September 23, 2013/United States/U.S. Senate Congressional Record (raw)

= Congressional Record (raw) = undefined

Call to order
Page: S6673

Pledge of Allegiance
Page: S6673

The Presiding Officer led the Pledge of Allegiance, as follows:

Appointment of Acting President Pro Tempore
Page: S6673

The clerk will please read a communication to the Senate from the.

Page: S6673

The majority leader is recognized.

Making Continuing Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2014
Page: S6673

Mr. President, I move to proceed to Calendar No. 195, H.J. Res. 59, which is the continuing resolution.

The clerk will report the resolution.

The legislative clerk read as follows:

Motion to proceed to No. 195, a joint resolution  making continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2014, and for other purposes.

Mr. President, there will be no rollcall votes today. It was unnecessary to have any because we are in a procedural situation here dealing with the CR. The first vote of the week will be tomorrow at 11:45 a.m. on confirmation of a judge, a Federal circuit court judge by the name of Hughes.

I ask unanimous consent that between now and 6 p.m. Senators be permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Without objection, it is so ordered.

UNANIMOUS CONSENT REQUEST—EXECUTIVE CALENDAR
I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations: Calendar Nos. 338, 339, 341, and 343.

Mr. President, does the Senator yield?

No.

Well, I object. The majority leader asked for consent, and I object.

OK.

The Senate majority leader.

Mr. President, inside the House Republican bubble, thecrowd cheered a plan to deny health insurance to tens of millions of Americans or else shut down the government. Outside the House Republican bubble, the reaction was altogether different. The radical tea party plan to shut down the government unless Democrats agree to deny funding to implement ObamaCare—passed by the House of Representatives on Friday—has been called “the dumbest idea ever” by one Republican Senator. It has been called a “box canyon”—a morass from which Republicans will not escape unscathed—by a second Republican Senator. It has been called “dishonest” by one Republican Senator and a “suicide note” by another Republican Senator. So, Mr. President, the reviews are in, and they are universal: The ransom demanded by House Republicans in exchange for keeping the government open is unworkable and unrealistic.

President Obama has been clear, and I have been clear: Any bill that defunds ObamaCare is dead on arrival in the Senate. The Affordable Care Act has been the law of the land for 4 years now. Democrats are willing to work with reasonable Republicans to improve this law. But we now understand that there is an anarchy movement that is afoot. A lead editorial in the New York Times of Wednesday of last week said that. But we are not going to bow to tea party anarchists who deny the mere fact that ObamaCare is the law. We will not bow to tea party anarchists who refuse to accept that the Supreme Court ruled ObamaCare to be constitutional. And we will not bow to tea party anarchists in the House or in the Senate who ignore the fact that President Obama was overwhelmingly reelected a few months ago.

These fanatics really point to disapproval for ObamaCare as justification for taking the Federal Government and our economy hostage to their demands. What they fail to mention to the American people and to the Senate and to the House is that 59 percent of Americans either support the law or wish it were even more far-reaching and transformative of our health care delivery system, according to a CNN poll. The vast majority of Americans—including those who disapprove of the health care law—want Congress to work to improve it, not to tear it down. And according to a new CNBC poll, Americans overwhelmingly oppose defunding ObamaCare, especially if it means shutting down the government to do so.

So the facts are that the vast majority of the American people are satisfied with ObamaCare. The simple fact remains that ObamaCare is the law of the land and it will remain the law of the land as long as Barack Obama is President of the United States and as long as I am the Senate majority leader. The latest gamble by Republicans in the House of Representatives—made with the backing of their radical allies in the Senate—only postpones the inevitable.

This week the Senate will act as quickly as tea party Republicans will allow. Once the Senate has acted, House Republicans will face a choice—whether to pass a clean continuing resolution or shut down the Federal Government. So the question is, Are extremist Republicans really willing to shut down the government? Time will only tell. But the world looks to America for leadership. Is this lack of respect for the rule of law truly the example we wish to set for others? Are Republicans so intent on undermining both President Obama and his signature health care law that they are willing to inflict severe damage to our economy in the process? America will know exactly whom to blame—Republican fanatics in the House and the Senate.

I urge those Republicans to listen to the more reasonable Republicans in the Senate. I have read some of their commentary on what is contemplated and how dumb they think it is. I repeat, one Republican Senator said: It is the dumbest idea I have ever heard. Two dozen Senate Republicans have spoken against this foolhardy plan to drive the economy off a cliff—two dozen. This “Thelma and Louise” style is not getting the attention of the American people in a positive tone. If Democrats do not bow to every demand they have, they want to go right over the cliff. We are not going to go with them.

I am glad to see more and more of my moderate Republican colleagues stepping up to speak sense to an extremist element of their own party.

Maureen Dowd wrote in the New York Times on Saturday:

Speaker John Boehner, trapped under the thumb of Tea Party anarchists, called Friday’s vote to defund Obamacare and invite a government shutdown, “a victory for common sense.”

She said:

Mr. President, every one of these Senators whose comments I read to everyone listening, plus the 20 or so others whose comments I did not mention specifically, are conservative people, conservative Republicans, they are just not radical.

So I say to House and Senate Republicans who continue to deny a reality and risk America’s economy: Listen to the chorus all around you. Listen to what they are saying. Your conservative Senate colleagues have urged you off this reckless course. The Nation’s largest business group, the chamber of commerce, has urged you off this reckless course. American families, who are weary both of these foolish partisan fights and of these difficult economic times, have urged you off this reckless course. And on behalf of Democrats, who long for the days when we legislated through cooperation—we did it instead of hostage-taking—I personally urge you off this reckless course.

What remains to be seen is whether my Republican colleagues on both sides of the Capitol are wise enough to listen.

Mr. President, we have a number of people we are trying to get approved, confirming nominations. They have been approved by everyone, as far as I know, and I will again, unless my friend from Texas objects to these people getting confirmed—does my friend object?

Reserving the right to object, I am happy to discuss it with the majority leader, but at this point, yes, I object.

Fine. I will make my request, and the Senator can grab his reservation, and we will talk about it.

I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations: Calendar Nos. 338, 339, 341, and 343; that the nominations be confirmed en bloc; the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table; that there be no intervening action or debate; that no further motions be in order to any of the nominations; that any related statements be printed in the Record; that President Obama be immediately notified of the Senate’s action and the Senate then resume legislative session.

Is there objection?

I object.

There is objection.

Objection is heard.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The clerk will call the roll.

I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Without objection, it is so ordered.

= = Page: S6674

I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations—I stated the request earlier. I would re-engage in that and ask unanimous consent that be the case.

Is there objection? Without objection, it is so ordered.

The nominations considered and confirmed en bloc are as follows:

Federal Election Commission
Ann Miller Ravel, of California, to be a Member of the Federal Election Commission for a term expiring April 30, 2017.

Lee E. Goodman, of Virginia, to be a Member of the Federal Election Commission for a term expiring April 30, 2015.

Department of State
Evan Ryan, of Virginia, to be an Assistant Secretary of State (Educational and Cultural Affairs).

Broadcasting Board of Governors
Kenneth R. Weinstein, of the District of Columbia, to be a Member of the Broadcasting Board of Governors for a term expiring August 13, 2014.

= = Page: S6674

Under the previous order, the Senate will resume legislative session.

Making Continuing Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2014—Continued
Page: S6674

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The clerk will call the roll.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Without objection, it is so ordered.

Sergeant Jamar Avery Hicks and Sergeant First Class Ricardo Young
Mr. President, earlier this month we marked the 12th anniversary of the terrorist attacks on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon that killed more than 3,000 people.

Our fight against terrorism continues today. We can be proud of all that America’s military personnel and the veterans of the global war on terror have accomplished, as well as the ongoing efforts.

Many brave Americans put their lives on the line every day to defend this country because terrorists remain committed to harming the United States. Many have made the ultimate sacrifice for our freedoms. We must honor the sacrifice of the men and women who laid down their lives for us.

Arkansas has a proud history of its citizens serving this country in the military. Many brave Arkansans, including two recently, have given their lives defending our country on the battlefield. We continue to honor the men and women who have given their last full measure of devotion to protect our Nation.

SGT Jamar Avery Hicks sacrificed his life for this country in support of Operation Enduring Freedom. Sergeant Hicks graduated from Hall High School in Little Rock, AR, in 2009. One of his former teachers described him as a student who didn’t mind going out of his way to help others and never looked for anything in return. She says she would have taken a whole classroom filled with students like Jamar. Those closest to Sergeant Hicks describe him as a quiet, gentle, and unassuming man with an infectious smile who always had a positive outlook on life.

Sergeant Hicks joined the Army in November of 2009. His friends say he loved the Army, and his military service drove him to continue to improve himself. Sergeant Hicks was assigned to Headquarters and Headquarters Battery, 4th Battalion, 320th Field Artillery Regiment, 101st Airborne Division, Fort Campbell, KY, as a vehicle driver. He gave his life on August 11, 2013, his 22nd birthday, after enemy forces attacked his unit with indirect fire in the Paktia Province of Afghanistan.

I ask my colleagues to keep his family, including his wife Debra, his son Jamar, Jr., and friends in their thoughts and prayers during this very difficult time.

Most recently the Natural State honored the life of SFC Ricardo Young as State flags flew at half-mast. Sergeant First Class Young graduated from Nevada High School in Rosston, AR, in 1997. His family and friends describe him as fun-loving, caring, and always full of life. Sergeant First Class Young joined the Army in September 1997. He trained at Fort Benning before his first assignment at Fort Campbell, KY. In his 15 years of military service, Sergeant First Class Young was deployed to two tours in Iraq, one in Afghanistan, in addition to other missions around the globe.

Sergeant First Class Young was assigned to the 738th Engineer Support Company, 307th Engineer Battalion, 20th Engineer Brigade, 18th Airborne Corps, Fort Bragg, NC. On August 28, 2013, he gave his life in support of Operation Enduring Freedom in Farah Province, Afghanistan.

On behalf of a grateful nation, I humbly offer my sincerest gratitude for the patriotism and selfless service of Sergeant First Class Young and Sergeant Hicks.

Let us never forget the sacrifices of our troops, and let their legacies be an inspiration for all Americans.

Mr. President, I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The clerk will call the roll.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. President, I would like to be recognized to speak on a few issues.

Without objection, it is so ordered.

H.J. Res. 59
In the course of the next few weeks it is going to be white-knuckle time. Here, coming up next week, October 1, begins a new fiscal year, of which all appropriations funding of the Government, save for those programs that automatically flow such as Medicare, Social Security—all others will cease to have funding unless we can continue to fund through appropriations bills coming up. That is next week.

As you know, there are a number of people on that side of the aisle who are threatening to shut down the government unless they get their way. In this particular case a lot of them in the House of Representatives are saying their way or no way; that they want to defund the implementation of the law that has been in existence for 3 years, setting up a reform of the health care system.

But the white knuckles—assuming we can get over that little hurdle—the white knuckles will continue because shortly thereafter we are going to get to the day of reckoning about whether the U.S. Government can pay its bills because of the artificial debt ceiling set in statute that says that above a certain level the U.S. Government cannot borrow any more money. These are obligations that have already been incurred.

