Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
VOTE:
ARE
THERE ANY SENATORS IN THE
CHAMBER WHO WISH TO VOTE OR TO
CHANGE A VOTE?
IF NOT, ON THIS VOTE THE YEAS
ARE 74.
THE NAYS ARE 26.
AND THE NOMINATION IS CONFIRMED.
THE
MAJORITY LEADER IS RECOGNIZED.
WE HAVE A CONSENT
AGREEMENT THAT WE'RE WORKING ON.
WE HOPE TO HAVE PEOPLE SIGN OFF
IF THEY DON'T, ONE OR MANY ARE
GOING TO HAVE TO OBJECT TO IT.
WE'VE SPENT ENOUGH TIME ON THIS
THAT WE NEED TO MOVE FORWARD.
WE KNOW WE HAVE A NUMBER OF
VOTES ALREADY SCHEDULED.
THE SENATE IS NOT
IN ORDER.
THE
SENATE WILL COME TO ORDER.
SENATOR McCONNELL
HAS SOMETHING PENDING.
I DO TOO.
WE KNOW WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO
VOTE ON THAT.
THAT'S THE LEAST OF OUR WORRIES.
WE HAVE TO WORK THROUGH THIS
SO PEOPLE WHO HAVE CONCERNS,
BRING THAT TO DAVID CHAP --
SCHIAPPA OR GARY MYRICK.
OTHERWISE I'M GOING TO COME
FORWARD WITH A CONSENT
UNDER
THE PREVIOUS ORDER, THE
SENATE -- THE PRESIDENT SHALL BE
IMMEDIATELY NOTIFIED OF THE
ACTION OF THE SENATE.
AND THE SENATE WILL RESUME
LEGISLATIVE SESSION.
THE CLERK WILL CALL THE ROLL.
CALL:
QUORUM CALL:
MR. PRESIDENT?
THE
SENATOR FROM ARIZONA IS
THANK YOU.
MR. PRESIDENT, I ASK UNANIMOUS
CONSENT THAT FURTHER PROCEEDINGS
UNDER THE QUORUM CALL BEING
DISPENSED WITH.
OBJECTION.
KILLED KYL THANK YOU.
MR. PRESIDENT, FOR THOSE CLEGS
TO --
THANK YOU.
MR. PRESIDENT, FOR THOSE
COLLEAGUES WHO ARE HERE, I WANT
TO SPEAK TO AN AMENDMENT THAT
BEEN FILED, AN AMENDMENT
WHICH SEEKS TO ADD SOME MONEY
FOR THE UNITED STATES MARSHALS
SERVICE, AND I A LIKE TO EXPLAIN
WHY WE THINK THIS IS A GOOD
BUT, FIRST, TO SAY THAT IN
SPEAKING WITH LEADER REID, WE
ARE TRYING WITH OUR STAFF AND
THE MAJORITY STAFF TO SEE IF WE
CAN WORK OUT THE APPROPRIATE
PAY-FORS FOR THIS AND AN
APPROPRIATE AMOUNT OF MONEY THAT
WAS ASSIST THE U.S. MARSHALS
SERVICE.
HOPEFULLY WE CAN WORK SOMETHING
OUT AND I'M JUST TRYING TO
EXPLAIN THE BASIS FOR THIS AT
THIS TIME.
MR. PRESIDENT, AS YOU KNOW,
WE'VE DONE A LOT OF WORK ON THE
BORDERS TO TRY TO SECURE THE
BORDER AND THAT HAS REQUIRED, US
TO ADD MONEY FOR THE U.S. BORDER
PATROL, SEVERAL OTHER ACCOUNTS
IN THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY, WE'VE ADDED MONEY FOR
THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, WE
NEED NEW JUDGES, COURTROOMS,
PROSECUTORS, DEFENDERS --.
IT'S TAKEN A LOT OF MONEY TO
SECURE THE BORDER WITH ALL OF
ASPECTS THAT ARE
INVOLVED.
THE ONE AREA THAT WE HAVEN'T
KEPT UP WITH IS THE U.S.
MARSHALLS SERVICE.
SERVICE.
IT IS A GREAT ORGANIZATION.
THESE PEOPLE DO TREMENDOUS WORK
BUT SOMETIMES WE FORGET THEM.
WHAT WE'VE LEARNED HERE IS THAT
WHILE WE HAVE AN INCREASED
ABILITY TO APPREHEND ILLEGAL
IMMIGRANTS AND TO TRY THEM IN
COURT AND EVEN JAIL SPACE TO
HOLD THEM, THE GROUP THAT DOES
THE HOLDING AND THE TRANSPORTING
AND THE KEEPING OF THE JUDGES
AND THE COURTROOMS SAFE DURING
THE PROCESS -- THE U.S. MARSHALS
SERVICE HAS NOT HAD FUNDING TO
KEEP UP WITH THIS.
AND, AS A RESULT, THEY ARE WAY
LOW IN TERMS OF BOTH PERSONNEL
AND ALSO SOME FACILITIES THAT
NEED TO BE UPGRADED TO ACCEPT
THE MUCH LARGER NUMBERS OF
ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS AND OTHER
PRISONERS WHO ARE IN THEIR
JUST TO GIVE YOU ONE
ILLUSTRATION:
WHEN PRISONERS ARE BROUGHT TO A
COURTHOUSE, OBVIOUSLY THERE ARE
HUGE SECURITY MEASURES THAT HAVE
TO BE FOLLOWED TO ENSURE THAT
JURORS, JUDGES, THE PUBLIC AT
LARGE, WITNESSES AND SO ON ARE
NOT AT JEOPARDY BECAUSE OF THE
EXISTENCE OF THE PRISONERS.
AND SO THEY ARE GENERALLY
BROUGHT IN VEHICLES
APPROPRIATELY ACCOMPANIED TO
SECURE FACILITIES IN THE COURT
BUILDING AND THEN AT THE
APPROPRIATE TIME BROUGHT TO THE
COURTROOM, AND ALL IN THE
CUSTODY OF THE MARSHALS AND WITH
APPROPRIATE SECURITY FOR ALL.
HOWEVER, BECAUSE OF THESE
INCREASED NUMBERS, WHAT WE FOUND
IS, JUST BY WAY OF EXAMPLE, THEY
BRING THE PRISONERS FROM THE
HOLDING FACILITY, THE PRISON,
THE JAIL, WHATEVER IT MIGHT BE.
THEY LITERALLY HAVE TO DISEMBARK
IN A PUBLIC PARKING LOT WHERE
JURORS ARE PARKING TO COME UP TO
BE INVOLVED IN CASES, WHERE THE
PUBLIC AT LARGE, WHERE WITNESSES
WITNESSES, WHERE VICTIMS AND
FAMILIES, JUDGES AND LAWYERS ARE
COMING TO PARK, TO GO TO THE
COURTHOUSE AND GO UP THE
THESE SAME PEOPLE.
THAT IS NOT A SECURE SITUATION.
AND WHAT IN MOST SITUATIONS THE
MARCH SHALLOTS HAVE L -- THE
MARSHALS HAVE THE ABILITY TO
TAKE THEIR PRISONERS DIRECTLY TO
A SECURE PORT, A PLACE IN THE
COURTHOUSE WHERE THEY CAN
IMMEDIATELY PUT THEM INTO
CUSTODY IN A SECURE, LOCKED-DOWN
FACILITY.
CONSTRUCTION OF SOME COURT
BUILDINGS NEEDS TO KEEP UP WITH
THIS DEMAND, AND IT REQUIRES
SOME MONEY.
IN THIS CASE, ABOUT $16 MILLION.
NOW, I KNOW THIS IS A SMALL
MATTER IN THE OVERALL BUDGET
THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, BUT
FOR THE MARSHAL SERVICE TO DO
ITS JOB, THIS IS IMPORTANT FOR
THEM.
PERSONNEL, AND THE COST OF THAT
FAR EXCEEDS $10 MILLION, BUT
THAT'S WHAT WE THOUGHT WE WOULD
TRY TO ASK FOR IN THIS
AMENDMENT, TO AT LEAST BRING THE
MARSHALS SERVICE UP TO A LEVEL
WHERE THEY CAN ACCOMMODATE THE
NEW NUMBERS OF PRISONERS.
MR. PRESIDENT, WE MIGHT NEED TO
GET ORDER HERE.
SENATE WILL COME TO ORDER.
THANK YOU,
MR. PRESIDENT.
SO IN OUR AMENDMENT, $20 PLL IS
PROVIDED FOR ADDITIONAL DEPUTY
MARSHALS AND SECURITY-RELATED
SUPPORT STAFF TO ASSIST IN
OVERALL SOUTHWEST BORDER
ENFORCEMENT.
