Susan Collins

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am delighted to commend the Williams-Cone Elementary School of Topsham, ME, on being named a 2013 National Blue Ribbon School of Excellence. This year, Williams-Cone was one of only 236 public schools across the country to receive this prestigious recognition of high accomplishment by the U.S. Department of Education. Created in 1982, the Blue Ribbon Schools Program honors public and private schools that are either academically superior in their States or that demonstrate significant gains in student achievement. The schools singled out for this national recognition are models of high educational standards and accountability. This award recognizes the remarkable improvements made in student achievement rates at Williams-Cone Elementary over the past several years. During the 2007-2008 academic year, students achieved 66 percent proficiency in reading and math. Four years later, Williams-Cone's approximately 200 students scored 81 percent proficiency in reading and 77 percent in math. These outstanding academic improvements can be attributed to the positive learning environment fostered at Williams- Cone School, where students are encouraged to pursue their interests, teachers instruct in innovative ways, and teachers and administrators engage with families to create a strong school community. I am pleased that the U.S. Department of Education has selected Williams-Cone Elementary School for this well-deserved honor, and congratulate not only the students, but also the administrators, teachers, staff, and parents on this outstanding achievement. Together, they are making a difference in the lives of hundreds of students and helping them become responsible learners and engaged citizens in their community.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, later today the Senate is likely to consider legislation that would reopen government, avert the default, and put us on a long-term path to come up with a plan to deal with our unsustainable $17 trillion national debt by reopening the long overdue budget negotiations. I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will support the plan that has been put forth by our two leaders, Senator Reid and Senator McConnell. I am pleased that elements of the compromise that the two leaders have worked out have been taken from a plan that was developed by 14 Senators who have worked very hard, on both sides of the aisle, 7 Democrats--actually 6 Democrats and 1 Independent, the Senator from Maine--and 7 Republicans, who have come together in good faith and have worked very hard over the last 2 weeks to put together a compromise plan, a compromise plan that I have to say I actually prefer to that which we will vote on later today. But elements of our plan have been incorporated into the plan the two leaders have presented for our consideration. This was truly a collaborative effort. I want to make sure that all of my colleagues who worked so hard on it receive the kudos they deserve for being willing to do what this body does too rarely, and that is for both sides to get together, come out of our partisan corners, stop fighting, and start legislating. This great country deserves a Congress that can govern, and that was the unifying theme of our group. On October 5, a Saturday, when we were in session and the shutdown was in its early days, I was sitting in my Senate office, watching the floor debate. I was disheartened by what I heard because what I heard were partisan speeches from both sides of the aisle and no one offering a path forward. I decided then and there to chart out, to outline a possible plan to end this impasse, and I marched over to the Senate floor and gave a speech in which I urged my colleagues to work together. Virtually immediately I heard from colleagues on both sides of the aisle who wanted to be part of that effort and who have worked night and day to try to come up with a plan, a plan that I believe helped lay the foundation for the ultimate compromise reached by our two leaders. Senator Murkowski and Senator Ayotte were the first two Members to call me. I know my colleagues are tired of hearing about the women in the Senate, but the fact is they were the first two to contact me. Senator Joe Manchin was the first person on the Democratic side to call and say: Count me in. I want to work on this as well. Senator Pryor and Senator King were also very early on, and Senator McCain endorsed the proposal of our working together and the outlines of this plan. Senator Johanns was such a thoughtful addition to our group. Amy Klobuchar was there for every meeting. Senator Kirk, Senator Heidi Heitkamp, Senator Jeff Flake, Senator Joe Donnelly, Senator Jeanne Shaheen--it was a wonderful group of people, united by our determination to demonstrate that we could compromise, we could govern, we could bring an end to this impasse and do it in a way that was worthy of this great country and our constituents. We worked together over and over. There were a lot of tough decisions to be made, a lot of lengthy negotiations. We came up with a plan which we presented to our two leaders, Senator Reid and Senator McConnell. Not all elements of our plan were incorporated by the leaders, but I think they would say they built on our work and did, indeed, take some of our provisions verbatim. I continue to believe our plan was a great path forward, but I am pleased that it paved the way to what I hope will be a solution to the impasse we have been facing, that has been so unfair to the American people and has hurt so many people. I think it is important for us to remember that the damage goes beyond the hundreds of thousands of furloughed Federal workers, furloughed through no fault of their own. It goes beyond the damage to the private sector employees who lost business because of the closure of our parks. It goes beyond the damage to our disabled veterans who have had to wait for their claims to be handled. It goes beyond the anxiety of many who are dependent on very important Federal programs, the most vulnerable in our society. It goes beyond the impact on our national defense, although we were able to mitigate that to some extent. It goes to something far more fundamental, and that is whether the people of this country can have confidence in our ability to put aside partisan politics and act as patriots committed to doing what is right for our Nation. I thank the 13 Senators who joined me and worked so hard and did just that--they left their partisanship at the door and negotiated as real patriots who care about America. I thank them all. It has been a great pleasure to work with each and every one of them. All of them contributed so much to the bipartisan plan we presented, and I am glad it has helped to bring us to what I hope is an end to a very unfortunate chapter in America's history. I thank the Presiding Officer.