Just think how many of us own U.S. bonds. A bunch of those bonds are coming due. That is in large part how we finance the debt of the United States, by selling securities with the full faith and credit of the strongest financial government on the face of planet Earth. Therefore, if that debt ceiling, that artificial ceiling set in statute, is not raised, the government cannot go out and borrow any more money—in other words, issuing new bonds. That is when the knuckles completely turn white.

Listen to what a respected economist, the chief economist for Moody’s Mark Zandi told the Joint Economic Committee last week. He says the financial markets of this country, indeed the international markets as well, will start to get jittery starting next week if there is no clear path to a deal on raising that artificial, statutory debt ceiling. He says then that jitteriness is going to turn into panic once the U.S. Treasury cannot make its payments. He further went on to say: “If you don’t do it in time, confidence will evaporate, consumer confidence will sharply decline, businesses”—I hope the American people, by the way, can understand this, what are the consequences of this—“ ..... businesses will stop hiring,” he says, “consumers will stop spending—” listen to that, shopowners—“and the stock market will fall significantly in value:” and how about this, small business owners—“borrowing costs for businesses and households will continue to rise” significantly.

Do you know what he told us, the same economist told us 2 years ago when we were getting right up to the precipice on the debt ceiling? He said:

At the end of the day if we don’t raise the debt ceiling, the economy is going to go back into a recession. Interest rates are going to spike.

In the State of the Presiding Officer, the housing market is recovering, as it is in my State. People are excited about buying a new house or selling their old house and moving into a new house. Interest rates are still relatively low. But in a State such as Virginia or my State of Florida, where housing is such a critical component of the economy, just think what is going to happen if the interest rates suddenly spike and now the cost of getting into a new house is double what it was before because of the interest rate spiking and because they are less inclined, if the interest rates spike, to get that new mortgage. Then the houses are not selling and the values of the houses that have been recovering, out of the deep recession, instead of going this way are starting to go that way.

The American people have not focused on the consequences if these guys on that side of the aisle and down there at the other end of the Capitol in fact cause the U.S. Government to go into default.

Let’s listen to some more experts. Martin Feldstein, former Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors—for whom? For a Republican President, President Reagan:

The debt ceiling is a very dangerous thing to play with.

How about the respected Bob Rubin, Treasury Secretary under President Clinton? Remember the 1990s, how the economy was surging, how people were feeling good? Let’s see what he says.

Defaulting on our commitments is unthinkable and dangerous, and the debt ceiling should be raised now without conditions.

That is what the President has said. He is not going to negotiate on the debt ceiling because of all of these consequences. Yet they are saying if they do not get their way to take away the funding for the implementation of the part of the health care bill that is supposed to go into effect—a lot of it has already gone into effect—they want to take away the funds.

Let’s listen to another respected economist. After all, he has shepherded us out of the recession because he is the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, Ben Bernanke. He says:

But I do hope that Congress will allow the Government to pay its bills, not raise the possibility of default which would be very, very costly to our economy.

That is a little bit of understatement, as the Chairman of the Federal Reserve always does, but it is a zinger.

Mark Zandi, the one we quoted before, says:

This dark scenario is so dark I can’t imagine it.

How about another former Vice Chairman of the Federal Reserve, Alan Blinder:

In short, the consequences of hitting the debt ceiling are too awful to contemplate. ..... A sane Congress wouldn’t even think about it.

Let me quote another Republican, Bruce Bartlett, deputy assistant secretary for economic policy at Treasury under President George H.W. Bush. This is what he said:

A potential debt default is far more than a domestic consideration; it is a matter of foreign policy.

That leads me to briefly comment. We suddenly have in the international arena a whole bunch of new things that might be optimistic signs. If the Russians follow through and if President Assad does in fact open—and those are two big “ifs” but at least it has happened thus far in the first week—if Assad does in fact open his chemical weapons, then there is the possibility that not only would the ability to disperse chemical weapons in Syria have been eliminated but those entire weapons would have been eliminated.

That is a pretty good first step.

We are also hearing the new President of Iran—as a result of an election in Iran—start to sing a new tune and have more of an outreach to the West. Should we be skeptical? Of course. I talked to the new Foreign Minister of Iran, who was a former Iranian Ambassador to the United Nations, last Friday. I talked to him about what a gesture of good will it would be if they could find the missing retired FBI agent who disappeared 6 1/2 years ago, Bob Levinson, from the tourist island of Kish off the Iranian coast—if they could find him and return him to his wife and seven children after having been gone for 6 1/2 years. We have had proof of life twice—one with a video and the second time was 2 years ago in a photo. What a gesture of good will it would be if they were sincere about having a new relationship with the West.

So if intrigues are real and they happen, would we want to undermine so much of that—to put it in the words of a Republican adviser of the Treasury to President George H. W. Bush—that a potential default is far more than a domestic consideration, it is a matter of foreign policy. Would we want to weaken the U.S. Government as it negotiates over these critical matters?

I will conclude by saying there is some movement and discussions underway about a two-state solution between Israel and the Palestinians with security safeguards for both. Again, if there is any reality to these new messages that are flowing around and which our Secretary of State and our former colleague John Kerry is trying desperately to bring about—just think of what that does to improve the world situation, of which the enormous beneficiary is the United States of America.

Yet would we be threatening again, pulling the economic underpinnings out from all of our negotiators on these three main negotiated topics that are now in front of us that affect the national security so desperately of the United States and the security of our allies? I don’t think so. That is why I think there are a bunch of folks over here who have tried to get the Members in the House of Representatives to come to their senses.

We have seen this brinkmanship before. I hope cooler and more rational heads will prevail.

I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The clerk will call the roll.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Without objection, it is so ordered.

H.J. Res. 59
Mr. President, we have a very serious problem with the new health care law. Costs are surging. We now have a projection from the Government Accountability Office. Under a realistic set of assumptions, the health care law will add over $6 trillion to the unfunded liabilities of the United States of America. Private health insurance premiums are going up. Unions are in full rebellion. Congress is in rebellion with regard to our staff. Doctors are rebelling. Many of them are giving up practices. They didn’t get the one thing they really needed, which is a fix to their Medicare reimbursement. The President has had to delay the employer mandate. This law is nowhere close to workable. It is not good. There are many more bad things I could say about the status we are in today.

The only person who apparently is stuck with this, who doesn’t have power to influence the process, is John Q. Citizen. Businesses are getting their employer mandate delayed because it just won’t work.

In fact, this law is clearly, indisputably savaging job creation and economic growth. Seventy-seven percent of the people who got jobs this year got part-time jobs, and every expert says ObamaCare is a big part of the reason—a big part of that. Businesses are staying below 50 employees so they feel as though they are not so bound. Wages are down again this year. Unemployment is high. The percentage of the American people who are actually working is down—the workplace rate—and it is at the lowest point since 1975. This health care law is a big part of it. It just is, and everybody knows it. Talk to any businessperson, and they will say that the uncertainty, the costs, the problems that are entailed with it are impacting what they do. That is just a fact.

So this year the Senate has done nothing—absolutely nothing. Every attempt to confront the serious problems with this law has been blocked by the Senate Democratic majority led by Senator Reid. That is just a fact. The House has passed repeated bills to confront this problem, and they have now sent over a bill from the House that funds the Government of the United States but defunds this unworkable health care law. Republicans in the House and Senate have put forward serious proposals to improve health care in America.

We ought to understand the posture we are in here. The Senate Democrats have refused to consider any reform. The House has passed a number of bills to deal with this in a responsible way, and they have now passed a bill—a continuing resolution—to fund the Government of the United States, but defund the President’s health care law.

What does he say? He says: Well, I will talk with Putin, negotiate with him. I will negotiate with Assad. I will negotiate with Iran. But I will not even talk to anyone in the U.S. Congress about this health care law that is clearly unworkable and, as one of our Democratic Members said, a train wreck. No chance. Not one jot, not one tittle of my health care law will be changed.

What is he saying there? I will shut down the government before I allow a change in my “perfect” health care law.

So I want to raise the question, Who is causing the problem in this country? Who is the one who is refusing to fix an obviously failed health care law that needs major reform? It is the President of the United States and a majority in the Senate. I express my deepest concern about it, as a member of the Budget Committee, and we will talk more about it in the days to come, but this law is financially unsustainable. It is not what it was sold to be.

The American people have never believed you can have a huge expansion of health care and not have an impact on the U.S. budget. They are absolutely right, as the GAO has already told us.

I know others are prepared to talk. I just want to say that we need to understand what has happened. It is time for us to make some fundamental changes to this law, and all we are hearing from the White House is this: No, sir. Not one change will they accept. We will not even have serious negotiations about it. That is unacceptable. It needs to change. I hope in the next few days the American people will become engaged, and perhaps our colleagues will see it differently. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The clerk will call the roll.

The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.

H.J. Res. 59
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be given 20 minutes to speak.

Is there objection?

The majority leader.

Mr. President, I have no objection whatsoever to the Senator speaking, but it was my understanding he was going to ask some consent requests. I understand he has great persuasive talents in speaking, but I am not going to be able to do that. I interrupted my schedule today, which I was happy to do, at the convenience of the Senator from Texas. So I will be back in 20 minutes, and the Senator can ask his unanimous consent requests at that time. Is that OK?

Mr. President, I would be happy to ask the unanimous consent requests at the outset if that would be preferable to the majority leader.

OK. And if the Senator would do that, I would really appreciate it. And he has my word that I will watch what I can, and if I cannot, I will read every word of it tonight.

And I am hopeful my remarks will be persuasive when the Senator watches them.

My friend is always persuasive.

Without objection, it is so ordered.

The first unanimous consent request that I would put forward: Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate agree to the motion to proceed to H.J. Res. 59; that no debate, amendments, or motions to the resolution be in order; that any and all points of order be waived; that the resolution be read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, without any intervening action or debate.

Is there objection?

Yes. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, my friend went right to the point, and I appreciate that. I understand that the junior Senator from Texas asks consent to pass the House-passed continuing resolution by consent without any amendments. I understand that. As I said, he came right to the point.

The House-passed resolution, as we know now, would defund ObamaCare. It would block not only the administration of the program but all related benefits as well, and that is untoward.

Second, it includes so-called debt prioritization language, or what has been called the “pay China first” policy. This would leave us vulnerable to default on our obligations to everyone else besides bondholders and Social Security—everyone from veterans, to small businesses, to Federal employees and contractors, to doctors and hospitals and Medicare patients generally.

Mr. President, the President would veto this continuing resolution, so it is not going to become law anyway, and I object.

Objection is heard.

Mr. President, the second unanimous consent request that I would put forward: Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate agree to the motion to proceed to H.J. Res. 59; that any and all points of order be waived; that during consideration of H.J. Res. 59, adoption of any amendments be subject to a 60-affirmative-vote threshold; and that upon disposition of all amendments, the resolution be read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, without any intervening action or debate.

Is there objection?

