address the senate is if in morning

business in a colloquy with the senator from south carolina when he arrives. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mccain: i come to the floor thorp this morning with my colleague from south carolina to put to rest the dlaim w claim wo often today, that president obama wanted to use a residual forces. this is a very important item, aspect of the debate that is now going on and it is chamber that made in growing desperation these days has become increasingly clear for all to see that the president's mishandling of the iraq for the past five years is, his consistt inaction on syria has brought us to the state of disaster.

it is the size of the state of indiana. it is the largest terrorist safe haven in history. isis is re-i.g. nateing conflict in iraq and threatening to erase the gains that nearly 4,500 brave young americans gave their lives to secure and that largely secure when the president took office in january of 2009. in january 2009, the surge had succeeded, iraq was not violent. the surge had succeeded. we won the war and lost the peace. that's a fact. the administration and its defenders are now scrambling to pin the blame of this catastrophic failure on anyone but themselves. they're trying blame the bush administration. thisser a trying to blame people like myself and the senator from

south carolina for voting to authorize the war while conveniently forgetting that the vice president, the secretary -- vice president biden, the secretary of state, the secretary of defense, his predecessor secretary clinton, and many other democrats still serve in this body voted for the war in iraq as well. while also forgetting that the senator from south carolina and i began crit siting the bush administration -- criticizing the bush administration as early as 2003 for their mishandling of the war and calling for a change in stravment i called in 2006 for the firing of the secretary of defense, secretary rumsfeld, because of the mishandling of the war. indeed, the very strategy that was finally adopted thanks to a great leader named general petraeus and a great admiral named ryan crocker. most are trying to blame the

failures of iraq on iraq's leaders. the blame lies squarely with prime minister maliki and other iraqi leaders. but the administration cannot escape its own responsibility for the current disaster. this is something that the senator from south carolina and i saw firsthand and we stated over and over, and in order to set this debate to rest once and for all, we'd like to review the record. we predicted when all the troops were withdrawn that there would be the events that are taking place today, not as rapidly but we predicted that iraq would fall into chaos if we withdrew all the troops and did not leave a residual force behind, as we have in south korea, in germany, in japan, in bosnia, and other countries after the conflict has ended. from its first day in office, the obama administration signaled a hands-on approach to iraq. it immediately pushed toker a

faster drawdown of u.s. forces than our commanders recommended. it appointed an ambassador to iraq who had no experience working anywhere in the arab world. i think he is a fine man. edna experience. it adopt the a hands-off experience of adop adopting irai politics. nowhere was the obama administration's failure more pronounced than during the debate over whether to maintain a limited number of u.s. troops in iraq beyond the 2011 expiration of the 2008 status of forces agreement or sofa. the administration is quick to lay blame on others for the fact that they tried and failed to keep a limited presence of

troops in iraq. they blame the bush administration, of course for man dating the withdrawal in the sofa. this does not ring true because as condoleezza rice has blade clear, the plan was to renegotiate the agreement to aphor a continued presence of u.s. forces in iraq. everybody believed, she said, in 2011 it would be better if there was some kind of residual force. most of all, the obama administration blames iraqis for failing to grant the necessary privileges and immunities for a u.s. force presence beyond 23011. this, too, is totally misleading because, as we saw firsthand, senator graham and i traveled to baghdad, to erbil, and we met with maliki, we met with barzani, we met wul the liards of the main political blocks and

heard a common message during all of these conversations. iraqi leaders recognize that it was in their country's interest to maintain a limited number of u.s. troops to continue training and assisting iraqi security forces beyond 2011. but when we asked ambassador jim jeffrey and the commander of the u.s. forces in iraq lloyd austin in direct response to a question in a meeting with then-prime minister -- with maliki, he said, okay, i want to know how many troops and what their missions are. we turned to general austin. the answer was that they had still not made a decision. in irbil, arzani said he would fly to baghdad. the winner of the election said that he would agree. and then after that, prime minister maliki announced that if his partners agreed -- which they did -- he would agree to a

residual force in iraq. you now, those are just facts. just days after the senator from south carolina and i left baghdad, prime minister maliki, as i said, signaled his willingness -- and it is a matter of record, public record -- to a residual presence of u.s. troops if 70% of iraqis agreed. the kurds agreed. the sung niece agreed, and maliki himself had signaled his. we could have lined up the remaining shia support to take this difficult decision. unfortunately, that does not happen. instead, months and months has passed and the administration made no decision on what troop levels they would be willing to maintain that iraq. by august 2011, the leaders of iraq's main political blocks joined together and stated that they were prepared to enter negotiations to keep some u.s.