AND WE'VE NARROWED THIS DOWN TO
THE FIVE JUDICIAL DISTRICTS ON
THE BORDER THAT HAVE -- WELL, IN
FACT, THESE DISTRICTS HAVE JUST
ABOUT HALF -- 49.7% TO BE EXACT
-- OF ALL THE PRISONERS
NATIONWIDE BROUGHT INTO THE
CUSTODY OF THE MARSHALS SERVICE
ARE BROUGHT IN BY WAY OF THESE
FIVE SOUTHWEST BORDER JUDICIAL
DISTRICTS AND ABOUT HALF OF
THOSE IN MARSHAL'S CUSTODY ALONG
THE SOUTHWEST BORDER WERE HELD
FOR IMMIGRATION-RELATED
OFFENSES.
SO THIS IS THE NEED THAT WE'RE
TRYING TO SATISFY WITH THIS
AMENDMENT.
THE MARSHAL SERVICE EMPLOYS ONLY
ABOUT 80% OF WHAT THEY NEED IN
MARSHALS AND SUPPORT
STAFF IN THESE COURT FACILITIES.
AND A RECENT DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE HIRING FREEZE HAS
PREVENTED THE MARSHAL'S SERVICE
FROM REACHING EVEN 90% OF ITS
PERSONNEL NEEDS ALONG THE
SOUTHWEST BORDERS.
TO REACH 100% OF STAFFING WOULD
REQUIRE $43 MILLION TO HIRE AN
ADDITIONAL 162 DEPUTY MARSHALS
AND 71 SUPPORT STAFF.
NOW, WE ALL KNOW THE CONSTRAINTS
THAT WE'RE ALL OPERATING UNDER
HERE, AND SO WE CUT THAT BACK TO
SIMPLY TRY TO REACH 90% OF THEIR
REQUIREMENT FOR HIRING NEEDS,
AND THAT, AS I SAID, WOULD
REQUIRE JUST ABOUT $20 MILLION
FOR THESE HIRING PURPOSES.
ON THE ONE HAND THE CONSTRUCTION
SIDE OF IT -- ON THE
CONSTRUCTION SIDE OF IT THE
AMENDMENT PROVIDES FOR $16.5
MILLION FOR THESE DETENTION
UPGRADES AT THE FEDERAL CHOSES
LOCATED IN THIS -- COURTHOUSES
LOCATED IN THIS BORDER REGION.
$1 PIE 5 MILLION WOULD SHALL --
$1.5 MILLION WOULD BE ALLOCATED
FOR COURTHOUSE EQUIPMENT.
I HAVE TEELTD YOU A LITTLE BIT
ABOUT THE PROBLEM WITH THE
SECURITY AT THE CHOSES.
SOME OF THIS WOULD OBVIOUSLY BE
USED FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A PORT
THAT WOULD ALLOW THESE VEHICLES
TO UNLOAD DETAINEES AND
PRISONERS RIGHT NEXT TO CELL
BLOCK DOORS AND SO ON.
I DESCRIBED THAT.
BUT THIS IS THE LEAST I THINK WE
COULD DO BOTH TO PROTECT THE
PUBLIC AND TO ASSIST THE
MARSHALS SERVICE.
ONE LAST COMMENT I'D MAKE:
THERE'S BEEN SOME DICHOTOMY OF
VIEWS, SHALL WE SAY, EXPRESSED
BY THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
ABOUT WHETHER THEY HAVE WHAT
THEY NEED TO SECURE THE BORDER.
WE'VE HEARD THE SECRETARY OF
HOMELAND SECURITY SAY WE HAVE
ALL WE NEED.
BUT WE ALSO KNOW THAT THE
SECRETARY HAS SAID WE HAVE TO
PRIORITIZE OUR DETENTION POLICY,
FOR EXAMPLE, BECAUSE WE DON'T
HAVE THE FACILITIES AND THE
MONEY WE NEED TO DETAIN AND
DEPORT ALL OF THE PEOPLE WHO ARE
DEPORTABLE, SO WE HAVE TO FOCUS
JUST ON THE MOST SERIOUS CRIME,
PRIMARILY, WHO ARE
NOW THE TOP TARGET FOR
DEPORTATION.
OBVIOUSLY, IF YOU HAVE TO
PRIORITIZE, WE WOULD AGREE WITH
THAT PRIORITIZATION.
BUT TWHA MEANS IS THAT THEY
DON'T HAVE ENOUGH MONEY TO DO
ALL OF THE THINGS THAT THEY'RE
TRYING TO DO.
AND SO ON THE WERE ONE HAND THE
DEPARTMENT SAYS WE HAVE ALL NEED
AND ON THE OTHER HAND, WE DON'T
HAVE ENOUGH SO WE HAVE TO
PRIORITIZE WHAT WE DO.
WE'RE TRYING TO ATTACK THE ONE
PART IN THIS BILL, HAS TO HELP
THE U.S. MARSHALS.
I DON'T THINK THERE IS A ONE OF
US HERE THAT WONK BE SUPPORTIVE
OF THAT.
I JUST WANT TO AVOID THE
SITUATION WHERE, GOD FORBID,
SOMEBODY IS AT A COURTHOUSE OR
ENTERING THE COURTHOUSE OR
WHATEVER AND INNOCENT PEOPLE ARE
HARMED BECAUSE WE DIDN'T HAVE
THE APPROPRIATE SECURITY.
AN THAT'S WE'RE TRYING TO
PROVIDE IN THIS AMENDMENT.
AS I SAID, THIS IS COSPONSORED
BY MY COLLEAGUE, SENATOR
McCAIN, AND SENATOR CORNYN.
THE THREE OF US ARE VERY AWARE
WE HAVE IN
OUR JUDICIAL DISTRICTS ON THE
BORDER.
SO, MR. PRESIDENT, I AGAIN
REITERATE, I REALLY APPRECIATE
THE OFFER OF THE MAJORITY LEADER
TO MAKE MAJORITY STAFF AVAILABLE
TO SEE IF THERE'S SOME WAY WITH
MY STAFF WE CAN WORK OUT SOME
APPROPRIATE AMOUNT OF MONEY WITH
THE APPROPRIATE PAY-FORS, AND I
HOPE THAT I'LL BE ABLE TO
ON.
I WON'T TAKE NYMPH MY
COLLEAGUES' TIME RIGHT NOW BUT
IF ANYONE HAS QUESTIONS ABOUT
THIS AND WOULD LIKE TO TALK TO
US, SINCE I'M HOPING WE'LL HAVE
A LITTLE BIT TO SUPPORT LATER
THIS EVENING, I WOULD APPRECIATE
THEM COOCT CONTACTING ME OR
SENATOR CORNYN OR SENATOR
PRESIDENT.
MR. PRESIDENT?
THE
SENATOR MONTANA IS RECOGNIZED.
TEST PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY.
HAS PASTORE TIME EXPIRED?
PASTORE
TIME HAS EXPIRED.
MR. PRESIDENT.
I RISE TODAY TO SPEAK ABOUT THE
PRIORITIES FACING MONTANA AND
THIS NATION.
CREATING JOBS, RESPONSIBLY
CUTTING OUR SPENDING, CUTTING
THE DEFICIT, REBUILDING OUR
I APPRECIATE THE PROPOSAL THAT
WILL BE PUT FORTH I THINK LATER
THIS EVENING TO ATTEMPT TO
CREATE JOBS, AND WHEN THAT
PROPOSAL GETS THE FLOOR, I WILL
VOTE TO HAVE THE DEBATE ON
S. 1723.
BECAUSE ONLY THEN WILL I BE
TO THAT BILL, BECAUSE, AS IT IS
WRITTEN, I CANNOT SUPPORT THAT
BILL.
HAVING DEBATE WILL ALLOW US AN
OPPORTUNITY TO AMEND IT SO THAT
IT'LL GUARANTEE JOBS IN MONTANA
AND ACROSS AMERICA.
MR. PRESIDENT, THE PERSPECTIVE
THAT I BRING TO THE TABLE IS A
LITTLE DIFFERENT THAN MOST.
I'M SOMEONE WHO LIVES IN, WORKS
IN, REPRESENTS A RURAL STATE.
MY RESPONSIBILITY IS TO MAKE
SURE THAT EVERY DECISION I MAKE
WORKS FOR NOT ONLY MONTANA BUT
THE ENTIRE COUNTRY.
I EXPECT FULL ACCOUNTABILITY FOR
EVERY PENNEY OF -- PENNY OF
TAXPAYER DOLLARS THAT WE SPEND.
I EXPECT THAT WHEN YOU INVEST IN
SOMETHING, YOU GET WHAT YOU PAY
FOR.
FORMER.
BUT MANY DON'T KNOW THAT I'M
ALSO A FORMER SCHOOL TEACHER.
I USED TO TEACH ELEMENTARY MUSIC
IN BIG SANDY, MONTANA.
I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT OWL OF
OUR TEACHERS HAVE THE RESOURCES
THEY NEED TO DO THEIR JOB TO
LEAD OUR CHILDREN.
AS A TEACHER, I ALSO KNOW THAT
WHEN RURAL SCHOOLS ARE ASKED TO
COMPETE WITH URBAN SCHOOLS FOR
FEDERAL FUNDING, RURAL SCHOOLS
OFTEN GET LEFT BEHIND.
THE SAME GOES FOR EMERGENCY
RESPONDERS.