Ms. COLLINS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, the government shutdown represents a failure to govern and must be brought to an end. Disabled veterans who have sacrificed so much for our country are waiting for their claims to be handled. Pregnant women and small children are at risk of their WIC benefits not being funded. Crucial biomedical research is being disrupted and the sickest of children are being turned away from clinical trials at the National Institutes of Health. The impact goes far beyond the direct consequences for Federal employees and the programs they administer. One has only to look at the impact of the closure of Acadia National Park in my State of Maine to see the ripple effects on shopkeepers, servers at restaurants, inn owners and others who depend on revenue from these disappointed tourists. That is why I have worked hard to put together a three-point plan to bring this impasse to a speedy end. I am very delighted that my friend and colleague from Alaska Senator Murkowski has joined me in shaping and supporting this plan. Let me quickly describe it and let me give credit to those who have talked about concepts that have been incorporated into this plan--people such as my colleagues Senator Hatch and Senator Toomey, and on the House side, Representative Kind and Representative Dent. The first point of the plan would fund government for the next 6 months at the level of $986 billion, so that would allow government to immediately reopen. Second, it would repeal the tax on medical devices and equipment such as x ray machines and pacemakers. This tax will only serve to drive up the cost of health care because it will be inevitably passed on to the consumer, it will stifle innovation, and industry estimates that it will lead to the loss of some 43,000 jobs. It is a tax that does not make sense. The administration has pointed to the $30 billion that would be raised by this tax over the next 10 years. Fair enough. There is a way to replace that revenue and it is a way that has beneficial consequences to many employers who are struggling to make pension contributions in this difficult economy. It would do so without in any way weakening the pension obligation to their workers. It is a complicated issue. It is called pension smoothing. But it is one that this body has dealt with before in the transportation bill known as MAP 21. We would extend that pension smoothing on the contributions which have been produced by the fact that the Federal Reserve has held interest rates at a very low level. I will describe this in more detail in a written statement. It is in the statement that I made on the Senate floor on Saturday. But suffice it to say that by smoothing these pension contributions, we can replace the lost revenue that would result from the repeal of the 2.3-percent tax on medical devices and equipment. The third point of our plan, the Collins-Murkowski plan, includes a bill that Senator Mark Udall and I introduced earlier this year that would provide flexibility to Federal managers in dealing with sequestration, but it does so in a way that preserves the important congressional oversight. Sequestration is a flawed policy because it does not discriminate between essential programs and those that are duplicative and wasteful. But if we are to have sequestration, surely we should give Federal managers the ability to set priorities and apply common sense in its administration instead of having across-the-board, equal meat axe cuts for every line item in their budgets. But to ensure that this flexibility is not abused, we would have the Appropriations Committee oversee this process and have the right to reject the plans. It is very similar to the reprogramming requests that the Appropriations Committee receives now and either accepts or rejects when agencies want to move money from one account to another. This would represent a modest proposal that could bring this impasse to an end, allow government to reopen, give those on both sides of the aisle who have voted during the course of the budget resolution by 79 votes to 20-something votes to repeal this harmful tax on medical equipment and devices and yet replace the revenue. I don't see how the administration could object to that because the revenue would be replaced. Yet this harmful tax would be repealed and we would give Federal agencies the flexibility to deal with sequestration. There is something in the Collins-Murkowski plan that everyone on both sides of the aisle can point to. Yet it would get us out of this impasse that is increasingly harmful to our country and its image in the world. It is past time for us to come out of our partisan corners, it is past time for us to stop fighting, and it is past time for us to reopen government. We have all made crystal clear what our positions are on ObamaCare at this point. Let's proceed with governing rather than continuing to embrace a strategy that will lead us only to a dead-end and whose consequences will be increasingly felt by our economy and by the American people. We can do this. I ask my Democratic colleagues to take a close look at the plan we are putting forward. It is a reasonable approach. I ask my Democratic and Republican colleagues to come together. Let's get this done. We can do it. We can legislate responsibly and in good faith. I thank the Presiding Officer and yield the floor.