troops in iraq. another entire month passed and still the white house made no decision. during this long internal deliberation, as chairman of the joint chiefs of staff martin dempsey later testified before the senate armed services committee, the size of a potential u.s. force presence kept cascading down from upwards of 16,000 to an eventual low of less than 3,000. by that point, the force would be able to do little more than protect itself and prime minister maliki and other iraqi leaders realized that the political cost of accepting this proposal was not worth the benefit. so to blame this failure entirely on the iraqis is convenient, but it misses the real point. the reason to keep about 10,000 to 15,000 u.s. forces in iraq was not for the sake of iraq alone. it was first and foremost in our national security interest to continue training and advising

iraqi forces and to maintain greater u.s. influence in iraq. that core principle should have driven a very different u.s. approach to the sofa diplomacy. the obama administration should have recognized that after years of brutal conflict, iraqi leaders still lack trust in one another and a strong u.s. role was required to help iraqis broker their most politically sensitive decision. for this reason, the administration should have determined what tasks and troop numbers were in the national interest to maintain in iraq and done so with ample time to engage with iraqis at the highest level of the u.s. government to shape political conditions in baghdad to achieve our goal. i focus on this failure not because u.s. troops would have been engaging in large-scale combat operations to this day. in fact, they had won the conflict and there was literally no further combat that the

united states was engaged in. by 2011, they were no longer in iraqi cities or engaged in security operations. however, a residual u.s. troop presence could have assisted u.s. forces in their continued fight against al qaeda. it could have provided a platform for greater diplomatic engagement and intelligence corporatiocooperation with our . it could have made iraqi leaders think twice. most importantly, it could have maintained the significant diplomatic influence that the united states still supposed in iraq. influence that had been and still was essential in guaranteeing iraq's nation's political system, reassuring iraqi leaders that they could resolve their differences peacefully and politically despite their mistrust of one noard and checking the authoritarian and sectarian tendencies of prime minister

maliki. now, madam president, there's a need for immediate action. there is a need for immediate action. every day that goes by, there is greater sectarian violence, there is greater success by isis. i don't believe they can take baghdad. but look at the places they have already taken. they are know threatening the major oil refinery in iraq. i can assure you that will affect the world price of oil. there is a need because there is a more polarization of iraq. there is a return of the iraqi-shia militias. there is wholesale killing and slaughter going on. and it will get worse every single day. so what -- is there any good option now in iraq? no, there is no good option.

the worst option is to do nothing. and apparently, according to "the wall street journal" this morning, that is basically the approach that has been taken. we need to recognize that taking military action now is difficult because our intelligence has been so severely degraded since 2011, because isis is becoming so integrated with the sunni tribes. we need to be careful about striking targets. even convoys in the open. there is a real risk of killing sunni tribal elements and pushing the tribes closer to isis. and we also have to recognize that political change in baghdad has to take place, but the question is, do we wait for political change? every day we wait there is more and more iranian influence. the chief -- one of the most evil people in the world, the chief of the iraqi quds force, the iranian quds force, has been

in baghdad planning with maliki. so what does maliki do it when he doesn't see us giving him any real assistance? he turns to the iranians. there are published reports of iranian combat troops now coming into iraq. as more and more of the radical isis people are flowing in back from syria into iraq. as i said, i don't believe -- i've been -- i must -- i admit i was surprised at the rapidity of the success of the isis. but i also believe that the longer we wait to carry out some airstrikes on targets that we can identify, as difficult as it is, with a few people on the ground to identify those, it sends a signal. psychologically, over these people that are traveling long

distances in the desert -- isis -- of an american aircraft flying overhead and perhaps taking some of them out, if they have the sufficient information. that is a psychological effect on any enemy. air power does win conflicts. air power alone does not. but air power can have a significant effect on the morale of your people, on your capability of at least inflicting some damage, of changing the enemy's plans. so obviously political reconciliation is the key, and we must do everything in our power to make sure that maliki appoints a government of reconciliation and departs. but it can't be the prerequisite for u.s. military action because the events and time are not on our side. we also have to recognize that this is not an iraqi conflict.