THEIR SERVICE SOMETIMES IS EVEN
-- EVEN AS VOLUNTEERS, AND IT IS
VERY IMPORTANT TO RURAL STATES
LIKE MONTANA -- WHETHER
FIREFIGHTERS, POLICE OFFICERS,
E.M.T.'S THAT ARE ON THE CLOCK
WHENEVER THEY ARE NEEDED.
IN MONTANA, AS EVERYWHERE ELSE,
FIREFIGHTERS ARE RESPECTED FOR
THEIR COURAGE, FOR THAT ARE HARD
WORK, FOR DOING WHATEVER IS
EXPECTED TO SAVE PROPERTY AND
LIVES.
BUT WHEN MONTANA'S RURAL FIRE
DEPARTMENTS AND RURAL POLICE
DEPARTMENTS HAVE TO COMPETE FOR
FEDERAL FUNDING, GUESS WHO OFTEN
GETS THE SHORT END OF THE STICK?
THAT'S RIGHT.
IT'S THE EMERGENCY RESPONDERS IN
RURAL STATES LIKE MONTANA.
THE FOLKS WHO OFTEN DON'T HAVE
THE PROFESSIONAL GRANT RIDERS TO
HELP THEM SECURE THE BASIC
EQUIPMENT THEY NEED TO DO THEIR
JOBS SAFELY.
AND THAT BRINGS PLEA TO MY
PROPOSAL.
I WANT TO STATE AGAIN, AS 1723
IS WRITTEN, BEING NOT SUPPORT --
I CANNOT SUPPORT T I AM NOT
CONVINCED THAT IT WILL CREATE
THE JOBS IN A THIS AIT MUST
$30 BILLION IN THIS BILL IS
MEANT TO GO TO STATES TO BOOST
EDUCATION, HIRE TEACHERS.
YES, INSNREFGHT EDUCATION IS A
POWERFUL SHORT--TERM AND
LONG-TERM WAY TO CREATE JOBS.
BUT AS WRITTEN, THIS BILL FAILS
TO GIVE TAXPAYERS ANY GUARANTEE
THAT THIS MONEY WOULD BE USED TO
SCHOOLS.
THE FACT IS THIS MONEY COULD BE
USED TO SUPPLANT FUNDS INSTEAD
OF SUPPLEMENT FUNDS.
THE STATE WOULD GET LOADS OF
MONEY WITH LITTLE GUIDANCE THAT
THEY SPEND THE MONEY ON
BUT WE ALL KNOW WHAT HAPPENS.
OF SMART FOLKS WHO WORK IN
STATE BUDGET OFFICE FIND THEIR
WAY AROUND GUIDANCE.
MONEY IS PRETTY EASY TO MOVE
AROUND.
THERE'S NO GUARANTEE THAT THIS
BILL WILL CREATE THE JOBS.
MR. PRESIDENT, MONTANA IS ONE OF
TWO STATES THAT HAS A BUDGET
SURPLUS RIGHT NOW.
WE HAVE BEEN LIVING WITHIN OUR
THERE ARE OTHER STATES LIKE
KANSAS THAT ARE CONSIDERING
BROAD-BASED TCTDS AND THAT'S
FINE.
KANSAS CAN DO THAT IF IT WANTS.
I AM NOT CONVINCINGED THAT WE
SHOULD BE WRITING CHECKS TO
STATES SO THEY CAN CUT TAXES.
MONTANANS SHOULDN'T BE PAYING
FOR TAX CUTS IN OTHER STATES.
I'M ALL FOR INDIVIDUAL STATES
MAKING SMART CHOICES WITH THEIR
OWN MONEY, BUT GIVING THEM
FEDERAL MONEY AND JUST HOPING
THEY'LL USE IT FOR EDUCATION AND
TEACHERS -- WELL, THAT'S NOT
GOOD ENOUGH.
WITH THAT KIND OF MONEY, WE NEED
A GUARANTEE.
SO, MR. PRESIDENT, IF THE MOTION
TO PROCEED IS ADOPTED, I PLAN TO
OFFER TWO AMENDMENTS.
ONE WILL ADDRESS THE $5 BILLION
IN THIS BILL MEANT TO PROVIDE
AID TO THE NATION'S FIRST
RESPONDERS.
MY AMENDMENT IS A SIMPLE ONE.
IT REQUIRES A 20% COMPETITIVE
GRANT FUNDING GOES SPECIFICALLY
FOR RURAL COMMUNITIES.
IT'S ONLY FAIR BECAUSE RURAL
COMMUNITIES MAKE UP 20% OF OUR
NATION.
THE OTHER AMENDMENT PUTS
SIDEBOARDS ON THE REMAINDER OF
THE MONEY IN THIS BILL.
TO GUARANTEE THAT IT WILL BE
USED IN A WAY THAT IT IS
SUPPOSED TO BE USED, TO CREATE
JOBS IN EDUCATION, TO INVEST IN
OUR KIDS.
MY AMENDMENT WILL PROHIBIT
STATES FROM PULLING THEIR OWN
STATE MONEY OUT OF EDUCATION
PROGRAMS WHEN THEY TAKE THIS
HOW?
BY PUTTING THE MONEY INTO PART-B
OF THE INDIVIDUAL AND
DISABILITIES EDUCATION ACT, IDEA
IDEA, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS SPECIAL
EDUCATION.
AFTER THE PASSAGE OF THE
RECOVERY ACT OF 2009 SCHOOL
ADMINISTRATORS TOLD ME THAT THE
MONEY ADMITTED WAS VERY MUCH
APPRECIATED BUT SPECIAL
EDUCATION WAS THEIR TOP
PRIORITY.
IDEA FUNDING IS STILL ONE OF THE
BIGGEST UNFUNDED MANDATES THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS ON LOCAL
SCHOOL DISTRICTS.
WHEN IT WAS FIRST ENACTED, THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PROMISED TO
PAY 40%.
TODAY WE PAY L
-- TODAY WE PAY LESS THAN HALF
OF THAT PROMISE.
SPECIAL EDUCATION FUNDING IS NOT
ONLY A TOP PRIORITY FOR FOLKS IN
MONTANA, IT GUARANTEES FUNDING
WILL GET TO THE LOCAL LEVEL.
THE
SENATE WILL COME TO ORDER.
IT ALSO GUARANTEES
THE FUNDING WILL GET TO THE
IF THE MONEY IN THIS BILL IS
SUPPOSED TO BE FOR TEACHERS,
THERE.
THIS AMENDMENT IS A GOOD WAY TO
GO ABOUT DOING JUST THAT.
I ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT,
MR. PRESIDENT, THAT THESE TWO
RECORD.
WITHOUT
OBJECTION.
MR. PRESIDENT, I'D LIKE TO TALK
ABOUT ONE OTHER THING MISSING
FROM THIS BILL, AND THAT'S
REAUTHORIZATION OF THE SECURE
RURAL SCHOOLS PROGRAM AND THE
PAYMENT IN LIEU OF TAXES
OTHERWISE KNOWN AS PILT.
THESE TWO PROGRAMS WILL DO MORE
THAT THOUSANDS OF
TEACHERS STAY ON THE JOB THAN
ANYTHING ELSE THAT WE CAN DO
KICKER.
IN THE MIDDLE OF THIS PARTISAN
DEBATE, SECURE RURAL SCHOOLS AND
PILL ARE BIPARTISAN PROGRAMS.
UNDER THE LEADERSHIPS OF
SENATORS BINGAMAN, MURKOWSKI,
CRAPO, WYDEN AND RISCH, WE HAVE
A BILL THAT COULD PASS RIGHT NOW
TODAY.
IT WOULD KEEP 4,000 TEACHERS ON
THE JOB AT A COST OF $3.5
YEARS.
THAT'S SMALL POTATOES COMPARED
TO THE $35 BILLION IN THE BILL
THAT'S BEFORE US TODAY.
IT IS A REASONABLE BILL.
BUT BECAUSE IT IS SO REASONABLE,
NO ONE WANTS TO SEE IT APPEAR IN
THE MIDDLE OF SUCH A PARTISAN
ONCE AGAIN, TOO MANY FOLKS IN
WASHINGTON ARE LOOKING FOR WAYS
TO POINT FINGERS.
QUITE FRANKLY, MR. PRESIDENT, I
DON'T HAVE AS MANY FINGERS AS
MOST FOLKS AROUND HERE, SO I'D
RATHER USE MINE TO SOLVE SOME
MR. PRESIDENT, ONLY AFTER THIS
FINAL BILL IS AMENDED TO
GUARANTEE JOB CERTAINTY WILL IT
BE ABLE TO EARN MY VOTE.
AND IN ORDER TO AMEND IT, I'M
PROCEED.
MY VOTE IS A VOTE FOR DEBATE
THAT WE OUGHT TO HAVE.
IT'S AN IMPORTANT ONE, ONE SO WE
CAN TRULY CREATE THE JOBS AND
FOCUS ON REBUILDING OUR ECONOMY.
MR. PRESIDENT.