Mr. President, reserving the right to object I again understand the Senator from Texas in his request, which would create a new 60-vote hurdle where the Senate rules do not require one at the present time. I really try to follow the Senate rules. Sometimes they are obnoxious and I wish they were different, but I try my best, in leading us in this difficult Senate sometimes, to live up to all the rules as they exist. The Senate rules set up a lot of hurdles. That is the way the precedents have been developed over the years, and I understand that. Sometimes Senators like these, sometimes they do not. I would guess that most would say the Senate has enough—enough—60-vote hurdles, that the Senate has enough of these really arbitrary hurdles as it is, that we do not need to add even more barriers to getting things done.

We should be careful about adding new barriers. The American people are really fed up. I travel the country, and it is rare that I go someplace where they do not say: What are you going to do to change the rules? They know what the rules are and how difficult they are. I would bet the vast majority of Senators—Democrats and Republicans—would like them changed. The problem is that we have tried that recently. We were able to make a little headway but not a lot. So I think most Americans would rather we work in ways to agree to work together rather than disagree. I almost would bet, although I am not a betting man, that most Americans would rather we avoid shutting down the government.

Mr. President, I know the sincerity of the Senator from Texas. I understand that. I disagree with him I hope as sincerely as he disagrees with me, but I do not take away from his sincerity. But having said that, I am in a position now to object, and I must do that.

Objection is heard.

The Senator from Texas.

Mr. President, at this time I now ask unanimous consent that I be allowed 20 minutes to speak.

Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. President, these two unanimous consent requests have the virtue of clarifying this debate the Senate will face this week. I am going to suggest to the Presiding Officer that the Senate has not faced a more important debate in the short time he and I have both served in this institution. No American wants a government shutdown. I do not want a government shutdown. No one on this side of the aisle wants a government shutdown. The House of Representatives does not want a government shutdown.

Five minutes ago the Senate could have acted to prevent a government shutdown. The requests I promulgated to the majority leader were to pass the continuing resolution the House of Representatives passed. If that had happened, there would be no government shutdown. A government shutdown would be taken off the table. The specter the Presiding Officer and I see on the television screen every day—the countdown clock that has started to appear—would disappear. But unfortunately the majority leader chose to object—to object and to say, no, he would rather risk a government shutdown than act to prevent it. Why? Again, the majority leader was quite candid: because he supports the law called ObamaCare.

I would note that a component of that also—one of the pieces the House of Representatives passed—is a law that has been called the Default Prevention Act. The President of the United States has been doing a fair amount of public speaking, raising the prospect of a default on our debt. The House of Representatives acted boldly to include in their continuing resolution language that would say the United States will never, ever, ever default on its debt, that in the event the debt ceiling is not raised, we will always pay our debt first.

I suspect every Member of this body has spoken publicly about the calamity that would come from a default on the debt. I think it is quite revealing that the majority leader explicitly referenced and objected to by name taking a default off the table. I think that is unfortunate.

There is a tendency in this town toward brinkmanship, toward pointing to events that can cause instability and uncertainty and using them to try to get your way. I wish the majority leader had been willing to step forward and say: I agree, No. 1, that the government should be funded; we should not have a government shutdown; and, No. 2, that we should never ever even discuss a default on the debt.

Had the majority leader simply said, “I consent,” a default on the debt would have been taken permanently off the table. Why didn’t he? We all know why he didn’t. Because the majority leader embraces ObamaCare. I am going to suggest that this body a little over 3 years ago passed ObamaCare. It passed on a straight party-line vote. In the time since it has passed, America has learned it is not working. Americans all over this country are suffering because of ObamaCare. It is the single biggest job killer in America. Every day we are seeing more and more evidence that ObamaCare is killing jobs; that it is hurting American workers who are struggling; that it is causing people to be forcibly put into part-time work, 29 hours a week; that it is jacking up their health insurance premiums. It is causing more and more people, who are struggling, to lose their health insurance altogether.

Today the New York Times reported that because of ObamaCare, “Insurers are significantly limiting the choices of doctors and hospitals available to consumers.” That is today in the newspaper.

USA Today reported on a new “family glitch” that could cause up to a half million children to go without insurance coverage.

A headline in the Washington Post today read, “One week away, ObamaCare’s small business insurance exchanges not all ready for launch.”

Even the labor unions that once championed ObamaCare are now publicly decrying it as a threat to the 40-hour workweek that is the backbone of the American middle class. That is in the words of organized labor.

This law is hurting the American people. It is why there is bipartisan consensus outside of Washington, DC, that we need to step up and stop it. That would be the responsible thing for Senators on both sides of the aisle to do, to say: The same rules should apply to hard-working American families that apply to big corporations and that apply to Members of Congress.

We have seen the President unilaterally put in place exceptions for giant corporations and Members of Congress. I would submit, hard-working American families deserve that same exception. So I think it is unfortunate the majority leader chose to object to continuing government, to preventing a shutdown, to taking a default off the table. But I do think it is clarifying to make clear, as the majority leader just did, that he is willing to risk a government shutdown. He is willing to force even a government shutdown in order to insist that ObamaCare is funded.

That leads to the second unanimous consent request I put forward, a simple request that every amendment on this continuing resolution be subject to 60 votes. Everyone in this body knows that is not an unusual request in the Senate. Amendments in this body are routinely subjected to 60-vote thresholds. Indeed, a few months ago when this body was debating the issue of guns—a contentious issue, an emotional issue, an issue of great moment for this country—the majority leader agreed with the minority that every single amendment on the floor would be subject to a 60-vote threshold. Those were the terms under which every aspect of the gun debate was debated.

I would note that one amendment that was submitted during that gun debate was the Grassley-Cruz amendment. It was the law enforcement amendment that put real teeth in going after felons and fugitives who try to illegally buy guns. It put real teeth into forcing States to report mental health records so we can prevent those with serious mental illnesses from illegally purchasing firearms.

I would note that the Grassley-Cruz amendment received a majority vote in this institution. A majority of Senators voted for it, including nine Democrats. It was the most bipartisan of the comprehensive gun amendments voted on in this body. Yet it did not pass into law because the majority leader set a 60-vote threshold for every amendment.

I would suggest that ObamaCare is no less important. ObamaCare is no less controversial. ObamaCare, likewise, should be subject to the same threshold. If the majority leader believes ObamaCare is good for America, if the Democrats in this body believe ObamaCare is good for America, then I would encourage this body, let’s debate—not in the artificial sense in which we debate, one or two Senators talking to an empty hall, but in the real sense of making the case to each other and the American people about whether this law is working or whether it is not. Because everywhere I travel in the State of Texas and across the country, Americans come to me and raise the single biggest challenge they are facing: ObamaCare. It is killing their jobs. It is taking their health care. It is not working.

We all know that 3 1/2 years ago ObamaCare was forced into law on a strict party-line vote, by straight, brute force. But it should not be funded that way. That is not the way a government should proceed. That is not the way this institution should proceed. A 60-vote threshold does not require that the majority leader get a great many Republican votes, but it does require that he get a few, that he cannot simply do it with the votes of only the Democrats in this body.

This country will be better off if we work together to restore economic growth and to stop the incredible job loss that is coming from ObamaCare. In fact, regarding a 60-vote threshold, here is what the learned majority leader has had to say:

For more than 200 years, the rules of the Senate have protected the American people and rightfully so. The need to muster 60 votes in order to terminate Senate debate naturally frustrates the majority and oftentimes the minority. I am sure it will frustrate me when I assume the office of majority leader in a few weeks. But I recognize this requirement as a tool that serves the long-term interests of the Senate and the American people and our country.

I agree with Majority Leader Reid. I agree that 60-vote thresholds ensure that we behave not just in a partisan manner but in a way that brings us together. Given the challenges coming from ObamaCare, I believe nothing is hurting the American people more, nothing is hurting the economy more, nothing is damaging jobs more, than ObamaCare.

Given the majority leader’s objection raised today, the path the majority intends to go down is now clear. It is clear to Democrats, it is clear to Republicans, it is clear for the world to see: The majority leader has stated it is his intention to force a vote to fund ObamaCare, and do so using just 51 votes, to do so on what could be a straight party-line vote, in all likelihood would be a straight party-line vote.

I would suggest that is not a responsible course of action. It is not a course of action that I think Republicans should acquiesce to. If it is the majority leader’s intent to fund ObamaCare using just 51 votes, then I would submit to every Republican in this body it is our obligation to our constituents to do everything we can to prevent the majority leader from funding ObamaCare with 51 votes. Any Member of this body who votes for cloture on this bill will be voting to allow the majority leader to fund ObamaCare on 51 votes. I think that vote is a mistake. I think that vote disserves our constituents. I think that vote hurts the people of America.

So 232 Members of the House of Representatives came together and said explicitly: Do not fund ObamaCare. I would note that included two Democrats who came together with Republicans in a bipartisan manner to say: This law is not working. Maybe we thought it would work, but the facts, the evidence, have proven it is not working.

The Senate should do likewise. The House acted last week because the House listened to the American people. I would suggest that every Member of this body should do exactly the same: Listen to the American people. Because if we listen to the American people, we will, No. 1, keep the government running. I wish the majority leader had agreed to my request to take a government shutdown off the table by passing the House continuing resolution.

If we listen to the American people, we will, No. 2, take any default on the debt off the table. I wish the majority leader had not objected to doing so right now. I wish the majority leader had not said he intends to continue to use the threat of a default to engage in brinkmanship to try to force ObamaCare on the American people.

If we listen to the American people, we will recognize that this law is not working. That is why big corporations asked for and received an exception. That is why Members of Congress asked for and received an exception. That is why unions have recently come forward and asked for an exception. They have not yet been granted it, but I will venture a prediction now that if Congress votes to continue funding ObamaCare, that union exception will not be far away. Then we will be left in a world where the burdens of ObamaCare, the job-killing consequences of ObamaCare, fall on hard-working American families, not on big corporations, not on Members of Congress and, in the near future, I predict not on union bosses, only on hard-working American families, on single moms, on young people, on people struggling to climb the economic ladder.

I would suggest that is getting it exactly backward. This body should be not be granting special rules, special favors for the ruling class, for those with power and privilege. We should be fighting for those who are struggling. Those are the people who are getting hurt the most by ObamaCare.

I believe this week will be a critical week for the Senate, where every one of us—and I hope to see Republicans and Democrats stand together and to say, setting aside partisan differences, we have an obligation to the people of our States. ObamaCare is not working, so we are going to step forward and recognize the simple reality that it is the biggest job killer in this country and we should not affirmatively fund it.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

The clerk will call the roll.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Without objection, it is so ordered.

Civilian National Service
Mr. President, on September 11 we came together as a country on the National Day of Service and Remembrance to honor those lives lost on that tragic day 12 years ago and celebrated the bravery and commitment of our men and women in uniform. As our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines continue to defend our freedom and security abroad, Americans back home have also been stepping forward to serve their communities and country.

Last week brought the 20th anniversary of the signing of legislation that created AmeriCorps. With that goal in mind, I rise to speak in honor of the men and women in civilian national service who have sacrificed their time and energy to serve our country by strengthening our communities. We honor them for their commitment and hold them as shining examples for rising generations.