this is an iraqi-syrian conflict now. the most -- the largest and richest center of terrorism in the history of the world is now in the iraq-syria area. hundreds of millions of dollars from the banks in mosul, and obviously they acquired a whole lot of equipment during their immediate, their credible progress across iraq. i urge my colleagues to have a look at the map of iraq and syria and look at the places that are now controlled by isis. as i say, i don't believe they can roll into baghdad in their vehicles with their guns mounted on them, but they sure as heck can cause a lot of problems: bombings, assassinations, the radicalization of the shiite

militias. if one of the shiite shrines is damaged by isis or u.s. militants, you will see a bigger explosion which will bring us back to the days of 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2006 before the anbar awakening. the same sunni that were part of the anbar awakening that joined us in putting down al qaeda are now being polarized by maliki, the shiites, and also the chickens are coming home to roost as far as maliki is concerned because of the continued marginalizeation and persecution of sunnis all over iraq, much less in anbar province. so we have to act. we have to act. we must act. and i know that there are always

people who will tell our leaders reasons why we can't. but i know of no military expert that believes that doing nothing is a recipe for anything but further chaos and eventually threats to the united states of america. our secretary of homeland security stated it. our director of national intelligence has stated it, that people in this part of iraq and syria will be planning attacks on the united states of america. that's their view. it also is mine. but we can do some effective airstrikes. we can, and it's more difficult because of our degraded intelligence. by the way, when we left iraq, all of those intelligence capabilities were shut down. to make it more effective and mitigate the risks that could push sunnis into the arms of

isis, they got to be accompanied, as i mentioned, with a limited presence of special forces on the ground. these forces could gather intelligence to improve our targeting by isis control, airstrikes from the ground and provide advice and consent, advice from sunni tribes. i believe that several other steps could be taken. one, who is the most respected people in iraq today? probably, david petraeus and ryan crocker. send them back. send them back, those that worked so closely with the sunni like general mcfar land, then-colonel mcfarland, the people that built up these long relationships with the sunnis. send them back. maliki will listen to david petraeus and ryan crocker. send back a planning team. a group of really smart people that can work with what's left of the iraqi military leadership

and identify tactics and strategy that can reverse this tide of the isis which is about to engulf them. send some air power. send some air power with targets we can identify. and i am fully aware of the risks associated with it. i want to repeat over and over and over again, there are no good options. and also make it very clear to maliki that his time is up, that he must arrange for a transition. now the shia won the election, the majority of the votes. a majority of any of the parties but not an overall majority of the vote. this new government could be headed by a shia. but it has to be a shia that can reach out to the sunni and bring them together in a government of national reconciliation. all my colleagues have seen the pictures, seen the pictures of

the young shia who are now joining up and are ready to die, the movement of basra of the shia militia organizations which had been put down before that are now rising from the ashes. you've seen the pictures, the horrible pictures of the executions that are taking place and the incredible displacement, 500,000 people from mosul alone. the kurds have now taken kirkuk, that's an ambition that they have had for the last 50 years. you will see now a drive for total kurdish autonomy from the government in baghdad, and they will be making their own deals as far as oil is concerned. and the kurdish, the kurds will now be pursuing their centuries-old ambition for a kurdish state which will cause the turks to be very concerned. i also want to point out that if isis continues to succeed and

they move back and forth to syria, they will now pose a direct threat, first of all, to jordan, and then to other gulf states, and finally eventually saudi arabia. but those are right next to iraq will be the most under threat. so i urge the president and i urge my colleagues to understand the gravity and the seriousness of this situation, to understand that if isis succeeds, even without taking baghdad, and they are able to establish what they call a caliphate in the syria-iraq area, larger than the state of indiana, and are able to twain, -- train, equip and export terror not only throughout the region but throughout the world, it will pose a direct threat to the

security of this nation. i'd like to thank the senator from south carolina for showing up. mr. graham: i'm sorry i was late. actually i had an exchange with general demsey about this very topic. senator mccain, do you see any scenario where isis is militarily stopped and that the iraqis can retake ground lost to isis without u.s. air power being involved? mr. mccain: i know of no military expert that believes without the use of military power they will be able to regain territory. mr. graham: did you hear president obama say it's unacceptable for iraq islamists to have a safe haven there? mr. mccain: no. i did hear him say on september 14, 2011 we're leaving behind iraq with a representative