WITH THAT, I WOULD YIELD THE
VIRGINIA.
MR. PRESIDENT?
THE
SENATOR FROM WEST VIRGINIA IS
RECOGNIZED.
I WANT TO THANK
MY GOOD FRIEND FOR SPEAKING ON
BEHALF OF ALL THE RURAL STATES
AND THE COMMON SENSE AMENDMENT
HE IS GOING TO PROVIDE.
IT IS CLEAR OUR NATION IS FACING
TWO GRAVE ECONOMIC THREATS: A
JOB CRISIS AND A DEBT SPIRITUAL.
AS MUCH AS SOME PEOPLE MAY WISH,
WE CAN'T IGNORE ONE THREAT OVER
THE OTHER.
FOR THE SAKE OF OUR NATION'S
TOGETHER, DEMOCRATS AND
REPUBLICANS, AND TRY TO FIND A
COMMONSENSE EXCLUSION THAT
PROTECTS -- SOLUTION THAT
PROTECTS AND CREATES JOBS
ADDING TO THE DEFICIT
AND DEBT IT'S WHAT LEGISLATORS
THROUGHOUT HISTORY HAVE DONE.
UNFORTUNATELY LOOKING AT WHERE
THINGS STAND NOW, IT IS CLEAR
THAT THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS IN
WASHINGTON HAS GOTTEN SO
DYSFUNCTIONAL THAT IT DOESN'T
MAKE MUCH SENSE AT ALL.
MR. PRESIDENT, I CAME HERE TO
TRY TO FIX THINGS, NOT TO MAKE
EXCUSES.
AND I SURE DIDN'T COME HERE TO
PLAY THE BLAME GAME.
I'VE NEVER FIXED A THING BY
BLAMING SOMEONE ELSE.
AND I'VE SAID MANY TIMES BEFORE
IT IS TIME FOR US, ALL OF US,
WHO HAVE BEEN GIVEN THE GREAT
PRIVILEGE TO SERVE TO FOCUS ON
WHAT'S RIGHT FOR THE NEXT
NOT WORRY ABOUT THE NEXT
IT IS WHY AS FRUSTRATING AS THIS
LEGISLATIVE PROCESS CAN BE, I
WILL NOT LOSE HOPE THAT WE CAN
MAKE THIS LEGISLATION BETTER.
WITH RESPECT TO THE CURRENT
TEACHERS AND FIRST RESPONDERS
BACK TO WORK ACT, THERE IS NO
DOUBT ABOUT THE FACT THAT OUR
TEACHERS AND FIRST RESPONDERS
HAVE A CRITICAL ROLE IN OUR
NATION.
FROM THE CLASSROOM WHERE
TEACHERS EDUCATE OUR CHILDREN TO
THE STREETS WHERE FIRST
RESPONDERS -- IF THERE COULD BE
ORDER, PLEASE.
THE
SENATE WILL COME TO ORDER.
SENATORS ARE ASKED TO TAKE THEIR
CONVERSATIONS OFF THE FLOOR.
FIRST RESPONDERS
PUT THEIR LIVES ON THE LINE TO
KEEP COMMUNITIES SAFE, THESE
NATION.
BUT, MR. PRESIDENT, THEY AND THE
AMERICAN PEOPLE DESERVE BETTER
THAN A TEMPORARY ONE-YEAR
LEGISLATIVE PROPOSAL THAT DOES
NOTHING TO TP EBGS THE LONG --
FIX THE LONG-TERM FISCAL
PROBLEMS THAT LED SO MANY STATES
TO LAY OFF THOUSANDS OF TEACHERS
FIRST PLACE.
WHAT WILL WE DO NEXT YEAR WHEN
STATES COME BACK AGAIN ASKING
FOR MORE FEDERAL MONEY?
WILL WE GIVE OUT MORE MONEY?
WILL WE GO FURTHER IN DEBT?
WILL WE BORROW MORE MONEY?
WHAT WILL WE DO?
AS IT STANDS, WITHOUT ANY
CHANGES THIS BILL WILL NOT SOLVE
THE FISCAL PROBLEM THAT WILL
COME ONCE THE AID ENDS.
THIS BILL IS NOT HOPELESS.
KNOW IT WILL.
IN MY STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA, WE
DIDN'T HAVE MAJOR LAYOFFS OF
TEACHERS OR FIRST RESPONDERS
DURING THIS BRUTAL RECESSION.
AS DIFFICULT AS IT WAS, WE
BALANCED OUR BUDGET BASED ON OUR
VALUES AND OUR PRIORITIES.
WE MADE DIFFICULT DECISIONS BUT
WE KEPT OUR TEACHERS IN THE
CLASSROOM AND OUR FIREFIGHTERS
PROTECTING OUR CITIZENS.
MAKE NO MISTAKE, WE CUT BACK OUR
SPENDING, BUT WE DID SO
RESPONSIBLY.
WE SPENT WHERE IT WAS NEEDED, ON
OUR PRIORITIES.
THAT'S THE COMMONSENSE APPROACH
THAT WORKS IN WEST VIRGINIA,
BECAUSE THAT'S HOW PEOPLE RUN
THEIR LIVES.
IT'S HOW THEY OPERATE THEIR
SMALL BUSINESSES AND HOW WE
SHOULD RUN THIS COUNTRY.
YOU MAKE BUDGET CHOICES BASED ON
WHAT IS IMPORTANT IN YOUR STATE,
TO YOUR FAMILY, TO YOUR BUSINESS
AND TO YOUR COUNTRY.
IN WEST VIRGINIA, THIS SIMPLE,
COMMONSENSE APPROACH PAID OFF.
EVERY YEAR THAT I WAS GOVERNOR
WE ENDED THE FISCAL YEAR WITH A
AND EVERY YEAR FOR THE PAST
THREE YEARS, WEST VIRGINIA HAS
SEEN ITS CREDIT RATING UPGRADED.
BUT NOW BECAUSE OF THE IMPACT OF
THIS RECESSION AND THE FACT THAT
OTHER STATES DID NOT MAKE THE
DIFFICULT DECISIONS YEARS AGO --
IF THERE COULD BE --
A SENATOR: MR. PRESIDENT, THE
SENATE IS NOT IN ORDER.
THE
SENATE WILL COME TO ORDER.
SENATORS ARE ASKED TO TAKE THEIR
CONVERSATIONS OFF THE FLOOR.
THE TAXPAYERS OF
WEST VIRGINIA ARE TRULY TRYING
TO BE EXPECTED TO FOOT THIS BILL
FOR OTHER STATES, AND I BELIEVE
THERE'S A BETTER WAY.
I BELIEVE THERE IS A BETTER WAY
WHERE WE CAN BALANCE THE FISCAL
CONSTRAINTS THAT STATES FACE AND
THE NEED TO PROTECT THESE VITAL
I BELIEVE THERE IS A BETTER WAY
WHERE WE CAN BALANCE THE NEED TO
KEEP TEACHERS AND FIREFIGHTERS
WORKING WHILE NOT ASKING WEST
VIRGINIA TAXPAYERS OR ANY
TAXPAYER IN ANY STATE TO PAY FOR
MORE THAN IS NECESSARY.
THAT IS WHY I AM OFFERING A
COMMONSENSE AMENDMENT THAT WOULD
TRANSFORM THIS $35 BILLION IN
FUNDING TO KEEP TEACHERS AND
FIRST RESPONDERS WORKING AND TO
GRANT.
THIS LOAN PROGRAM WOULD ALLOW
ANY STATE TO BORROW AT VERY LOW
OR NO INTEREST.
THE MONEY THEY NEED TO KEEP
TEACHERS AND FIREFIGHTERS
EMPLOYED.
AND PAY IT BACK OVER TIME.
I DON'T KNOW OF ANY STATE THAT
WOULDN'T PUT THEIR TEACHERS AND
FIREFIGHTERS AS ONE OF THE
HIGHEST PRIORITIES OF THEIR
BUDGET FIRST.
SO THIS LOAN PROGRAM WOULD
ENSURE THAT STATES ARE MAKING
THE DECISIONS ON HOW MUCH MONEY
THEY ACTUALLY NEED.
NOT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S
WILLINGNESS TO PUT US FURTHER IN
DEBT BY GIVING MORE MONEY AWAY.
IT WOULD ENSURE THAT STATES MAKE
SMARTER AND MORE RESPONSIBLE
DECISIONS ABOUT WHAT THEY CAN
AND CANNOT AFFORD.
SUCH A LOAN PROGRAM WOULD HELP
PROTECT THEIR JOBS AND WOULD
PROTECT THE FISCAL FUTURE OF
STATES WHEN THEY GET IN TROUBLE.
SENSE.
I WOULD ENCOURAGE MY REPUBLICAN
AND DEMOCRATIC COLLEAGUES TO
EMBRACE THIS COMMONSENSE
AMENDMENT AND I ENCOURAGE THEM
TO HELP ME MAKE IT EVEN BETTER.