Over the last two decades more than 820,000 AmeriCorps members have quietly and selflessly given in total more than 1 billion hours of service to our country. In Arizona alone more than 15,000 residents have served more than 16 million hours and have earned Segal AmeriCorps Education Awards totaling nearly $37 million. They have mentored and tutored schoolchildren, helping students stay on track with their education and having a chance at a better future. They have helped communities recover from devastating natural disasters, supported military families, and helped veterans overcome the stress of a decade of conflict and reintegrate back into civilian life. They have worked in our national parks and on our public lands that preserve the story of America for future generations, and they have done so much more.

For their dedication and service they receive a modest living allowance and an education award that can keep the dream of a college education within reach. They have also earned my respect and the admiration of citizens around the country.

As we reflect on the dedication of those who have served, we must also ask ourselves what more can we do to give more young Americans the opportunity to follow in their footsteps. As the Franklin Project at the Aspen Institute has called for, we should make a year of national service, whether military or civilian, a right of passage for all young Americans. We should expand AmeriCorps service positions, as we called for in the bipartisan Serve America Act that we passed nearly 5 years ago. We should strengthen partnerships with Federal departments and agencies to use national service as a cost-effective strategy to meet their missions, and we should work with the private sector, from corporations and philanthropic organizations to higher education and faith-based institutions, to support the creation of service opportunities and to recognize the contributions of those who serve.

We should also continue to remain engaged throughout the world by, among other things, fulfilling the promise of the Peace Corps. At its founding, America started with a grand notion, the recognition that all men are created equal and that they are endowed with certain inalienable rights that must be protected. But recognizing there are those among us and common causes greater than our own self-interests that require our attention and care, the Declaration of Independence also emphasized “ ..... we mutually pledge to one another our Lives, our Fortunes and our Sacred Honor.” Benjamin Franklin likewise talked about creating a “Republic, if you can keep it,” and created a corps in Philadelphia through which citizens could serve their community. John Adams likewise spoke of how the duty to serve our country ended but with our lives.

Throughout history, Presidents of both parties put into place initiatives that put our people into productive service to our Nation. Examples include Franklin Roosevelt’s Civilian Conservation Corps, John Kennedy’s Peace Corps, Lyndon Johnson’s VISTA Program, Richard Nixon’s Senior Corps, George H.W. Bush’s Points of Light, Bill Clinton’s AmeriCorps, George W. Bush’s USA Freedom Corps, and, more recently, the passage of the Serve America Act, which reauthorizes and expands national service programs.

Congress should step up. With so much division and discord throughout the country, national service can help bring our country closer together. Drawing from lessons learned from programs of the past, a renewed commitment to national service by this body can unleash the ingenuity of the American people and their desire to contribute to causes greater than themselves. It can channel the energy of the institutions of civil society to get our country moving again. Think of it: Passionate, engaged young people from all backgrounds and regions across the Nation tackling our toughest challenges in education, poverty, conservation, health, disaster response, reintegrating veterans, and more in a truly enduring way.

In my view, nothing else binds us better and has us move forward as a nation more effectively than service to our Nation, particularly service designed to improve lives and strengthen communities. For this reason, my vision for civilian national service is worth more than our aspirations. It deserves our commitment to achieving it.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The clerk will call the roll.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Without objection, it is so ordered.

H.J. Res. 59
Mr. President, on Friday a unified House Republican conference sent a strong message to the American people: Let’s keep the government open, and let’s protect the American people simultaneously from the harmful and potentially devastating effects of ObamaCare.

It is now time for the Senate to act. We know the President’s health care law is not ready to implement. The Wall Street Journal recently reported that the government’s software that runs the online insurance marketplaces, known as exchanges, simply is not ready. It can’t reliably determine how much people need to pay for coverage.

In the face of this and the other aspects of the law that are not ready—many of them by the President’s own admission—if the administration goes ahead with this law anyway, we know ObamaCare will be implemented in a manner that is manifestly unfair and that is likely to harm hard-working Americans. Big business, unions, and other special interests may well all receive special treatment under ObamaCare while the rest of the country will be forced into ObamaCare’s unfair, unworkable, and fundamentally unsound system.

We know the law is unaffordable. We know it will be bad for the economy. At a time when we are running annual deficits approaching $1 trillion, ObamaCare is going to cost roughly $2 trillion over the next 10 years. The law is forcing employers to shed workers, cut back hours, and stop providing health insurance for employees. And we know it is not going to work. The Congressional Budget Office recently concluded that after 10 years of ObamaCare, 31 million Americans will still lack health insurance.

We understand these are inconvenient facts for the President and for Members of this body who still support this law. But those are the facts, and we have a responsibility to do something about it.

How many more people will have to lose their jobs, wages, and health care benefits before Congress acts? How many more States will have to announce that premiums are going up before we do something to protect the country? If the President won’t act to protect the American people from this law and its harmful effects, Congress should.

Last Friday a unified Republican House showed tremendous courage in enacting legislation, knowing full well what the media would say, what the President would say, and what Democrats on both sides of the Capitol would say. Two hundred twenty-eight Republicans responded to the will of the American people and overwhelmingly passed a bill that would fund government and protect the country from ObamaCare. Only one party has voted to fund the government. Only one party has voted to avoid a government shutdown.

Right now the ball is in the Senate’s court.

Once the ball has reached the Senate, as has now happened, the Senate can respond in one of several ways. Basically, I see three options on the table, two of which are perfectly appropriate, one of which is unacceptable.

The first option would be for this body, under the leadership of our majority leader, to take a vote on the House-passed continuing resolution—the House-passed continuing resolution that keeps government funded but defunds ObamaCare—and to give that an up-or-down vote, to vote on that bill, as is, without any modification.

The second approach would be to open it for an open amendment process, to allow us to debate and discuss and consider amendments on the House-passed bill as each individual Senator might deem appropriate for this body to consider.

Both of these first two options are appropriate. Both of these first two options are understandable and acceptable under the totality of the circumstances. Some might naturally lean toward the first option, moving quickly to consideration of the House-passed bill in an as-is condition, given the fact that we are T-minus 7 days and a few hours until the existing continuing resolution expires on midnight of next Monday night. We are a little over 7 days before that continuing resolution expires. So under those circumstances many of us might suggest the best option might be to take that first approach, for the Senate to open this for a vote on the House-passed continuing resolution in as-is condition.

But if this body doesn’t want to do that, if it wants to amend the House-passed continuing resolution, it would still be appropriate for us to have an amendment process. But that needs to be an open amendment process, one that is appropriate for this body—a body that many have described as the world’s greatest deliberative body. If in fact it is great and deliberative, if in fact we want to continue this tradition, then we need to have an open amendment process when amendments are considered.

The third option I referred to, the option I would consider unacceptable, would be an option in which the majority leader would use a procedural trick to allow the majority party to gut the House-passed continuing resolution, removing its single most significant provision without allowing even consideration of one single additional amendment. This is not OK.

What I am saying is we need to either pass the bill as is—pass it or don’t pass it—or we need to open the amendment process so all Members of this body have the opportunity to introduce and vote on amendments as each individual Senator deems appropriate. Those are the only two acceptable options.

It would not be an acceptable option if the majority leader were to decide to use a procedural trick to allow only one amendment—an amendment that would gut the House-passed continuing resolution and effectively negate its single most distinguishing provision.

The question that leaves us with is that once this bill comes up in this body, will we as Senators be courageous? Will we do the right thing for the American people or will Senate Democrats threaten to shut down the government in order to protect an ill-conceived, unworkable, unaffordable, and fundamentally unfair law?

There is no doubt that many voices will say we can’t win this fight, but I am not so sure. Two months ago these same voices said we could not and would not get this far. They said this effort would amount to bad politics. They said this simply would not work in the Congress as it exists in 2013. And they were wrong. They were wrong because what the House of Representatives passed on Friday is what the American people have been demanding, and they have been demanding it overwhelmingly. They have demanded that Congress act to keep the government open and functioning while protecting the American people from the harmful, potentially devastating effects of ObamaCare. That is why I believe we can win.

The Senate majority may have the upper hand, but the American people will and always must have the last word.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The clerk will call the roll.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. President, I have a cloture motion at the desk.

The cloture motion having been presented under rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.

The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum under rule XXII be waived.

Without objection, it is so ordered.

CLOTURE MOTION
Mr. President, I have a cloture motion at the desk.

The cloture motion having been presented under rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.

The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum under rule XXII be waived.

Without objection, it is so ordered.

Page: S6680

Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a period of morning business, with Senators allowed to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Without objection, it is so ordered.

=== 20th Anniversary of AmeriCorps Page: S6680

Mr. President, I rise today to recognize volunteers doing extraordinary service to our country.

Twenty years ago, on September 21, President Clinton signed the National and Community Service Trust Act of 1993, establishing the Corporation for National and Community Services and its three main programs: AmeriCorps, Senior Corps, and Learn and Serve America.

In Illinois and across the Nation, volunteers of all ages and backgrounds are stepping up to help others. More than 800,000 people have served as AmeriCorps members since 1994, and more than 1 billion hours have been invested in improving lives and strengthening communities. In Illinois, 30,000 Illinois residents have served 37 million hours through AmeriCorps, qualifying for Segal AmeriCorps Education awards of $93 million.

This year, more than 3,600 Illinoisans joined AmeriCorps to engage in results-driven service that meet education, environmental, health, economic, and other pressing needs in communities across our State. Young men and women in AmeriCorps accept challenging assignments in tough towns and neighborhoods.

When the town of Joplin, MO, was devastated by a tornado in 2011, AmeriCorps members from Belleville, IL, helped with the recovery effort and with rebuilding the community. When low-income families are cash-strapped and hungry during the holidays, members of AmeriCorps prepare festive and nutritious meals at a community center in their neighborhood. Some volunteers have collected used children’s books for underserved preschool programs in southern Illinois communities. AmeriCorps members have provided tutors and mentors to strengthen literacy programs in approximately 30 local grade schools.

These are a few examples of the service we see from AmeriCorps members. For their hard work, we pay them a few cents more than minimum wage and give them an educational grant to help fund their college expense.

In 2009, President Barack Obama signed the Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act to expand AmeriCorps and volunteer opportunities in six key areas: disaster services, economic opportunity, education, environmental stewardship, healthy futures, and veterans and military families. I was honored to join my colleagues in support of this legislation and President Obama’s national call to service.

These volunteer hours and this commitment can make a tremendous difference in giving people some hope and in giving them the basics that they need to survive. That volunteer spirit is part of America. It is an American value we cherish.

I urge my colleagues to join me in recognizing the hard work of these volunteers as the AmeriCorps celebrates its 20th anniversary.

Energy Savings and Industrial Competitiveness Act
Page: S6681

Forest Products
Mr. President, I appreciate the opportunity to speak today and offer some clarity about the treatment of wood products in the amendment that Senator Wicker and Senator Landrieu have offered with regard to green building standards. I commend Senator Wicker for his hard work on this amendment, which will update the current EISA statute to reflect the evolution of green building rating systems and create a more strategic approach for the Federal Government so that we have the highest performing, most efficient, and most cost-effective buildings while also taking advantage of an abundant domestic resource.