government that was elected by its people and other quotations -- mr. graham: my point is don't you agree he's right, it's not acceptable for our national security interests for isis to have a safe haven in syria and iraq that could run from aleppo to baghdad, that that's not a good thing for us? mr. mccain: i totally agree. mr. graham: if it's not a good thing for us, how do you change it? give me a scenario where we put these folks on the run and syria and iraq without air power. give me a scenario where without reconciliation in baghdad has a snowball's chance in hell of succeeding as long as they're losing on the battlefield. give me a scenario where the battlefield turns our way without u.s. air power. i can give you a scenario where

it begins to turn on the battlefield. iran comes in with great numbers. the most likely scenario to stop isis is iranians getting involved with shia militia. does that bother you, senator mccain? mr. mccain: i'd also like to point out something that the senator from south carolina knows and i know. the air power has a psychological effect. when an aircraft flies over the enemy, they are going to do things differently if they fear that they're going to be hit from the air. as we all know, air power does not determine the outcome of the conflicts, but they sure are important in the battlefield equation. mr. graham: is it fair to say the air force in iraq is grounded for all practical purposes? mr. mccain: not only grounded but a lot of air assets, i understand, like apache helicopters, are in the hands of isis. mr. graham: to the president, we agree with you that iraq

matters. we agree with you it is not in our national security interest to have isis occupy territory from aleppo to baghdad, but here's what's a mystery to me. how do we turn this around unless you stop their advance inside of iraq and you go after them in syria? and as to political reconciliation, i completely agree that that is the ultimate change that needs to occur. that airstrikes alone will not get us to where we want to go. but it's a chicken and egg concept for me. can you imagine a scenario, senator mccain, where we can get all the parties together when isis is winning on the battlefield? mr. mccain: that's why i was amused by various commentators who have been consistently wrong, including one in "the new york times" today. all we need to do is have everybody sit down together; a total misreading of the situation. mr. graham: here's the problem with that. to go to a meeting in baghdad, you're likely to get killed trying to get there. who's going to sit down at a

meeting in baghdad when everybody is getting killed based on sectarian differences? my advice would be to use american air power before it's too late as part of a coordinated diplomatic effort, that american air power is part of diplomacy. that may sound counterintuitive but makes perfect sense to me. diplomacy cannot succeed unless you get momentum on the battlefield. when you drop a bomb you need to have a plan beyond the bomb falling. that would be a regional conversation. can you see how maliki can put humpty dumpty back together again? mr. mccain: i cannot. i cannot. that's why he has to agree to a -- mr. graham: i would not send $1 to iraq. i would not send one soldier to iraq, one airman to iraq until we understand over time maliki's got to go. i've been there more times than

i can count. maliki did some good things on his watch, but he has become a political leader that cannot bring the country together. but that, to me, is a concern that's addressed after you stop the momentum on the battlefield. senator mccain, do you believe it's still possible that the kurds, the sunnis, and the shias that we know fairly well can regroup and reconcile with themselves if we act decisively? mr. mccain: i'm totally confident that they can. that is what the country was held together for long periods of time, but we obviously can't -- could i ask my colleague, i began before you arrived talking about this business of, that the allegations that somehow that the, it's the iraqis' fault that we didn't leave a residual force in iraq. and i went through our meetings with maliki, with barzo tph*eu,

tph*eu, -- barzoni, with allawi how they were committed to maintaining force. could you talk about our hearing where you directly questioned general demsey about this dire issue after we had withdrawn? mr. graham: yes, i'll be glad to and put it in context. in 2008 we signed a strategic framework agreement. it was envisioned we would negotiate a follow-on force with advisors, special forces units to secure our nation as well as to protect our gains. in the process of trying to get the iraqis on board, hillary clinton called me to ask if you and i and i think senator lieberman -- maybe he didn't go, i can't remember -- would talk to barzo tph*eu, -- barzo tph eu and allawi. i found in a meeting with prime minister maliki who is open-minded, barzoni said i'll

take 250,000 americans. allawi understood, the sunnis understood it was about the shia politics. after we got back, maliki said if the other groups will do it, i will do it. but he says what kind of force are you talking about, senator graham? ambassador jeffries -- mr. mccain: this was a meeting in baghdad. mr. graham: a meeting in his office. he asked me what kind of force are you talking about? i turned to ambassador jeffries and asked them what is the number? answer the prime minister's question. we're still working on that. and the pri -- prime minister looked at me and said, something to the effect, i don't know what i'm supposed to be agreeing to. we come back and go to the vice president's house, we talk to mr. donlon and said, we need a number. they said they would get back to us about the number. i'm still waiting on that phone call. during my questioning of general dempsey about the