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, on October 9, 1863, the Maine legislature signed a charter establishing the State's first public institution of higher education. I rise today to celebrate 150 years of remarkable accomplishments by the University of Maine at Farmington. Also, 2013 marks another significant anniversary: this is the 16th consecutive year that the University of Maine at Farmington has been named to the U.S. News and World Report ``Best College'' list. That same publication has named UMF, as it is known throughout Maine, a ``Best Value'' school for its quality programs and affordable cost. In addition, the Institute of International Education and the U.S. State Department have recognized UMF as a ``Top Producer'' of Fulbright Scholars, with 11 faculty members having received that prestigious award. Such recognition is but one measure of UMF's success. Another is the deep affection alumni and people throughout Maine have for this remarkable institution. In 2005, I had the privilege to serve as honorary chairman of UMF's campaign for a new Education Center to integrate technology with teaching and learning. The support from countless individuals, businesses, and organizations was overwhelming and enabled a small school of just 2,000 students to keep pace with the top colleges and universities in the country. Responding to the needs of an ever-changing society is one of the richest traditions a college can have. The UMF tradition of service began in 1857, 6 years before the charter was granted, when a convention of teachers from Franklin County, in the mountains of western Maine, urged the establishment of an institution dedicated to educating educators for the benefit of their region and of the entire State. When the first class of 31 students matriculated at the new Farmington Normal School the summer after the charter, they did so in a setting that was described by a UMF historian as ``rough, crude, and plenty humble.'' Over the years, UMF has become known for its outstanding liberal arts programs, which attract students not only from Maine but also from all over the nation. Through the years, UMF has established another noble tradition--that of contributing to the entire region by adding to its cultural life, teaching in local classrooms, coaching youth athletics, and helping youngsters learn everything from swimming to foreign languages. From the Health and Fitness Center to the Mantor Library, the doors of UMF are open to the community. The combination of quality and value results in graduation and freshman retention rates that are significantly higher than the national averages for both public universities and private colleges. UMF's dedication to educating educators continues today, with graduates receiving the Maine Teacher of the Year Award in four of the last 6 years. On that ``rough, crude, and plenty humble'' foundation laid 150 years ago, something magnificent has been built--an ongoing commitment to excellence and a spirit of service. On behalf of the people of Maine, I congratulate the University of Maine at Farmington for 150 years of outstanding contributions to our State.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, today marks the fifth day of the government shutdown. With each passing day, the consequences grow more severe, more people are affected, and the implications grow far more serious. Federal civilian employees working to support our National Guard, overhaul our nuclear submarines, and analyze the latest terrorist threat are being furloughed, leaving us less safe as a country. I understand this afternoon Secretary Hagel, in response to a letter the Presiding Officer and I signed, along with many of our colleagues, is recalling some of those civilian workers. But there are still other implications. Disabled veterans who have sacrificed so much for this country are facing delays in the handling of their claims. Pregnant women and little children who depend on the foods provided by the WIC Program are at risk. Vital biomedical research is being disrupted such that even the sickest children cannot enroll in clinical trials at the National Institutes of Health. The impact goes beyond these services provided by essential Federal programs. Jobs in the private sector are affected as well. In Maine, our gem of a national park, Acadia National Park, is shuttered during the peak of the foliage season. This not only disappoints tourists, it hurts the innkeepers, owners of bed and breakfast organizations, servers at restaurants, and the small gift shop entrepreneurs who depend on these tourists during this time of year. The list of harm goes on and on and on and worsens with each passing day. It is time for this shutdown to end. From the start of this debate, I have urged our House colleagues not to adopt a policy that linked ObamaCare with the funding of government. I have been outspoken in my own opposition to ObamaCare and have cast many votes consistent with that position. I have cosponsored and introduced bills to reform the law so we can better rein in health care costs and truly help the uninsured without jeopardizing their jobs and without imposing billions of dollars of new taxes, fees, and penalties that discourage job creation and drive up costs. But the fact is the Democratic Senate is never going to pass, nor is President Obama ever going to sign, a bill that repeals his signature accomplishment. So now that we have all made it crystal clear where we stand on ObamaCare, it is past time that we reason together on how to bring this impasse to an end. In that regard, I must express my own disappointment in the lack of results from the President's meeting with congressional leaders and