The amendment I have introduced with Senator Landrieu addresses a number of issues that are important to America’s forest products industry. In particular, the amendment specifies that the Department of Energy and the General Services Administration must allow the use of multiple green building rating systems. A voluntary standard endorsed by the Federal Government can wield immense influence over green building specifications in the Federal sector and broader commercial marketplace. DOE and GSA must support competition and allow the free market to produce the best energy-efficient buildings at the lowest costs.

The intention of section 406(3)(G) of our amendment is to direct GSA and DOE to adopt a policy that provides equitable treatment to all domestic sources of sustainable wood. It is simply unacceptable for the Federal Government to endorse a standard that discriminates against domestically sourced, sustainable U.S. wood.

Wood is an ideal green building material because it is renewable, stores carbon, and is energy efficient. According to objective criteria, the majority of the domestic wood products industry is sustainably managed and endorsed internationally. In addition, the forest products industry employs nearly 1 million men and women in well-paying jobs, including more than 123,000 in my home State of Mississippi. There is no reason to shut out the wood products being produced in our own backyard in favor of imported substitutes. Our intention is to provide an equal playing field that keeps Mississippi wood--as well as wood from other states--a vital component of federal green building policy.

I agree with the Senator. We have a lot of hard-working Americans who are employed by this industry, and we need to ensure that there is a level playing field for them so that the Federal Government’s green building policy doesn’t stand in the way of bringing sustainably produced domestic wood to market. I would also emphasize that wood is a vital component of sound architectural design and construction, in addition to being a renewable resource that sequesters huge amounts of carbon. This amendment strengthens our bill by making clear that green building programs avoid discriminatory or arbitrary provisions and ensuring that they consider environmental impacts across the entire life cycle of a building material or product by incorporating Life Cycle Assessment.

I thank the Senator. We believe this amendment is a step forward to ensure GSA and DOE’s green building policies support domestically sourced wood. I look forward to working with the Senator and committee leadership as this legislation moves forward.

MESSAGES FROM THE PRESIDENT -- (Senate - September 23, 2013) Page: S6681 GPO’s PDF ---

Messages from the President of the United States were communicated to the Senate by Mr. Williams, one of his secretaries.

EXECUTIVE MESSAGES REFERRED -- (Senate - September 23, 2013) Page: S6681 GPO’s PDF ---

As in executive session the Presiding Officer laid before the Senate messages from the President of the United States submitting sundry nominations which were referred to the appropriate committees.

(The messages received today are printed at the end of the Senate proceedings.)

MESSAGES FROM THE HOUSE -- (Senate - September 23, 2013) Page: S6681 GPO’s PDF ---

At 2:03 p.m., a message from the House of Representatives, delivered by Mr. Novotny, one of its reading clerks, announced that the House has passed the following bill and joint resolution, in which it requests the concurrence of the Senate:

H.R. 3102. An act to amend the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008; and for other purposes.

H. J. Res. 59. Joint resolution making continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2014, and for other purposes.

-- At 2:23 p.m., a message from the House of Representatives, delivered by Mrs. Cole, one of its reading clerks, announced that the House has passed the following bill, in which it requests the concurrence of the Senate:

H.R. 1526. An act to restore employment and educational opportunities in, and improve the economic stability of, counties containing National Forest System land, while also reducing Forest Service management costs, by ensuring that such counties have a dependable source of revenue from National Forest System land, to provide a temporary extension of the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000, and for other purposes.

Page: S6681 GPO’s PDF ---

The following bill was read the first and the second times by unanimous consent, and referred as indicated:

H.R. 1526. An act to restore employment and educational opportunities in, and improve the economic stability of, counties

[Page: S6682] GPO’s PDF containing National Forest System land, while also reducing Forest Service management costs, by ensuring that such counties have a dependable source of revenue from National Forest System land, to provide a temporary extension of the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.

[Page: S6682] GPO’s PDF ---

The following joint resolution was read the first and second times by unanimous consent, and placed on the calendar:

H.J. Res. 59. Joint resolution making continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2014, and for other purposes.

Page: S6682 GPO’s PDF ---

The following communications were laid before the Senate, together with accompanying papers, reports, and documents, and were referred as indicated:

A communication from the Director of the Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled “Revision to the Washington State Implementation Plan; Approval of Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets and Determination of Attainment for the 2006 24-Hour Fine Particulate Standard; Tacoma-Pierce County Nonattainment Area” (FRL No. 9901-02-Region 10) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on September 17, 2013; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.

A communication from the Director of the Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled “Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; State of Colorado Second Ten-Year PM10 Maintenance Plan for Aspen” (FRL No. 9901-06-Region 8) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on September 17, 2013; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.

A communication from the Director of the Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled “Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; North Carolina; Removal of Stage II Gasoline Vapor Recovery Program” (FRL No. 9901-10-Region 4) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on September 17, 2013; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.

A communication from the Director of the Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled “Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; California; Morongo Band of Mission Indians” (FRL No. 9901-13-Region 9) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on September 17, 2013; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.

A communication from the Management Analyst, Forest Service, Department of Agriculture, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled “National Environmental Policy Act: Categorical Exclusions for Soil and Water Restoration Activities” (RIN0596-AD01) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on September 17, 2013; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.

A communication from the Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report relative to the cost of response and recovery efforts for FEMA-3363-EM in the State of Texas having exceeded the $5,000,000 limit for a single emergency declaration; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.

A communication from the Acting Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness), transmitting, pursuant to law, a report relative to expanding the assignment of female Field Artillery Officers (Military Occupational Specialty 13A) into all remaining closed units, outside of those within the U.S. Special Operations Command; to the Committee on Armed Services.

A communication from the Congressional Review Coordinator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Department of Agriculture, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled “Animal Welfare; Retail Pet Stores and Licensing Exemptions” ((RIN0579-AD57) (Docket No. APHIS-2011-0003)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on September 17, 2013; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.

A communication from the Director of Legislative Affairs, Legal Office, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled “Records of Failed Insured Depository Institutions” (RIN3064-AD99) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on September 12, 2013; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.

A communication from the Director of Legislative Affairs, Legal Office, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled “Regulatory Capital Rules: Regulatory Capital, Implementation of Basel III, Capital Adequacy, Transition Provisions, Prompt Corrective Action, Standardized Approach for Risk-weighted Assets, Market Discipline and Disclosure Requirements, Advanced Approaches Risk-Based Capital Rule, and Market Risk Capital Rule” (RIN3064-AD95) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on September 17, 2013; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.

A communication from the Chief Counsel, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled “Suspension of Community Eligibility” ((44 CFR Part 64) (Docket No. FEMA-2013-0002)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on September 12, 2013; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.

A communication from the Chief Counsel, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled “Suspension of Community Eligibility” ((44 CFR Part 64) (Docket No. FEMA-2013-0002)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on September 12, 2013; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.

A communication from the General Counsel of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled “Stress Testing of Regulated Entities” (RIN2590-AA47) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on September 16, 2013; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.

A communication from the Secretary of the Treasury, transmitting, pursuant to law, a six-month periodic report on the national emergency with respect to Iran as declared in Executive Order 12957; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.

A communication from the Assistant General Counsel for Legislation, Regulation and Energy Efficiency, Department of Energy, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled “Medical, Physical Readiness, Training, and Access Authorization Standards for Protective Force Personnel” (RIN1992-AA40) received in the Office of the President of Senate on September 11, 2013; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.

A communication from the Assistant General Counsel for Legislation, Regulation and Energy Efficiency, Department of Energy, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled “Human Reliability Program: Technical Amendments” (RIN1992-AA44) received in the Office of the President of Senate on September 12, 2013; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.

A communication from the Chief of the Publications and Regulations Branch, Internal Revenue Service, Department of the Treasury, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled “Mixed Straddles; Straddle-by-Straddle Identification Under Section 1092(b)(2)(A)(i)(I)” (RIN1545-BL04) received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on August 8, 2013; to the Committee on Finance.

A communication from the Chief of the Publications and Regulations Branch, Internal Revenue Service, Department of the Treasury, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled “Application of Section 179(f) for Qualified Real Property” (Notice 2013-59) received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on September 17, 2013; to the Committee on Finance.

A communication from the Chief of the Publications and Regulations Branch, Internal Revenue Service, Department of the Treasury, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled “Update for Weighted Average Interest Rates, Yield Curves, and Segment Rates” (Notice 2013-58) received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on September 17, 2013; to the Committee on Finance.

A communication from the Chief of the Publications and Regulations Branch, Internal Revenue Service, Department of the Treasury, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled “Guidance Regarding Deduction and Capitalization of Expenditures Related to Tangible Property” (RIN1545-BE18) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on September 17, 2013; to the Committee on Finance.

A communication from the Director, Office of Regulations and Reports Clearance, Social Security Administration, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled “Conforming Changes to Regulations Regarding Medicare Determinations and Income-Related Monthly Adjustment Amounts to Medicare Part B Premiums” (RIN0960-AH47) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on September 12, 2013; to the Committee on Finance.

A communication from the Program Manager, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Department of Health and Human Services, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled “Medicaid Program; State Disproportionate Share Hospital Allotment Reductions” (RIN0938-AR31) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on September 17, 2013; to the Committee on Finance.

A communication from the Program Manager, Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Department of Health and Human Services, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled “World Trade Center Health Program; Addition of Prostate Cancer to the List of WTC-Related Health Conditions” (RIN0920-AA54) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on September 17, 2013; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.

A communication from the Secretary of Health and Human Services, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report relative to the drug-free workplace plans of four agencies; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.

Page: S6683 GPO’s PDF ---

The following reports of committees were submitted:

By Mr. CARPER, from the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, without amendment:

S. 1348. A bill to reauthorize the Congressional Award Act (Rept. No. 113-109).

By Mr. SANDERS, from the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, with an amendment in the nature of a substitute and an amendment to the title:

S. 287. A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to expand the definition of homeless veteran for purposes of benefits under the laws administered by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, and for other purposes (Rept. No. 113-110).

Page: S6683 GPO’s PDF ---

The following bills and joint resolutions were introduced, read the first and second times by unanimous consent, and referred as indicated:

By Mr. FLAKE (for himself, Mrs. FISCHER, Mr. HELLER, and Mr. MCCAIN):

S. 1536. A bill to require the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to include in any proposed rule that limits greenhouse gas emissions and imposes increased costs on other Federal agencies an offset from funds available to the Administrator for all projected increased costs that the proposed rule would impose on other Federal agencies; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.

By Mr. BLUNT (for himself and Mr. WARNER):

S. 1537. A bill to ensure that any new or revised requirement providing for the screening, testing, or treatment of individuals operating commercial motor vehicles for sleep disorders is adopted through a rulemaking proceeding, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.

By Ms. KLOBUCHAR (for herself, Mr. BEGICH, and Mr. NELSON):

S. 1538. A bill to enhance consumer rights relating to consumer report disputes by requiring provision of documentation provided by consumers; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.

Page: S6683 GPO’s PDF ---

The following concurrent resolutions and Senate resolutions were read, and referred (or acted upon), as indicated:

By Mr. SESSIONS:

S. Res. 251. A resolution expressing the sense of the Senate that the United States Preventive Services Task Force should reevaluate its recommendations against prostate-specific antigen-based screening for prostate cancer for men in all age groups in consultation with appropriate specialists; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.