I WOULD HOPE THAT THEY WOULD
SUPPORT THIS CLOTURE MOTION NOT
BECAUSE THEY SUPPORT THE BILL AS
IT STANDS, BUT BECAUSE THEY
BELIEVE IN WHAT THIS LEGISLATION
COULD BE IF WE ALL PUT POLITICS
ASIDE AND WORK TO MAKE IT
BETTER.
IF WE CAN GET PAST A FILIBUSTER,
I WOULD HOPE THAT THE AMENDMENT
PROCESS WOULD BE A TESTAMENT TO
THE GREAT LEGISLATIVE MOMENTS
THAT THIS BODY HAS SEEN IN THE
PAST.
AS I'VE BEEN ASSURED BY MY
LEADERSHIP, THIS BILL, IF IT
GETS TO THE FLOOR, WILL HAVE AN
OPEN AMENDMENT PROCESS THAT WILL
GIVE US ALL AN OPPORTUNITY TO
MAKE THIS LEGISLATION BETTER.
AND IT IS THE REASON WHY I WILL
VOTE FOR THIS MOTION TO MOVE ON
WITH DEBATE.
TO MY REPUBLICAN AND DEMOCRATIC
FRIENDS WHO MAY NOT SUPPORT THIS
BILL AS IT STANDS, I WOULD
RESPECTFULLY ASK YOU TO SEIZE
THIS OPPORTUNITY TO WORK
TOGETHER TO MAKE THIS BILL
TRUST ME, I SHARE MANY OF YOUR
AND TO BE CLEAR, IF WE CANNOT --
I REPEAT, IF WE CANNOT AND DO
NOT ADOPT A COMMONSENSE APPROACH
THAT STOPS THROWING MONEY AT THE
PROBLEMS WE HAVE IN THIS
COUNTRY, I WILL JOIN YOU AND
VOTE AGAINST IT.
MR. PRESIDENT, THIS COUNTRY IS
RIGHT.
IT'S NOT ABOUT THIS VOTE OR THIS
BILL.
IT'S ABOUT THE FACT THAT SO MANY
AMERICANS HAVE LOST TKPH-FT
THIS -- CONFIDENCE IN THIS GREAT
THEY HAVE LOST CONFIDENCE IN THE
BODY THEY SEE AS BROKEN AND
INCAPABLE OF WORKING.
THEY HAVE LOST CONFIDENCE IN THE
POLITICAL PROCESS THAT HAS
BECOME SO POLITICAL, IT DON'T
MATTER WHAT WE DO, IT SEEMS ALL
WE CARE ABOUT IS SCORING
POLITICAL POINTS TO BE USED IN
THE NEXT ELECTION.
SOME FOLKS IN THIS TOWN ARE SO
BUSY TRYING TO MAKE THE OTHER
SIDE LOOK BAD THAT THEY DON'T
REALIZE THEY'RE MAKING US ALL
LOOK BAD.
I DON'T BELIEVE FOR ONE MINUTE
THAT ANYBODY IN THIS CHAMBER IS
ROOTING FOR JOBS TO BE LOST.
WE ALL HAVE DIFFERENT IDEAS.
WHILE WE SHOULD QUESTION EACH
OTHER'S IDEAS AND POLICIES, WE
SHOULD NEVER QUESTION EACH
OTHER'S CONVICTIONS.
SHAME ON US IF THE BLAME GAME IS
THE BEST THING THAT WE CAN DO.
MR. PRESIDENT, WE ARE BETTER
THAN THIS.
I CAME HERE TO FIX THINGS, NOT
TO PLAY POLITICS.
IT IS TIME FOR US TO STOP WITH
THE BICKERING AND REMEMBERING
ONE THING.
WE MAY BE MEMBERS OF DIFFERENT
POLITICAL PARTIES, BUT WE ARE
ALL MEMBERS OF THE SAME PARTY IN
THIS GREAT COUNTRY.
WE'RE ALL AMERICANS.
AS DIFFICULT AS IT MAY SEEM,
AMERICA AND THE FUTURE OF THE
AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE MORE
IMPORTANT THAN POLITICS OR AN
ELECTION.
SO I ASK AGAIN, LET'S WORK
TOGETHER ON COMMONSENSE
BIPARTISAN IDEAS TO GET THIS
COUNTRY ON A RESPONSIBLE
FINANCIAL PATH THAT WILL
STRENGTHEN THE ECONOMY AND
LET'S WORK TOGETHER ON MAKING
AMERICA'S FUTURE BRIGHTER NOT
JUST FOR US BUT FOR THE NEXT
THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT.
AND I YIELD THE FLOOR.
A SENATOR: MR. PRESIDENT?
THE
SENATOR FROM MONTANA IS
RECOGNIZED.
WOULD THE SENATOR
QUESTION?
YES, SIR.
MR. PRESIDENT,
SENATOR MANCHIN, I THINK
EVERYBODY IN THIS BODY WANTS TO
HAVE REAL JOB CREATION IN THIS
I THINK THEY WANT TO SEE THIS
UNEMPLOYMENT RATE GO DOWN.
I THINK MOST EVERYBODY REALIZES
THAT IF WE CAN'T GET THE
UNEMPLOYMENT RATE TO GO DOWN,
THE CHANCES OF PAYING OFF OUR
DEBTS AND GETTING OUR BUDGET
UNDER CONTROL IS GOING TO BE
SEVERELY DIMINISHED.
YOU'VE OFFERED POTENTIAL
AMENDMENTS TO 1723.
I'VE OFFERED POTENTIAL TAOPLDZ
17 -- POTENTIAL AMENDMENTS TO
THIS BILL.
IN A PREVIOUS LIFE YOU WERE A
GOVERNOR.
WHEN I WAS IN THE STATE LEDGES
SLAY TAOURBGS OFTENTIMES --
STATE LEGISLATURE, OFTENTIMES
MONEY THAT CAME TO THE STATE
GOVERNMENT WAS VERY MUCH
WE TOOK ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS OFF
THE TOP.
ANYWHERE FROM THREE TO
MUCH, MUCH HIGHER THAN THAT AS A
PERCENTAGE RATE.
WAS THAT DONE TYPICALLY IN WEST
VIRGINIA?
HOW WOULD YOUR AMENDMENT IMPACT
THINGS LIKE ADMINISTRATIVE COST
OR WOULD YOU BE ABLE TO GET MORE
MONEY TO THE GROUND?
TO MY GOOD FRIEND
FROM MONTANA, THE WAY THE SYSTEM
IS SOVIET UP NOW -- IS SET UP
NOW WE'RE ABLE TO USE THIS MONEY
IN THE WAY POSSIBLE.
LET ME GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE OF
HOW THE MONEY WAS USED PRIOR.
WE'VE HAD TWO ROUNDS OF STIMULUS
THIS IS OUR THIRD.
FOR A VERY WORTHY CAUSE BUT FOR
THOSE STATES LIKE MYSELF AND
YOUR STATE WHO REALLY DIDN'T
HAVE THE LAYOFF OF TEACHERS OR
THE CUTBACK OF EDUCATION, THEY
WOULD BASICALLY SHORT THAT INTO
WHEN A GOVERNOR MADE HIS
PROPOSAL, THAT MONEY WOULD
BACKFILL AND THAT'S HOW IT WAS
USED.
WE ONLY CREATED 33 NEW JOBS THE
FIRST ROUND WITH OVER $217
MILLION.
BOTTOM LINE IS THERE'S OTHER
STATES THAT NEED IT.
THAT'S WHY I SAID HAVE A LOAN
WE HAVE TO BE RESPONSIBLE.
IF SPENDING MONEY WOULD FIX OUR
PROBLEMS IN AMERICA, WE'D HAVE
YOU HAVE TO DO IT WISELY.
I THINK YOUR AMENDMENTS ARE
GREATLY APPRECIATED AND HOPE TO
SUPPORT THEM AND HOPEFULLY
YOU'LL CONSIDER MINE.
MR. PRESIDENT.
MR.
A SENATOR: MR. PRESIDENT?
THE
SENATOR FROM MISSOURI IS
RECOGNIZED.
RECOGNITION --
MR. PRESIDENT,
BEFORE MY COLLEAGUE BEGINS,
COULD I ASK CONSENT TO BE
RECOGNIZED AFTER SENATOR BLUNT?
OBJECTION.
I THANK THE SENATOR
FROM ILLINOIS FOR LETTING ME GO
AHEAD AND LOOK FORWARD TO HIS
REMARKS WHEN I'M DONE.
THE BILL THAT I HOPE WE GET TO
TONIGHT IS PART OF THE
PRESIDENT'S JOBS PACKAGE, AND IT
WOULD REPEAL AN ACTION TAKEN BY
THE CONGRESS A FEW YEARS AGO
TO BE A
HARMFUL DECISION ON THE PART OF
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.
THIS WOULD REPEAL THE 3%
WITHHOLDING TAX WHICH HAS A
REALLY DRAMATIC IMPACT ON
ANYBODY THAT DOES BUSINESS WITH
THE GOVERNMENT.
GOVERNMENTS.
IT INCLUDES STATE GOVERNMENTS.