what I understand to be the President's refusal to enter into negotiations with Congress. So let me present to my colleagues and to the President for their consideration a proposal to bring an end to the shutdown. The proposal is based on concepts that have been discussed by Senator Pat Toomey and Congressman Charlie Dent, and they also reflect my own personal discussions with many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. Even the staunchest advocates of ObamaCare, including the President himself, recognize the law is not perfect. What 2,000-plus-page law dealing with extremely complex issues could be? The President himself has delayed the implementation of the employer mandate and certain consumer protections. I have, therefore, searched for common ground on reforming ObamaCare, seeking a proposal that has widespread bipartisan support in order to attract the necessary votes of our House colleagues on both sides of the aisle; that is, the repeal of the 2.3-percent tax on the sales of medical equipment. When such an amendment repealing this tax was considered by the Senate during the budget resolution, it passed by a resounding vote of 79 to 20. Clearly, it has strong bipartisan support. This $30 billion tax on medical devices such as pacemakers and defibrillators will cause the loss of as many as 43,000 domestic jobs, according to industry estimates. It will reduce investment in research to produce new medical devices and, ironically, it will increase health care costs because the manufacturers will simply pass on the costs to consumers. Now the administration has protested the idea of repealing this tax because it would lose $30 billion in revenue over the next 10 years. Fair enough. Let's make up for the lost revenue by providing an offset. It is a complicated one, but it works. It is called pension smoothing. It would smooth out the amount of payments businesses make into pension plans. This is not an unusual concept. New York State has adopted it to allow local school systems to reduce their annual pension contributions somewhat next year in exchange for higher payments in future years. The result of allowing private businesses to smooth out their pension contributions would produce tax revenue by lowering their deductions, and that could be used to offset the cost of repealing the tax on medical equipment. Second, I would propose that the continuing resolution funding government include a bipartisan bill that Senator Mark Udall and I introduced earlier this year to give agencies flexibility to deal with sequestration. It makes no sense at all for Federal managers not to be able to set priorities and then submit their plans to the appropriations committees as they do now with reprogramming requests. Sequestration is a flawed policy. It does not discriminate between absolutely essential programs and those that are duplicative, wasteful, or simply less important. Now, it is Congress that should be making these decisions, but if the across-the-board meat-ax cuts of sequestration stay in effect, the least we can do is let Federal managers set priorities and manage their budgets subject to congressional oversight. It is my hope that if repeal of the medical equipment tax, offset fully by the pension-smoothing proposal, plus the Collins-Udall flexibility bill were combined with a continuing resolution to fund government, we might well have the combination necessary to secure the votes and reopen government. Surely, it is worth a try. So on this late Saturday afternoon, I offer this proposal, and I urge my House colleagues to send us such a bill, which I would then urge the Senate majority leader to schedule for an immediate vote. We have a lot to do to restore the public's confidence in our ability to govern. We can start by offering and voting on specific proposals such as this one. It is time that both sides come out from their partisan corners, stop fighting, and start legislating in good faith. The shutdown represents a failure to govern and must be brought to an end. Thank you, Mr. President.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, today along with Senator Carper, I am introducing the Comprehensive National Mercury Monitoring Act. This bill would ensure that we have accurate information about the extent of mercury pollution in our Nation. A comprehensive national mercury monitoring network is needed to protect human health, safeguard fisheries, and track the effect of emissions reductions in the U.S. This tracking is particularly important in light of increasing mercury emissions from other countries. By accurately quantifying regional and national changes in atmospheric deposition, ecosystem contamination, and bioaccumulation of mercury in fish and wildlife in response to changes in mercury emissions, a monitoring network would help policy makers, scientists, and the public to better understand the sources, consequences, and trends in United States mercury pollution. Mercury is a potent neurotoxin of significant ecological and public health concern, especially for children and pregnant women. It is estimated that approximately 410,000 children born in the U.S. were exposed to levels of mercury in the womb that are high enough to impair neurological development. Mercury exposure has gone down as U.S. mercury emissions have declined; however, levels remain unacceptably high. Each new scientific study seems to find higher levels of mercury in more ecosystems and in more species, and the issue of mercury emissions is growing in importance around the world. At