Page: S6683 GPO’s PDF ---

S. 114

At the request of Mr. DURBIN, the name of the Senator from Hawaii (Ms. HIRONO) was added as a cosponsor of S. 114, a bill to amend title 11, United States Code, with respect to certain exceptions to discharge in bankruptcy.

S. 231

At the request of Mr. PORTMAN, the name of the Senator from Michigan (Mr. LEVIN) was added as a cosponsor of S. 231, a bill to reauthorize the Multinational Species Conservation Funds Semipostal Stamp.

S. 232

At the request of Mr. HATCH, the name of the Senator from North Carolina (Mrs. HAGAN) was added as a cosponsor of S. 232, a bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the excise tax on medical devices.

S. 313

At the request of Mr. CASEY, the name of the Senator from Maine (Mr. KING) was added as a cosponsor of S. 313, a bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide for the tax treatment of ABLE accounts established under State programs for the care of family members with disabilities, and for other purposes.

S. 315

At the request of Ms. KLOBUCHAR, the name of the Senator from New Hampshire (Mrs. SHAHEEN) was added as a cosponsor of S. 315, a bill to reauthorize and extend the Paul D. Wellstone Muscular Dystrophy Community Assistance, Research, and Education Amendments of 2008.

S. 411

At the request of Mr. THUNE, his name was added as a cosponsor of S. 411, a bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend and modify the railroad track maintenance credit.

S. 429

At the request of Mr. NELSON, the name of the Senator from Maryland (Mr. CARDIN) was added as a cosponsor of S. 429, a bill to enable concrete masonry products manufacturers to establish, finance, and carry out a coordinated program of research, education, and promotion to improve, maintain, and develop markets for concrete masonry products.

S. 559

At the request of Mr. ISAKSON, the name of the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. GRAHAM) was added as a cosponsor of S. 559, a bill to establish a fund to make payments to the Americans held hostage in Iran, and to members of their families, who are identified as members of the proposed class in case number 1:08-CV-00487 (EGS) of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, and for other purposes.

S. 569

At the request of Mr. BROWN, the name of the Senator from Maryland (Mr. CARDIN) was added as a cosponsor of S. 569, a bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to count a period of receipt of outpatient observation services in a hospital toward satisfying the 3-day inpatient hospital requirement for coverage of skilled nursing facility services under Medicare.

S. 635

At the request of Mr. BROWN, the names of the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. SCOTT) and the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. ENZI) were added as cosponsors of S. 635, a bill to amend the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act to provide an exception to the annual written privacy notice requirement.

S. 820

At the request of Mrs. FEINSTEIN, the name of the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. MARKEY) was added as a cosponsor of S. 820, a bill to provide for a uniform national standard for the housing and treatment of egg-laying hens, and for other purposes.

S. 822

At the request of Mr. LEAHY, the names of the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. MCCONNELL) and the Senator from Minnesota (Ms. KLOBUCHAR) were added as cosponsors of S. 822, a bill to protect crime victims’ rights, to eliminate the substantial backlog of DNA samples collected from crime scenes and convicted offenders, to improve and expand the DNA testing capacity of Federal, State, and local crime laboratories, to increase research and development of new DNA testing technologies, to develop new training programs regarding the collection and use of DNA evidence, to provide post conviction testing of DNA evidence to exonerate the innocent, to improve the performance of counsel in State capital cases, and for other purposes.

S. 948

At the request of Mr. SCHUMER, the name of the Senator from Florida (Mr. NELSON) was added as a cosponsor of S. 948, a bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide for coverage and payment for complex rehabilitation technology items under the Medicare program.

S. 1235

At the request of Mr. WYDEN, the name of the Senator from Georgia (Mr. CHAMBLISS) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1235, a bill to restrict any State or local jurisdiction from imposing a new discriminatory tax on cell phone services, providers, or property.

S. 1249

At the request of Mr. BLUMENTHAL, the name of the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. MARKEY) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1249, a bill to rename the Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking of the Department of State the Bureau to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons and to provide for an Assistant Secretary to head such Bureau, and for other purposes.

S. 1302

At the request of Mr. HARKIN, the names of the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. ENZI) and the Senator from Georgia (Mr. CHAMBLISS) were added as cosponsors of S. 1302, a bill to amend the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 and the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide for cooperative and small employer charity pension plans.

S. 1335

At the request of Ms. MURKOWSKI, the name of the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. HOEVEN) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1335, a bill to protect and enhance opportunities for recreational hunting, fishing, and shooting, and for other purposes.

S. 1369

At the request of Mr. BROWN, the name of the Senator from Minnesota (Ms. KLOBUCHAR) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1369, a bill to provide additional flexibility to the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System to establish capital standards that are properly tailored to the unique characteristics of the business of insurance, and for other purposes.

S. 1381

At the request of Mr. BLUMENTHAL, the name of the Senator from New York (Mrs. GILLIBRAND) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1381, a bill to amend the Lacey Act Amendments of 1981 to clarify provisions enacted by the Captive Wildlife Safety Act, to further the conservation of certain wildlife species, and for other purposes.

S. 1405

At the request of Mr. SCHUMER, the name of the Senator from Michigan (Ms. STABENOW) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1405, a bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide for an extension of certain ambulance add-on payments under the Medicare program.

S. 1406

At the request of Ms. AYOTTE, the name of the Senator from Maine (Ms. COLLINS) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1406, a bill to amend the Horse Protection Act to designate additional unlawful acts under the Act, strengthen penalties for violations of the Act, improve Department of Agriculture enforcement of the Act, and for other purposes.

S. 1413

At the request of Mr. PRYOR, the name of the Senator from Minnesota (Ms. KLOBUCHAR) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1413, a bill to exempt from sequestration certain fees of the Food and Drug Administration.

S. 1445

At the request of Mr. PRYOR, the name of the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. HEINRICH) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1445, a bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to provide for the participation of optometrists in the National Health Service Corps scholarship and loan repayment programs, and for other purposes.

S. 1472

At the request of Ms. KLOBUCHAR, the name of the Senator from Maine (Mr. KING) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1472, a bill to create a division within the Congressional Budget Office that would perform regulatory analysis.

S. 1490

At the request of Mr. FLAKE, the names of the Senator from Mississippi (Mr. COCHRAN) and the Senator from Mississippi (Mr. WICKER) were added as cosponsors of S. 1490, a bill to delay the application of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

S. 1500

At the request of Mr. CORNYN, the name of the Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. JOHNSON) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1500, a bill to declare the November 5, 2009, attack at Fort Hood, Texas, a terrorist attack, and to ensure that the victims of the attack and their families receive the same honors and benefits as those Americans who have been killed or wounded in a combat zone overseas and their families.

S. 1503

At the request of Mr. DURBIN, the names of the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. UDALL) and the Senator from Ohio (Mr. BROWN) were added as cosponsors of S. 1503, a bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to increase the preference given, in awarding certain asthma-related grants, to certain States (those allowing trained school personnel to administer epinephrine and meeting other related requirements).

S. RES. 225

At the request of Mr. CRUZ, the name of the Senator from Texas (Mr. CORNYN) was added as a cosponsor of S. Res. 225, a resolution to express the sense of the Senate that Congress should establish a joint select committee to investigate and report on the attack on the United States diplomatic facility and American personnel in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11, 2012.

Page: S6684

=== SENATE RESOLUTION 251--EXPRESSING THE SENSE OF THE SENATE THAT THE UNITED STATES PREVENTIVE SERVICES TASK FORCE SHOULD REEVALUATE ITS RECOMMENDATIONS AGAINST PROSTATE-SPECIFIC ANTIGEN-BASED SCREENING FOR PROSTATE CANCER FOR MEN IN ALL AGE GROUPS IN CONSULTATION WITH APPROPRIATE SPECIALISTS ===

Mr. SESSIONS submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions:

S. Res. 251

Whereas the United States Preventive Services Task Force (referred to in this preamble as the “USPSTF”) is an independent panel of primary care physicians, not employed by the Federal Government, who are experts in preventive and evidence-based medicine;

Whereas the physicians on the USPSTF conduct scientific evidence reviews of a broad range of clinical health care preventive services and develop recommendations for primary care clinicians and health systems;

Whereas prostate cancer is the second leading cause of cancer-related deaths of men in the United States;

Whereas the National Cancer Institute estimates that, in 2013, 238,590 men will be diagnosed with, and 29,720 men will die of, prostate cancer;

Whereas the National Cancer Institute estimates that 1 in 6 men will be diagnosed with prostate cancer during his lifetime;

Whereas family history has been shown to be a risk factor for prostate cancer for men of all races and ethnicities, and men with a family history of prostate cancer are twice as likely to be diagnosed with the disease;

Whereas the USPSTF acknowledges that prostate cancer is the most commonly diagnosed non-skin cancer for men in the United States, with a lifetime risk for diagnosis estimated at 15.9 percent;

Whereas the USPSTF acknowledges that African-American men are twice as likely to die from prostate cancer than other men in the United States;

Whereas the USPSTF does not have any members who are urologists, a type of physician who specializes in diagnosing and treating patients with prostate cancer;

Whereas the USPSTF does not have any members who are oncologists, a type of physician who specializes in diagnosing and treating patients with cancer;

Whereas the Food and Drug Administration first approved the prostate-specific antigen (commonly referred to as “PSA”) blood test for prostate cancer screening and diagnosis in 1992 and, since that time, the mortality rate due to prostate cancer has decreased by 40 percent;

Whereas, in August 2008, the USPSTF recommended against prostate-specific antigen-based screening for prostate cancer for men ages 75 and older, because the USPSTF determined that there was insufficient evidence to assess the balance of benefits and harms of prostate cancer screening in men younger than age 75;

Whereas, in May 2012, the USPSTF issued a new recommendation, to replace its 2008 recommendation, against prostate-specific antigen-based screening for prostate cancer for men in all age groups, because the USPSTF concluded that there is moderate-to-high certainty that the test has no net benefit, or that the harms outweigh the benefits, and suggested that this screening practice be discouraged;

Whereas the May 2012 recommendation against screening applies to all men in the United States, regardless of age;

Whereas the May 2012 recommendation against screening applies to all men in the United States, regardless of race, even though the USPSTF acknowledges that African-American men have a substantially higher incidence rate for prostate cancer than white men have and more than twice the mortality rate from prostate cancer that white men have;

Whereas the May 2012 recommendation against screening applies to all men in the United States, even though the USPSTF acknowledges that there is convincing evidence that prostate-specific antigen-based testing helps detect many cases of asymptomatic prostate cancer; and

Whereas the USPSTF acknowledges that clinical decisions regarding cancer screening involve multiple considerations and that clinicians should individualize decision making to the specific patient or situation: Now, therefore, be it


 * Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that--


 * (1) the United States Preventive Services Task Force should--


 * (A) reevaluate its recommendation against prostate-specific antigen-based screening for prostate cancer for men in all age groups;


 * (B) seriously engage and consult with specialists, including urologists and oncologists, as it reevaluates its recommendation;


 * (C) identify areas for additional research and evaluation of methods of treatment of, and screening procedures for, prostate cancer;


 * (2) prostate cancer screening decisions should be made by each individual patient and his physician, taking into account the personal risk factors of the patient, such as his overall health, age, race, family history, and life expectancy, as well as his desire for eventual treatment if he is diagnosed with prostate cancer; and


 * (3) steps should be taken to raise awareness of, and increase public knowledge about, prostate cancer, the benefits of early detection, and the appropriateness of screening tests.