IT INCLUDES ANY ONE THAT
CONTRACTS WITH THE GOVERNMENT.
THE GOVERNMENT BASICALLY JUST
PAYS 97% OF THE BILL.
THE PRESIDENT RIGHTLY HAS
POINTED OUT THAT THIS IS ONE OF
THE THINGS WE COULD DO TO GET
MORE MONEY INTO THE ECONOMY, AND
IN MANY CASES SIMPLY TO CREATE
PROFIT WHERE PROFIT IS NOT THERE
OTHERWISE.
THERE ARE GOVERNMENT PROJECTS
FOR MANY BUSINESSES, THE PROFIT
PROJECTS.
THERE'S ONLY SO MUCH WORK YOU
CAN DO TO JUST STAY IN THE
BUSINESS.
AND IF YOU'RE NOT MAKING MONEY,
YOU CAN'T STAY IN THE BUSINESS
OF DOING WHAT YOU'RE DOING.
THOSE LARGE PROJECTS
THAT HAVE A HUGE OVERALL NUMBER,
OFTEN THE PROFIT DOESN'T EVEN
EQUAL THE 3% WITHHOLDING.
AND BUSINESSES HAVE DETERMINED
THEY CAN'T DO THAT.
IT OBVIOUSLY IMPACTS THE BIDDING
PROCESS FOR FEDERAL WORK.
THE TAX REVENUE GENERATED BY
THIS MANDATE IS THOUGHT TO BE
ONLY AROUND $200 MILLION A YEAR,
AND THAT $200 MILLION LEFT IN
THE ECONOMY, LEFT IN THE BIDDING
PROCESS, LEFT IN THE GRANTING
PROCESS COULD MAKE A REAL
DIFFERENCE.
THE ONLY THING THAT THIS
JOB-KILLING TAX INCREASE DOES IS
DELAY RECOVERY AND STOP US FROM
GETTING ON WITH THE BUSINESS OF
MAKING AMERICAN PRIVATE-SECTOR
JOB CREATION A REALITY.
THE REPEAL IS STRONGLY SUPPORTED
BY DOZENS OF GROUPS, INCLUDING
THE FARM BUREAU, THE NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF MANUFACTURERS,
THE U.S. CHAMBER OF COMMERCE,
THE NATIONAL FED RATION OF --
FEDERATION OF INDEPENDENT
BUSINESS, THE NATIONAL LEAGUE OF
CITIES, THE NATIONAL -- THE CORN
GROWERS, THE ASSOCIATED GENERAL
CONTRACTORS, THE AMERICAN
TRUCKING ASSOCIATION, ASSOCIATED
BUILDERS AND CONTRACTORS, THE
FEDERATION OF AMERICAN
HOSPITALS.
AND WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT THAT
GROUP, YOU'VE GOT THE FEDERATION
OF AMERICAN HOSPITALS, YOU'VE
GOT THE NATIONAL LEAGUE OF
CITIES, YOU'VE GOT THE AMERICAN
CORN GROWERS.
THIS MUST BE -- THIS MUST BE A
GOVERNMENT POLICY THAT HAS BROAD
IMPACT ON LOTS OF DIFFERENT
SEGMENTS OF THE ECONOMY.
IT'S NOT ALL THAT UNUSUAL TO SEE
THE NATIONAL MANUFACTURERS
ASSOCIATION OR THE CHAMBER OF
COMMERCE OR THE NATIONAL
FEDERATION OF INDEPENDENT
BUSINESS ON A LIST SUPPORTING A
BILL, BUT WHEN THEY'RE ON THE
LIST WITH THE OTHER PEOPLE I
MENTIONED, PLUS THE TRUCKERS AND
THE ASSOCIATED BUILDERS AND
CONTRACTORS, SOMETHING MUST BE
HAPPENING.
AND -- AND WHY HAVE ALL OF THESE
GROUPS COME TOGETHER AND SAID
SUPPORT THIS PART OF THAT
PACKAGE?
MEDICARE PAYMENTS TO HOSPITALS
AND INDIVIDUAL PHYSICIANS ARE
AFFECTED, WILL BE AFFECTED WHEN
THIS GOES INTO EFFECT IN JANUARY
OF 2013.
AND HOSPITALS WILL HAVE 3%
WITHHOLDING.
THIS CAUSES A LOT OF CASH FLOW
PROBLEMS FOR BOTH -- BOTH THE
PHYSICIAN AND FOR THE HOSPITAL.
FARM PAYMENTS, EVEN DEFICIENCY
LOAN -- LOAN DEFICIENCY PAYMENTS
BEGINNING JANUARY 1, 2013, YOU
GET 97% OF THE SOLUTION -- OF
THE PARTIAL SOLUTION TO THE
PROBLEM YOU ALREADY HAVE.
GRANTS FOR FOR-PROFIT COMPANIES,
REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THEY'RE
STATE OR FEDERAL, WILL HAVE 3%
WITHHELD.
BY THEIR COMBINATION ARE
ALLOCATED TO AN ENTITY FOR A
SPECIFIC PURPOSE, LIKE RESEARCH.
AND IF YOU HAVE A RESEARCH
BUDGET THAT IS GRANT DEPENDENT,
WHAT HAPPENS IF YOU GET 97% OF
THE BUDGET?
DO YOU GET 97% OF THE SOLUTION
OR DOES THAT MEAN YOU NEVER GET
TO THE FULL SOLUTION?
WHAT IF THE GRANT IS FOR A
FACILITY OF SOME KIND OR A -- A
DELIVERY OF A SERVICE?
WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU CAN ONLY
DELIVER 97% OF THAT?
THE CONSTRUCTION -- AND, AGAIN,
BACK TO THESE BIG CONSTRUCTION
PROJECTS WHERE 3% WITHHOLDING
MAY BE MORE THAN THE PROFIT.
AND SO, MR. PRESIDENT, THIS IS
ONE OF THE PIECES OF THE
PRESIDENT'S JOBS BILL THAT I AND
OTHERS WOULD LIKE TO SEE BECOME
A REALITY SO THAT PEOPLE COULD
LOOK OUT A YEAR FROM NOW AND NOT
HAVE TO BEGIN TO PLAN ON WHAT
HAPPENS WHEN YOU ONLY GET 97% OF
WHAT YOU EXPECTED IT WOULD COST
TO COMPLETE A JOB OR TO COMPLETE
A PROJECT.
AND SO I BELIEVE, MR. PRESIDENT,
WE'RE GOING TO BE ABLE TO VOTE
ON THIS LATER THIS EVENING.
OPPORTUNITY.
IT.
I THINK IT'S ONE OF THOSE THINGS
THAT IF WE ACTUALLY LET IT OCCUR
IN THE -- THE 1st OF JANUARY
2013, PEOPLE WOULD WONDER, WHY
COULDN'T THEY FIGURE OUT DURING
THE INTERIM PERIOD OF TIME WHEN
THIS WAS PASSED AND IT WAS GOING
TO GO INTO EFFECT, THAT NO
MATTER WHAT THE INTENTION WAS,
THIS WILL NOT WORK.
AND IN A BIPARTISAN WAY, WE
SHOULD STEP FORWARD AND CLARIFY
THIS PROBLEM BEFORE IT BECOMES A
REAL PROBLEM WITH REAL
AND PROBABLY ALREADY HAVING AN
IMPACT ON BIDDING, ON REQUESTING
GRANTS, ON OTHER THINGS THAT
PEOPLE ARE BEGINNING TO THINK
ABOUT WHAT HAPPENS IF THIS
PROJECT IS -- IS AGREED TO OR
BID IS ACCEPTED
FOR WORK THAT WOULD BE DONE
BEYOND 2012.
AND SO I WOULD YIELD THE FLOOR.
I SEE MY FRIEND FROM ILLINOIS IS
NOT HERE, AND UNTIL HE GET BACK,
SEEING NO ONE ELSE ON THE FLOOR,
I WILL NOTE THE -- I WOULD NOTE
THE ABSENCE OF A QUORUM AND LOOK
FORWARD TO MR. DURBIN'S RETURN.
THE CLERK
WILL CALL THE ROLL.
QUORUM CALL:
MR. PRESIDENT, I
ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT THE QUORUM
CALL BE SUSPENDED.
OBJECTION.
AND, MR. PRESIDENT,
THERE ARE TWO AMENDMENTS THAT
ARE LIKELY TO BE CALLED THIS
EVENING AND I'D LIKE TO ADDRESS
THEM VERY BRIEFLY BECAUSE I
BELIEVE BOTH OF THESE AMENDMENTS
SHOULD BE CAREFULLY SCRUTINIZED.
ONE AMENDMENT IS BY SENATOR
AYOTTE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE.
AND WHAT SHE WOULD DO IN HER
AMENDMENT IS RESTRICT THE
AUTHORITY OF THE PRESIDENT OF
THE UNITED STATES TO REFER
SUSPECTED TERRORISTS TO OUR
CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM TO BE
INVESTED, PROSECUTED, AND TRIED.