present, scientists must rely on limited information to understand the critical linkages between mercury emissions and environmental response and human health. Successful design, implementation, and assessment of solutions to the mercury pollution problem require comprehensive long-term information. A system for collecting such information, such as we have for acid rain and other pollution, does not currently exist for mercury--a much more toxic pollutant. We must have more comprehensive information and we must have it soon; otherwise, we risk making misguided policy decisions. Specifically, the Comprehensive National Mercury Monitoring Act would direct EPA, in conjunction with the Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Geological Survey, National Park Service, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association, and other appropriate Federal agencies, to establish a national mercury monitoring program to measure and monitor mercury levels in the air and watersheds, water and soil chemistry, and in marine, freshwater, and terrestrial organisms at multiple sites across the Nation. The act would establish a scientific advisory committee to advise on the establishment, site selection, measurement, recording protocols, and operations of the monitoring program. The act would establish a centralized database for existing and newly collected environmental mercury data that can be freely accessed on the Internet and that is compatible with similar international efforts. The act would require a report to Congress every 2 years on the program, including trend data, and an assessment of the reduction in mercury deposition rates that need to be achieved in order to prevent adverse human and ecological effects every 4 years; and The act would authorize $95 million over 3 years to carry out the act. We must establish a comprehensive, robust national mercury monitoring network to provide the data needed to help make decisions that can protect the people and environment of Maine and the entire Nation.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, today along with Senator Carper, I am introducing the Comprehensive National Mercury Monitoring Act. This bill would ensure that we have accurate information about the extent of mercury pollution in our Nation. A comprehensive national mercury monitoring network is needed to protect human health, safeguard fisheries, and track the effect of emissions reductions in the U.S. This tracking is particularly important in light of increasing mercury emissions from other countries. By accurately quantifying regional and national changes in atmospheric deposition, ecosystem contamination, and bioaccumulation of mercury in fish and wildlife in response to changes in mercury emissions, a monitoring network would help policy makers, scientists, and the public to better understand the sources, consequences, and trends in United States mercury pollution. Mercury is a potent neurotoxin of significant ecological and public health concern, especially for children and pregnant women. It is estimated that approximately 410,000 children born in the U.S. were exposed to levels of mercury in the womb that are high enough to impair neurological development. Mercury exposure has gone down as U.S. mercury emissions have declined; however, levels remain unacceptably high. Each new scientific study seems to find higher levels of mercury in more ecosystems and in more species, and the issue of mercury emissions is growing in importance around the world. At present, scientists must rely on limited information to understand the critical linkages between mercury emissions and environmental response and human health. Successful design, implementation, and assessment of solutions to the mercury pollution problem require comprehensive long-term information. A system for collecting such information, such as we have for acid rain and other pollution, does not currently exist for mercury--a much more toxic pollutant. We must have more comprehensive information and we must have it soon; otherwise, we risk making misguided policy decisions. Specifically, the Comprehensive National Mercury Monitoring Act would direct EPA, in conjunction with the Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Geological Survey, National Park Service, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association, and other appropriate Federal agencies, to establish a national mercury monitoring program to measure and monitor mercury levels in the air and watersheds, water and soil chemistry, and in marine, freshwater, and terrestrial organisms at multiple sites across the Nation. The act would establish a scientific advisory committee to advise on the establishment, site selection, measurement, recording protocols, and operations of the monitoring program. The act would establish a centralized database for existing and newly collected environmental mercury data that can be freely accessed on the Internet and that is compatible with similar international efforts. The act would require a report to Congress every 2 years on the program, including trend data, and an assessment of the reduction in mercury deposition rates that need to be achieved in order to prevent adverse human and ecological effects every 4 years; and The act would authorize $95 million over 3 years to carry out the act. We must establish a comprehensive, robust national mercury monitoring network to provide the data needed to help make decisions that can protect the people and environment of Maine and the entire Nation.