Page: S6685 GPO’s PDF ---

SA 1964. Mr. REID (for Mr. SANDERS) proposed an amendment to the bill H.R. 1412, to amend title 38, United States Code, to extend certain expiring authorities affecting veterans and their families, and for other purposes.

SA 1965. Mr. REID (for Mr. SANDERS) proposed an amendment to the bill H.R. 1412, supra.

Page: S6685

SA 1964. Mr. REID (for Mr. SANDERS) proposed an amendment to the bill H.R. 1412, to amend title 38, United States Code, to extend certain expiring authorities affecting veterans and their families, and for other purposes; as follows:


 * Amend the title so as to read: “A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to extend certain expiring authorities affecting veterans and their families, and for other purposes.”.

SA 1965. Mr. REID (for Mr. SANDERS) proposed an amendment to the bill H.R. 1412, to amend title 38, United States Code, to extend certain expiring authorities affecting veterans and their families, and for other purposes; as follows:


 * Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the following:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.


 * This Act may be cited as the “Department of Veterans Affairs Expiring Authorities Act of 2013”.

SEC. 2. EXTENSIONS OF EXPIRING AUTHORITIES AFFECTING VETERANS AND THEIR FAMILIES.


 * (a) Extension of Authority to Provide Monthly Assistance Allowance to Veterans With Disability Invited by United States Olympic Committee.--


 * (1) IN GENERAL.--Section 322(d)(4) of title 38, United States Code, is amended by inserting “and $500,000 for the period beginning October 1, 2013, and ending December 31, 2013” after “2013”.


 * (2) TECHNICAL CORRECTION.--Section 322 of such title is amended by striking “United States Paralympics, Inc.,” each place it appears and inserting “United States Olympic Committee”.


 * (b) Extension of Authority to Provide Assistance for United States Olympic Committee.--


 * (1) IN GENERAL.--Section 521A of such title is amended--


 * (A) in subsection (g), by inserting “and $2,000,000 for the period beginning October 1, 2013, and ending December 31, 2013” after “2013”; and


 * (B) in subsection (l), by striking “The Secretary may only provide assistance under this section during fiscal years 2010 through 2013.” and inserting “The Secretary may not provide assistance under this section after December 31, 2013.”.


 * (2) TECHNICAL CORRECTION.--Such section is further amended--


 * (A) except in subsection (d)(4), by striking “United States Paralympics, Inc.,” each place it appears and inserting “United States Olympic Committee”;


 * (B) in subsection (d)(4), by striking “United States Paralympics, Inc.” and inserting “United States Olympic Committee”; and


 * (C) by adding at the end the following new subsection:


 * “(m) Applicability to Commonwealths and Territories of United States.--The provisions of this section and section 322 of this title shall apply with respect to the following in the same manner and to the same degree as the United States Olympic Committee:


 * “(1) The American Samoa National Olympic Committee.


 * “(2) Guam National Olympic Committee.


 * “(3) Comité Olímpico de Puerto Rico.


 * “(4) Such entities as the Secretary considers appropriate to represent the interests of the Northern Mariana Islands and the United States Virgin Islands under this section and section 322 of this title.”.


 * (3) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.--The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 5 of such title is amended by striking the item relating to section 521A and inserting the following new item:

“521A. Assistance for United States Olympic Committee.”.


 * (c) Extension of Authority for Collection of Copayments for Hospital Care and Nursing Home Care.--Section 1710(f)(2)(B) of such title is amended by striking “September 30, 2013” and inserting “September 30, 2014”.


 * (d) Extension of Authority for Recovery From Third Parties of Cost of Care and Services Furnished to Veterans With Health-plan Contracts for Non-service-connected Disability.--Section 1729(a)(2)(E) of such title is amended by striking “October 1, 2013” and inserting “October 1, 2014”.


 * (e) Extensions of Authorities Affecting Homeless Veterans.--


 * (1) HOMELESS VETERANS REINTEGRATION PROGRAMS.--Section 2021(e)(1)(F) of such title is amended by striking “2013” and inserting “2014”.


 * (2) REFERRAL AND COUNSELING SERVICES: VETERANS AT RISK OF HOMELESSNESS WHO ARE TRANSITIONING FROM CERTAIN INSTITUTIONS.--Section 2023(d) of such title is amended--


 * (A) by inserting “to enter into a contract” before “to provide”; and


 * (B) by striking “September 30, 2013” and inserting “September 30, 2014”.


 * (f) Extension of Previously Fully-funded Authorities Affecting Homeless Veterans.--


 * (1) COMPREHENSIVE SERVICE PROGRAMS.--Section 2013 of such title is amended by striking paragraph (6) and inserting the following new paragraphs:


 * “(6) $250,000,000 for fiscal year 2014.


 * “(7) $150,000,000 for fiscal year 2015 and each subsequent fiscal year.”.


 * (2) FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE FOR SUPPORTIVE SERVICES FOR VERY LOW-INCOME VETERAN FAMILIES IN PERMANENT HOUSING.--Section 2044(e)(1)(E) of such title is amended by striking “for fiscal year 2013” and inserting “for each of fiscal years 2013 and 2014”.


 * (3) GRANT PROGRAM FOR HOMELESS VETERANS WITH SPECIAL NEEDS.--Section 2061(d)(1) of such title is amended by striking “through 2013” and inserting “through 2014”.


 * (g) Extension of Temporary Expansion of Eligibility for Specially Adapted Housing Assistance for Certain Veterans With Disabilities Causing Difficulty With Ambulating.--Section 2101(a)(4) of such title is amended--


 * (1) by striking “The Secretary’s” and inserting “(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), the Secretary’s”;


 * (2) in subparagraph (A), as designated by paragraph (1), by striking “September 30, 2013” and inserting “September 30, 2014”; and


 * (3) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:


 * “(B) In fiscal year 2014, the Secretary may not approve more than 30 applications for assistance under paragraph (1) for disabled veterans described in paragraph (2)(A)(ii).”.


 * (h) Extension of Authority to Calculate Net Value of Real Property Securing Defaulted Loan for Purposes of Liquidation.--Section 3732(c)(11) of such title is amended by striking “October 1, 2013” and inserting “October 1, 2014”.


 * (i) Extension of Pilot Program on Assistance for Child Care for Certain Veterans Receiving Health Care.--Section 205 of the Caregivers and Veterans Omnibus Health Services Act of 2010 (Public Law 111-163; 38 U.S.C. 1710 note) is amended--


 * (1) in subsection (e), by striking “2-year” and inserting “3-year”; and


 * (2) in subsection (h), by striking “and 2011” and inserting “and 2014”.

SEC. 3. REAUTHORIZATION OF USE OF NATIONAL DIRECTORY OF NEW HIRES FOR INCOME VERIFICATION PURPOSES FOR CERTAIN VETERANS BENEFITS.


 * (a) Secretary of Health and Human Services.--Section 453(j)(11) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 653(j)(11)) is amended by striking subparagraph (G) and inserting the following new subparagraph (G):


 * “(G) EXPIRATION OF AUTHORITY.--The authority under this paragraph shall be in effect as follows:


 * “(i) During the period beginning on December 26, 2007, and ending on November 18, 2011.


 * “(ii) During the period beginning on the date of the enactment of the Department of Veterans Affairs Expiring Authorities Act of 2013 and ending 180 days after that date.”.


 * (b) Secretary of Veterans Affairs.--Section 5317A of title 38, United States Code, is amended by striking subsection (d) and inserting the following new subsection (d):


 * “(d) Expiration of Authority.--The authority under this section shall be in effect as follows:


 * “(1) During the period beginning on December 26, 2007, and ending on November 18, 2011.


 * “(2) During the period beginning on the date of the enactment of the Department of Veterans Affairs Expiring Authorities Act of 2013 and ending 180 days after that date.”.

SEC. 4. EFFECTIVE DATE AND RATIFICATION.


 * (a) Effective Date.--This Act shall take effect on October 1, 2013, except that Section 2 (a) shall take effect on September 30, 2013.

[Page: S6686] GPO’s PDF
 * (b) Ratification.--If this Act is not enacted on or before September 30, 2013, any actions undertaken by the Department of Veterans Affairs under the authorities extended by this Act during the period beginning on such date and ending on the date of the enactment of this Act shall be deemed ratified.

SEC. 5. SCORING OF BUDGETARY EFFECTS.


 * The budgetary effects of this Act, for the purpose of complying with the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go-Act of 2010 shall be determined by reference to the latest statement titled “Budgetary Effects of PAYGO Legislation” for this Act, submitted for printing in the Congressional Record by the Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, provided that such statement has been submitted prior to the vote on passage.

Page: S6686

Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I wish to announce that the Committee on Rules and Administration will meet on Tuesday, September 24, 2013, at 10 a.m., to consider the Omnibus Budget for Senate Committees.

For further information regarding this meeting, please contact Lynden Armstrong at the Rules and Administration Committee at 202-224-6352.

Page: S6686

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 23, 2013, at 2:30 p.m. in order to conduct a hearing entitled “Combating Human Trafficking: Federal, State, and Local Perspectives.”

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without Objection, it is so ordered.

Improving Job Opportunities for Veterans Act of 2013
Page: S6686s

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Veterans’ Affairs Committee be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 1412 and the Senate proceed to its consideration.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

The clerk will report the bill by title.

The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

A bill (H.R. 1412) to improve and increase the availability of on-job training and apprenticeship programs carried out by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, and for other purposes.

There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill.

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Sanders substitute amendment, which is at the desk, be agreed to; the bill, as amended, be read three times and passed; the Sanders title amendment, which is at the desk, be agreed to; and the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

The amendment (No. 1964) was agreed to, as follows:

(Purpose: In the nature of a substitute)
 * Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the following:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.


 * This Act may be cited as the “Department of Veterans Affairs Expiring Authorities Act of 2013”.

SEC. 2. EXTENSIONS OF EXPIRING AUTHORITIES AFFECTING VETERANS AND THEIR FAMILIES.


 * (a) Extension of Authority to Provide Monthly Assistance Allowance to Veterans With Disability Invited by United States Olympic Committee.--


 * (1) IN GENERAL.--Section 322(d)(4) of title 38, United States Code, is amended by inserting “and $500,000 for the period beginning October 1, 2013, and ending December 31, 2013” after “2013”.


 * (2) TECHNICAL CORRECTION.--Section 322 of such title is amended by striking “United States Paralympics, Inc.,” each place it appears and inserting “United States Olympic Committee”.


 * (b) Extension of Authority to Provide Assistance for United States Olympic Committee.--


 * (1) IN GENERAL.--Section 521A of such title is amended--


 * (A) in subsection (g), by inserting “and $2,000,000 for the period beginning October 1, 2013, and ending December 31, 2013” after “2013”; and


 * (B) in subsection (l), by striking “The Secretary may only provide assistance under this section during fiscal years 2010 through 2013.” and inserting “The Secretary may not provide assistance under this section after December 31, 2013.”.