SHE WOULD MAKE IT MANDATORY THAT
THOSE TERRORISTS, PARTICULARLY
ASSOCIATED WITH AL QAEDA, WOULD
BE TRIED BEFORE MILITARY
COMMISSIONS AND TRIBUNALS.
AS SHE AND SENATOR
McCONNELL CAME TO THE FLOOR TO
EXPLAIN THEIR POINT OF VIEW.
IT'S AN INTERESTING POINT OF
VIEW, THAT WE ARE AT WAR WITH
AL QAEDA AND THEREFORE ANY
TRIALS OF SUSPECTED TERRORISTS
ASSOCIATED WITH THEM SHOULD BE
BEFORE A MILITARY TRIBUNAL.
BUT, UNFORTUNATELY, THE LOGIC OF
THEIR ARGUMENT FALLS FLAT WHEN
YOU LOOK AT REALITY.
HERE IS THE REALITY.
SINCE SEPTEMBER THE 11th TEN
YEARS AGO, PRESIDENT BUSH AND
PRESIDENT OBAMA HAVE FACED TIME
AND TIME AGAIN ALLEGATIONS THAT
TERRORISTS.
EACH PRESIDENT, BUSH AND OBAMA,
HAVE HAD TO CONSULT WITH THE
SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL AND THE OTHER
LEADERS IN THEIR ADMINISTRATION
TO DETERMINE THE APPROPRIATE
PLACE TO INVESTIGATE AND TRY
THESE CASES.
HERE'S THE RECORD.
SINCE 9/11, THE DEPARTMENT OF
THAT ON AS
MANY AS 300 SEPARATE OCCASIONS,
300, THESE SUSPECTED TERRORISTS
HAVE BEEN TAKEN TO THE ARTICLE 3
CRIMINAL COURTS OF AMERICA,
SUCCESSFULLY TRIED AND
PROSECUTED.
IN THAT SAME PERIOD OF TIME,
EXACTLY THREE SUSPECTED
TERRORISTS HAVE BEEN SENT TO
MILITARY COMMISSIONS AND
TRIBUNALS.
FOR THE SENATOR FROM NEW
HAMPSHIRE TO NOW ARGUE THAT ALL
CASES HAVE TO GO TO MILITARY
OBVIOUS.
THE PRESIDENT AS OUR COMMANDER
IN CHIEF, WITH THE PREMIER
RESPONSIBILITY TO KEEP AMERICA
SAFE, SHOULD DECIDE THE BEST
PLACE TO TRY THOSE WHO ARE
ACCUSED.
NOW, THIS HAS BEEN A RECURRING
THEME ON THE REPUBLICAN SIDE, TO
TAKE THE TERRORIST CASES OUT OF
OUR CRIMINAL COURTS.
IN FACT, ALMOST ON A WEEKLY
BASIS, SENATOR McCONNELL HAS
COME TO THE FLOOR MAKING THIS
ARGUMENT.
THE ARGUMENT GOES SOMETHING LIKE
THIS: DO YOU MEAN TO TELL ME
THAT WE'RE GOING TO TAKE A
SUSPECTED TERRORIST IN AND READ
THEM THEIR MIRANDA RIGHTS, THAT
THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO REMAIN
SILENT?
YOU KNOW WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN,
THEY'LL LAWYER UP AND SHUT UP
AND WE WON'T GET THE INFORMING
WE NEED TO KEEP -- GET THE
INFORMATION WE NEED TO KEEP
AMERICA SAFE.
THAT'S WHY HE'S ARGUED TIME AND
TIME AGAIN WE SHOULDN'T ALLOW
THE F.B.I. TO BE INVOLVED AND WE
SHOULDN'T REFER THESE CASES TO
ARTICLE 3 CRIMINAL COURTS.
AND THAT'S WHY SENATOR AYOTTE IS
OFFERING HER AMENDMENT THIS
THE FACT IS, THAT ARGUMENT ISN'T
BORNE OUT BY THE FACTS.
LOOK WHAT HAPPENED TWO WEEKS AGO
AGO.
REMEMBER THE UNDERWEAR BOMBER,
THIS SOMEWHAT CRAZED
WHO GOT ON AN AIRPLANE AND WAS
APPREHENDED OVER DEPROVIDE DETROIT WITH
THE ARGUMENT THAT HIS CLOTHING
WAS ON FIRE.
AND WHEN THEY APPREHENDED HIM
AND TOOK HIM IN, THE F.B.I.
ASKED HIM QUESTIONS.
HE ANSWERED QUESTIONS FOR SOME
PERIOD OF TIME, AND AT THAT
POINT STOPPED TALKING.
READ HIM HIS MIRANDA RIGHTS
RIGHTS.
AND THE SCENARIO AT THAT POINT
WOULD HAVE ENDED, ACCORDING TO
SENATOR McCONNELL, HE LAWYERED
UP AND SHUT UP.
BUT IT DIDN'T END.
THE F.B.I.
CONTINUED THE INVESTIGATION.
THEY WENT OVERSEAS AND BROUGHT
THIS MAN'S MOTHER AND FATHER TO
THE UNITED STATES, WHO SAT DOWN
AND TALKED TO HIM.
AFTER THEY TALKED TO HIM, HE
SAID HE WOULD COOPERATE FULLY
WITH THE F.B.I.
HE TALKED FOR DAY AFTER DAY
AFTER DAY, TELLING THEM ALL THE
INFORMATION ABOUT AL QAEDA.
THEN HIS CASE WAS REFERRED TO A
CRIMINAL COURT IN DETROIT, AND
TWO WEEKS AGO HE PLED GUILTY.
NOW IF YOU FOLLOW THE LOGIC THAT
HAS BEEN GIVEN TO US BY SENATOR
AYOTTE AND SENATOR McCONNELL,
THEY NEVER WOULD HAVE HAPPENED.
THE FACT IS IT DID.
THE F.B.I. DID ITS JOB.
THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE DID
ITS JOB.
THE MAN WAS PROSECUTED IN OUR
CRIMINAL COURTS.
HE PLED GUILTY, IS LIKELY TO BE
SENTENCED IN JANUARY TO A LIFE
IN PRISON.
IT'S BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT HAD
THE AUTHORITY AS COMMANDER IN
CHIEF TO PICK THE FORUM TO TRY
THE INDIVIDUAL.
HE PICKED THE MOST EFFECTIVE
AND WHEN HE DID, WE ENDED UP IN
A SITUATION WHERE THIS MAN WAS,
SENTENCED.
IT ISN'T AN ISOLATED CASE.
IN FACT, IT IS THE OVERWHELMING
LIKELIHOOD THAT WHEN A PERSON
SUSPECTED OF TERRORISM, THEY ARE
MORE LIKELY TO BE SUCCESSFULLY
PROSECUTED IN ONE OF OUR ARTICLE
3 COURTS.
I NOTE TODAY THAT THE CHAIRMAN
OF THE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE,
SENATOR LEVIN OF MICHIGAN,
POINTED OUT ON THE SENATE FLOOR
THAT WHEN SENATOR AYOTTE RAISED
THIS ISSUE IN THE ARMED SERVICES
COMMITTEE MARKUP ON THE DEFENSE
AUTHORIZATION BILL, HER
AMENDMENT WAS DEFEATED ON A
BIPARTISAN ROLL CALL.
SIX REPUBLICANS VOTED AGAINST
HER, INCLUDING SENATOR McCAIN,
THE RANKING MEMBER OF THE ARMED
SERVICES COMMITTEE; AND SENATOR
GRAHAM, THE ONLY MILITARY LAWYER
SERVING IN THE SENATE.
BUT THE AMENDMENT WILL STILL
COME TO THE FLOOR.
I URGE MY COLLEAGUES, WHATEVER
THEY THINK OF PRESIDENT OBAMA --
AND I RESPECT HIM VERY, VERY
MUCH -- WHATEVER THEY THINK OF
HIM, DO NOT TIE THE HANDS OF ANY
PRESIDENT WHEN IT COMES TO
PICKING THE PROPER FORUM TO TRY
A TERRORIST.
IF THE PROPER FORUM IS A
MILITARY COMMISSION AND
TRIBUNAL, I'LL BACK THE
PRESIDENT.
IF THE PROPER FORUM IS AN
ARTICLE 3 CRIMINAL COURT, LET'S
PROCEED THAT WAY AS WELL.
THE EVIDENCE OVERWHELMINGLY
TELLS US THAT GOING THROUGH OUR
CRIMINAL COURT SYSTEM,
TERRORISTS PAY A PRICE, A HEAVY
PRICE WITH UP TO 300 CONVICTIONS
SINCE 9/11 AND MORE THAN 100
CONVICTED SINCE PRESIDENT OBAMA
TOOK OFFICE.
LET'S RESPECT THE PRESIDENT'S
LET'S DO THE BEST THING TO
SECURE OUR NATION.
LET'S NOT LET THE SENATE PRESUME
TO KNOW EXACTLY WHERE EVERY
TERRORIST, SUSPECTED TERRORIST
DEFENDANT IS TO BE TRIED.