Ms COLLINS

Ms COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to commemorate the distinguished public service of my chief of staff, Mary Dietrich, who will be retiring from the Senate after more than 26 years of public service. Mary's departure is not only a great loss to my office but also a loss to this Chamber and the many Senators and Congressional staff with whom she has worked throughout her years of dedicated service. Mary is not someone who seeks the spotlight, but there is no question that she truly has made a difference. Day in and day out she has demonstrated her commitment to public service. Mary is always willing to accept a challenge head on: The greater the challenge that confronts her, the greater her tenacity and resolve become. In addition, her unparalleled understanding of the Senate is indicative of the deep appreciation and respect she has for this Chamber. Her skills and talents have benefitted many Mainers as well. Mary worked with me on my successful effort to allow the heaviest trucks to drive on Federal highways in Maine. Previously, the heaviest trucks in Maine were diverted onto secondary roadways that ran through our crowded downtowns, past schools and homes, and over busy narrow streets. Because of this change in the law, both drivers and pedestrians in Maine are safer. Mary also led my team to success in my efforts to require that all fresh fruits and vegetables, including fresh white potatoes, be allowed as part of the healthy lunches that are fed to our Nation's children in school cafeterias. Prior to joining my staff, Mary already had an exceptional career in public service. Upon graduation from Miami University in Oxford, OH, Mary went to work for the U.S. General Accounting Office. At GAO, Mary managed numerous and extensive reviews, investigations, and audits of a wide range of government programs. It was at GAO that Mary developed a fierce reputation for rooting out waste, fraud, and abuse. In fact, this is what brought her to the U.S. Senate. After 10 years at GAO, Mary was detailed to work for former Senator Richard Lugar on the Senate Agriculture Committee. Mary was so well respected in this position that by the end of her detail, she had two full committee chairmen asking her to join their staffs. In the end, Mary joined the staff of former Senator Ted Stevens on the Senate Appropriations Committee. While on the Appropriations Committee staff, Mary was known for her superior work and ability to handle complex and challenging matters. These talents enabled her to advance to very senior positions. In this role, she served as a liaison to a number of Senators past and present including Senators Arlen Specter, Mike DeWine, Sam Brownback, Thad Cochran, and myself. I was fortunate to have Mary serve as the minority clerk on the Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Subcommittee when I previously served as ranking member. Similar to her accomplishments while serving as my chief of staff, Mary's accomplishments on the Appropriations Committee are too numerous to list in their entirety. Among them, however, include her work to increase funding to improve education for District of Columbia public school students, and a doubling of funding over a 5-year period for the National Institutes of Health. Those who know Mary well know that one of her favorite actresses is Julie Andrews. Julie Andrews once said, ``Sometimes opportunities float right past your nose. Work hard, apply yourself and be ready. When an opportunity comes, you can grab it.'' When the chief of staff position became available in my office, asking Mary to lead my office was an obvious decision. There was no need for Mary to grab this opportunity. I could not think of a better person for the job. That was nearly 4 years ago, and I could not have asked for a more-trusted advisor. Mary Dietrich has been the engine that keeps my staff moving. She has guided my staff with the same tact, wicked sense of humor, and sharp mind that defined all her years of public service. Her retirement from the Senate is a true loss, and she will be deeply missed.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to proceed as in morning business for up to 25 minutes.