 * (2) TECHNICAL CORRECTION.--Such section is further amended--


 * (A) except in subsection (d)(4), by striking “United States Paralympics, Inc.,” each place it appears and inserting “United States Olympic Committee”;


 * (B) in subsection (d)(4), by striking “United States Paralympics, Inc.” and inserting “United States Olympic Committee”; and


 * (C) by adding at the end the following new subsection:


 * “(m) Applicability to Commonwealths and Territories of United States.--The provisions of this section and section 322 of this title shall apply with respect to the following in the same manner and to the same degree as the United States Olympic Committee:


 * “(1) The American Samoa National Olympic Committee.


 * “(2) Guam National Olympic Committee.


 * “(3) Comité Olímpico de Puerto Rico.


 * “(4) Such entities as the Secretary considers appropriate to represent the interests of the Northern Mariana Islands and the United States Virgin Islands under this section and section 322 of this title.”.


 * (3) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.--The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 5 of such title is amended by striking the item relating to section 521A and inserting the following new item:

“521A. Assistance for United States Olympic Committee.”.


 * (c) Extension of Authority for Collection of Copayments for Hospital Care and Nursing Home Care.--Section 1710(f)(2)(B) of such title is amended by striking “September 30, 2013” and inserting “September 30, 2014”.


 * (d) Extension of Authority for Recovery From Third Parties of Cost of Care and Services Furnished to Veterans With Health-plan Contracts for Non-service-connected Disability.--Section 1729(a)(2)(E) of such title is amended by striking “October 1, 2013” and inserting “October 1, 2014”.


 * (e) Extensions of Authorities Affecting Homeless Veterans.--


 * (1) HOMELESS VETERANS REINTEGRATION PROGRAMS.--Section 2021(e)(1)(F) of such title is amended by striking “2013” and inserting “2014”.


 * (2) REFERRAL AND COUNSELING SERVICES: VETERANS AT RISK OF HOMELESSNESS WHO ARE TRANSITIONING FROM CERTAIN INSTITUTIONS.--Section 2023(d) of such title is amended--


 * (A) by inserting “to enter into a contract” before “to provide”; and


 * (B) by striking “September 30, 2013” and inserting “September 30, 2014”.


 * (f) Extension of Previously Fully-funded Authorities Affecting Homeless Veterans.--


 * (1) COMPREHENSIVE SERVICE PROGRAMS.--Section 2013 of such title is amended by striking paragraph (6) and inserting the following new paragraphs:


 * “(6) $250,000,000 for fiscal year 2014.


 * “(7) $150,000,000 for fiscal year 2015 and each subsequent fiscal year.”.


 * (2) FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE FOR SUPPORTIVE SERVICES FOR VERY LOW-INCOME VETERAN FAMILIES IN PERMANENT HOUSING.--Section 2044(e)(1)(E) of such title is amended by striking “for fiscal year 2013” and inserting “for each of fiscal years 2013 and 2014”.


 * (3) GRANT PROGRAM FOR HOMELESS VETERANS WITH SPECIAL NEEDS.--Section 2061(d)(1) of such title is amended by striking “through 2013” and inserting “through 2014”.


 * (g) Extension of Temporary Expansion of Eligibility for Specially Adapted Housing Assistance for Certain Veterans With Disabilities Causing Difficulty With Ambulating.--Section 2101(a)(4) of such title is amended--


 * (1) by striking “The Secretary’s” and inserting “(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), the Secretary’s”;


 * (2) in subparagraph (A), as designated by paragraph (1), by striking “September 30, 2013” and inserting “September 30, 2014”; and


 * (3) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:


 * “(B) In fiscal year 2014, the Secretary may not approve more than 30 applications for assistance under paragraph (1) for disabled veterans described in paragraph (2)(A)(ii).”.


 * (h) Extension of Authority to Calculate Net Value of Real Property Securing Defaulted Loan for Purposes of Liquidation.--Section 3732(c)(11) of such title is amended by striking “October 1, 2013” and inserting “October 1, 2014”.


 * (i) Extension of Pilot Program on Assistance for Child Care for Certain Veterans Receiving Health Care.--Section 205 of the Caregivers and Veterans Omnibus Health Services Act of 2010 (Public Law 111-163; 38 U.S.C. 1710 note) is amended--


 * (1) in subsection (e), by striking “2-year” and inserting “3-year”; and


 * (2) in subsection (h), by striking “and 2011” and inserting “and 2014”.

SEC. 3. REAUTHORIZATION OF USE OF NATIONAL DIRECTORY OF NEW HIRES FOR INCOME VERIFICATION PURPOSES FOR CERTAIN VETERANS BENEFITS.


 * (a) Secretary of Health and Human Services.--Section 453(j)(11) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 653(j)(11)) is amended by striking subparagraph (G) and inserting the following new subparagraph (G):


 * “(G) EXPIRATION OF AUTHORITY.--The authority under this paragraph shall be in effect as follows:


 * “(i) During the period beginning on December 26, 2007, and ending on November 18, 2011.


 * “(ii) During the period beginning on the date of the enactment of the Department of

[Page: S6687] GPO’s PDF Veterans Affairs Expiring Authorities Act of 2013 and ending 180 days after that date.”.
 * (b) Secretary of Veterans Affairs.--Section 5317A of title 38, United States Code, is amended by striking subsection (d) and inserting the following new subsection (d):


 * “(d) Expiration of Authority.--The authority under this section shall be in effect as follows:


 * “(1) During the period beginning on December 26, 2007, and ending on November 18, 2011.


 * “(2) During the period beginning on the date of the enactment of the Department of Veterans Affairs Expiring Authorities Act of 2013 and ending 180 days after that date.”.

SEC. 4. EFFECTIVE DATE AND RATIFICATION.


 * (a) Effective Date.--This Act shall take effect on October 1, 2013, except that Section 2 (a) shall take effect on September 30, 2013.


 * (b) Ratification.--If this Act is not enacted on or before September 30, 2013, any actions undertaken by the Department of Veterans Affairs under the authorities extended by this Act during the period beginning on such date and ending on the date of the enactment of this Act shall be deemed ratified.

SEC. 5. SCORING OF BUDGETARY EFFECTS.


 * The budgetary effects of this Act, for the purpose of complying with the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go-Act of 2010 shall be determined by reference to the latest statement titled “Budgetary Effects of PAYGO Legislation” for this Act, submitted for printing in the Congressional Record by the Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, provided that such statement has been submitted prior to the vote on passage.

The amendment was ordered to be engrossed and the bill to be read a third time.

The bill was read the third time.

The bill (H.R. 1412), as amended, was passed.

The amendment (No. 1965) was agreed to, as follows:

(Purpose: To amend the title)
 * Amend the title so as to read: “A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to extend certain expiring authorities affecting veterans and their families, and for other purposes.”.

Page: S6687

Mr. REID. Mr. President, tomorrow we are going to come in--I will ask consent in a little bit. We will come in at 10 o’clock tomorrow morning. There will be a speech by me and Senator McConnell. Then we have a vote at a quarter to 12, if I recall.

Tomorrow afternoon Senator Mikulski is going to--after we have our caucus--come in and be recognized for 20 minutes. Following her remarks, Senator Cruz will be recognized. I am happy to listen to those two Senators.

The place I am in now is that we are on automatic pilot. I filed the cloture motion. Cloture will occur Wednesday. The latest will be at noon. With some agreement we can move it up an hour or two. People can talk all they want. There is no way we can be prevented from having that vote. So we will have conversation, but there will not be any filibusters, because under the rules the time is for talking. But it does not delay anything.

As I indicated today earlier in a conversation I had with the Republican Senator, we follow the rules. Whatever the rules are, we follow them and do the best we can to make sure they are as fair to everyone as possible.

ORDERS FOR TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 24, 2013
Page: S6687 GPO’s PDF ---

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes it business today, it adjourn until 10 a.m. on Tuesday, September 24, 2013; that following the prayer and pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day; that following any leader remarks, the Senate be in a period of morning business until 11:15 a.m., with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each, with the time equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees, with the Republicans controlling the first half and the majority the final half; that following morning business, the Senate proceed to executive session to consider Calendar No. 203, the nomination of Todd Hughes to be U.S. circuit judge for the Federal Circuit, under the previous order; that following the disposition of the Hughes nomination, the Senate recess until 2:15 to allow for the weekly caucus meetings; that at 2:15 Senator Mikulski be recognized for up to 20 minutes; that at 2:30 Senator Cruz be recognized.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered

Page: S6687

Mr. REID. There will be a rollcall vote as I indicated at 11:15 on the confirmation of Hughes.

ADJOURNMENT UNTIL 10 A.M. TOMORROW
Page: S6687

Mr. REID. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it adjourn under the previous order.

There being no objection, the Senate, at 6:11 p.m., adjourned until Tuesday, September 24, 2013, at 10 a.m.

Page: S6687

Executive nominations received by the Senate:

LEGAL SERVICES CORPORATION

CHARLES NORMAN WILTSE KECKLER, OF VIRGINIA, TO BE A MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE LEGAL SERVICES CORPORATION FOR A TERM EXPIRING JULY 13, 2016. (REAPPOINTMENT)

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

KATHRYN B. THOMSON, OF VIRGINIA, TO BE GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, VICE ROBERT S. RIVKIN, RESIGNED.

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

BRUCE HEYMAN, OF ILLINOIS, TO BE AMBASSADOR EXTRAORDINARY AND PLENIPOTENTIARY OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA TO CANADA.

KEVIN WHITAKER, OF VIRGINIA, A CAREER MEMBER OF THE SENIOR FOREIGN SERVICE, CLASS OF MINISTER-COUNSELOR, TO BE AMBASSADOR EXTRAORDINARY AND PLENIPOTENTIARY OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA TO THE REPUBLIC OF COLOMBIA.

IN THE ARMY

THE FOLLOWING ARMY NATIONAL GUARD OF THE UNITED STATES OFFICER FOR APPOINTMENT IN THE RESERVE OF THE ARMY TO THE GRADE INDICATED UNDER TITLE 10, U.S.C., SECTIONS 12203 AND 12211:

To be major general BRIG. GEN. JOHN L. GRONSKI

Page: S6687 GPO’s PDF ---

Executive nominations confirmed by the Senate September 23, 2013:

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

ANN MILLER RAVEL, OF CALIFORNIA, TO BE A MEMBER OF THE FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION FOR A TERM EXPIRING APRIL 30, 2017.

LEE E. GOODMAN, OF VIRGINIA, TO BE A MEMBER OF THE FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION FOR A TERM EXPIRING APRIL 30, 2015.

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

EVAN RYAN, OF VIRGINIA, TO BE AN ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE (EDUCATIONAL AND CULTURAL AFFAIRS).

BROADCASTING BOARD OF GOVERNORS

KENNETH R. WEINSTEIN, OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, TO BE A MEMBER OF THE BROADCASTING BOARD OF GOVERNORS FOR A TERM EXPIRING AUGUST 13, 2014.

= Resources =