MR. PRESIDENT, THERE'S ALSO
ANOTHER AMENDMENT THAT'S LIKELY
TO BE CONSIDERED THIS EVENING,
AND I'D LIKE TO SPEAK TO.
SENATOR STABENOW OF MICHIGAN IS
CHAIRMAN OF THE SENATE
AGRICULTURE COMMITTEE, HAS A
SPECIAL RESPONSIBILITY WHEN IT
COMES TO NUTRITION PROGRAMS, AND
ESPECIALLY THE PROGRAM KNOWN AS
A SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION
ASSISTANCE PROGRAM, THE "SNAP"
PROGRAM, WHICH IS KNOWN TO MOST
PROGRAM.
SENATOR SESSIONS INTRODUCED AN
AMENDMENT THAT WOULD ELIMINATE
THE USE OF WHAT'S KNOWN AS
CATEGORICAL ELIGIBILITY FOR
PEOPLE TO QUALIFY FOR THE "SNAP"
PROGRAM.
40 STATES USE IT.
WHAT THEY BASICALLY SAY IS IF
YOU'RE ELIGIBLE FOR SOME OTHER
PROGRAMS, THEN WE BELIEVE IN
ESTABLISHING THAT ELIGIBILITY.
YOU ARE ALSO ELIGIBLE FOR THE
"SNAP" PROGRAM.
IT TURNS OUT THAT -- LET ME GET
THIS EXACTLY RIGHT.
ONLY 1% OF "SNAP" HOUSEHOLDS
HAVE NET INCOMES OVER 100% OF
THE FEDERAL POVERTY LEVEL.
THE FEDERAL POVERTY LEVEL IS
$22,350 FOR A FAMILY OF FOUR.
WHEN THESE PEOPLE ARE JUDGED TO
BE PART OF A PROGRAM LIKE
TEMPORARY ASSISTANCE FOR NEEDY
FAMILIES, TAN F, LIHEAP,
LOW-INCOME ENERGY AND HEATING
ASSISTANCE PROGRAM, THEY ARE
ELIGIBLE THEN FOR THE "SNAP"
PROGRAM, THE FOOD STAMP PROGRAM.
THE SENATOR FROM ALABAMA,
SENATOR SESSIONS, WOULD CHANGE
THAT.
WHAT HE WOULD ADD TO IT IS A NEW
RED TAPE REQUIREMENT THAT THESE
PEOPLE WHO ARE BY AND LARGE SOME
OF THE POOREST PEOPLE IN
AMERICA, WILL NOW HAVE TO GO
THROUGH ANOTHER BUREAUCRATIC
PROCESS, FILL OUT ANOTHER
I DON'T THINK THAT'S NECESSARY,
AND I'M URGING MY COLLEAGUES NOT
TO SUPPORT SENATOR SESSIONS'
AMENDMENT.
HE RECENTLY SAID ON THE FLOOR
SOMETHING THAT I WANT TO POINT
HE SAID NO PROGRAM IN OUR
GOVERNMENT HAS SURGED OUT OF
CONTROL MORE DRAMATICALLY THAN
FOOD STAMPS.
AND THEN HE WENT ON TO SAY WE
NEED PEOPLE WORKING WITH JOBS,
NOT RECEIVING FOOD STAMPS.
I WILL READILY CONCEDE TO THE
SENATOR FROM ALABAMA THAT THE
NUMBER OF HUNGRY AMERICANS HAVE
INCREASED.
IT'S EVIDENT AT THE FOOD
PANTRIES, AT THE BREAKFAST,
LUNCH AND DINNER FEEDING
PROGRAMS AVAILABLE ACROSS
ILLINOIS AND ACROSS AMERICA.
I'VE BEEN THERE AND I'VE WATCHED
WHO COMES THROUGH THE DOOR.
IT'S A HEARTBREAK FOR THEM AND
FOR ME TO WATCH.
MANY OF THESE PEOPLE HAVE NEVER
IN THEIR LIVES ASKED FOR
ANYTHING, AND NOW THEY HAVE NO
CHOICE.
AND MANY TO THE SURPRISE, I
THINK, OF MANY SENATORS ARE
ACTUALLY WORKING.
BUT THEY MAKE SO LITTLE MONEY
THAT THEY HAVE TO GO IN AND ASK
FOR HELP.
I AGREE WE NEED TO PUT AMERICANS
BACK TO WORK IN GOOD-PAYING
JOBS.
THE SENATOR FROM ALABAMA AND
OTHERS WILL HAVE A CHANCE TO
VOTE FOR PART OF PRESIDENT
OBAMA'S JOBS PROGRAM THIS
THE FACT IS 14 MILLION AMERICANS
ARE CURRENTLY UNEMPLOYED.
ANOTHER 10 MILLION
UNDERKPHROEUD.
AND THESE -- UNDEREMPLOYED.
THESE FEEDING PROGRAMS ARE
ESSENTIAL FOR THEM TO KEEP THEIR
FAMILIES TOGETHER.
NOW, THE SENATOR FROM ALABAMA
POINTS OUT ONE EXAMPLE TO GIVE
REASON WHY WE NEED TO CHANGE THE
LAW ACROSS AMERICA.
HE TALKS ABOUT A CASE WHERE
SOMEONE ACTUALLY WON THE LOTTERY
STAMPS.
THAT CASE GOT A LOT OF MEDIA
ATTENTION, BUT THE FACT IS IT
WAS HIGHLY UNUSUAL.
IF THE SENATOR FROM ALABAMA
WANTS TO ENSURE THAT PEOPLE WHO
WIN THE LOTTERY AND WIN INCOME
ARE NOT ELIGIBLE FOR SNAP, I'LL
BE GLAD TO WORK WITH HIM.
BUT THIS AMENDMENT IS NOT THAT
LEGISLATION.
THAT SINGLE, HIGHLY UNUSUAL
SITUATION DOESN'T MERIT KICKING
PEOPLE WHO ARE OUT OF WORK OR IN
A LOW-INCOME JOB OUT OF A
PROGRAM THAT FEEDS THEIR
TO IMPOSE THAT NEW OBLIGATION,
NEW PAPERWORK, NEW RED TAPE
OBLIGATION ON FAMILIES THAT ARE
STRUGGLING BECAUSE ONE PERSON
ABUSED THE SYSTEM I JUST THINK
GOES TOO FAR.
"SNAP" HAS ONE OF THE LOWEST
PROGRAMS.
THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
AGRICULTURE SHOWS US OVER 90% OF
THOSE RECEIVING "SNAP" PAYMENTS
THE SYSTEM HAS GOOD QUALITY
CONTROLS, AND I WILL WORK WITH
THE SENATOR FROM ALABAMA AND ANY
OTHER SENATOR TO MAKE THEM EVEN
THE PROBLEM ISN'T FOOD STAMPS IN
AMERICA.
THE PROBLEM IS HUNGER IN
LET'S ADDRESS THE HUNGER PROBLEM
AND PUT PEOPLE BACK TO WORK.
WE'LL HAVE LESS DEMAND FOR FOOD
STAMPS AND FOOD PANTRIES.
I THINK WHAT WE FACE IN THIS
COUNTRY IS SERIOUS.
I KNOW IT IS IN MY STATE.
, IN SENATOR SESSIONS' HOME
STATE OF ALABAMA, 73.3% OF
RESIDENTS LIVE IN POVERTY AND
THE SAME PERCENT LIVE IN
INSECURITY.
SADLY, CHILDREN ARE
DISPROPORTIONATELY IMPACTED WITH
HUNGER.
IN SENATOR SESSIONS' HOME STATE
IT'S ONE OF FOUR KIDS WHO ARE IN
A SITUATION WITH FOOD
DEFICIENCIES.
873,174 PEOPLE IN ALABAMA RELY
ON FOOD STAMPS THE "SNAP"
PROGRAM.
ARE WE GOING TO MAKE THEIR LIVES
MORE DIFFICULT BECAUSE ONE
PERSON WHO WON THE LOTTERY
ABUSED THE SYSTEM IN I THINK
THAT GOES TOO FAR.
I HOPE WE CAN WORK TOGETHER TO
MAKE THIS A BETTER PROGRAM.
FOR THOSE WHO ARE ANGRY ABOUT
FOOD STAMPS OR ANGRY ABOUT FOOD
PANTRIES, DIRECT YOUR ANGER
TOWARD HUNGER, TOWARD
UNEMPLOYMENT.
THOSE ARE THE THINGS DRIVING THE
NUMBERS UP IN THE SYSTEM.
WE CAN WORK TOGETHER TO MAKE IT
A BETTER SYSTEM BUT THE APPROACH
BEING SUGGESTED BY THE SENATOR
FROM ALABAMA WILL ADD RED TAPE,
AND UNNECESSARY HARD WORK TO
STRUGGLING.
MR. PRESIDENT?
THE
SENATOR FROM ALABAMA IS
MR. PRESIDENT, I
THANK THE DISTINGUISHED
ASSISTANT MAJORITY LEADER FOR
HIS COMMENTS.