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

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, the decision on whether to authorize the President of the United States to use the military might of our great Nation against another country is the most significant vote a Senator can cast. The Constitution vests this responsibility in Congress--a duty that rests heavily on the shoulders of each and every Member. We are now engaged in a serious debate about what the appropriate response should be to the horrific use of chemical weapons by the regime of Syrian President Asad who killed his own people using chemical weapons on August 21. This was not the first use of chemical weapons by President Asad. He launched several smaller scale attacks, murdering his citizens, and, notably, many, if not all, of those attacks occurred after the President drew his redline a year ago. But it was not until the large-scale August 21 attack of this year, which resulted in the deaths of approximately 1,400 people, that President Obama decided a military strike against Syria was warranted. The fact is Asad violated the international convention prohibiting the use of chemical weapons and crossed President Obama's redline many times during the past year. Deciding whether to grant the President this authority is a very difficult decision. I have participated in numerous discussions with the President, the Vice President, and experts in and out of government. I have attended many classified briefings as a member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, and I have carefully weighed the assessments of the intelligence community and military and State Department officials. My constituents have also provided me with valuable insights that have helped to guide my decision. After much deliberation and thought, I have decided I cannot support the resolution that was approved by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee last week. One of the criteria for the use of military force is surely whether the adversary poses an imminent threat to the American people. More than once President Obama has stated Syria's chemical weapons and delivery systems do not pose a direct imminent threat to the United States. Neither the United States nor any of our allies have been attacked with chemical weapons. Instead, President Obama justifies the attack he is proposing as a response to the violation of international norms, despite the fact that we currently lack international partners to enforce the Convention on Chemical Weapons through military means. Although the term ``limited air strikes'' sounds less threatening, the fact is even limited air strikes constitute an act of war. If bombs were dropped from the air or cruise missiles were launched into an American city, we would certainly consider that to be an act of war, and that is why this decision is fraught with consequences. American military strikes against the Asad regime, in my judgment, risk entangling the United States in the middle of a protracted, dangerous, and ugly civil war. GEN Martin Dempsey, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has warned us that the use of U.S. military force ``cannot resolve the underlying and historic ethnic, religious, and tribal issues that are fueling this conflict.'' The introduction of American Armed Forces into this violent conflict could escalate to the point where we are perceived to be, or actually are, involved in a Syrian civil war or a proxy war with Hezbollah or Iran. In this complex conflict, it is also becoming increasingly difficult to sort out the good guys from the bad. There is no doubt that Asad is a brutal, ruthless dictator who murders his own citizens and who is supported by thousands of Hezbollah terrorist fighters. The opposition, however, is not pure. It has now been infiltrated by not one but two affiliates of Al Qaeda as well as by criminal gangs. Caught in the middle are millions of Syrians who simply want to lead peaceful lives. The tragic result has been more than 100,000 people killed, 4 million displaced internally, and 2 million refugees. We do not know how Asad or his allies would respond to a U.S. military attack, but an asymmetric attack by Hezbollah aimed at one of our bases or at other American interests abroad certainly is one potential response. My concern is that reprisals, followed by subsequent retaliations, followed by still more reprisals could lead to an escalation of violence which never was intended by the President but which may well be the result of the first strike. I have raised this issue directly with administration officials since the ``one and done'' strike, as retired GEN Michael Hayden puts it, may well not work. I have asked the administration what they would do if Asad waits until the 91st day, when the authorization for the use of military force expires, and then conducts an attack using chemical weapons that kills a much smaller number of people. What will we do then? In each case where I have raised this question, I have been told that we would likely launch another military strike. In addition to my concern about being dragged into the Syrian civil war, I question whether the proposed military response would be more effective in achieving the goal of eliminating Asad's stockpile of chemical weapons than a diplomatic approach would be. Let's be clear. The strikes proposed by the President would not eliminate Asad's chemical weapons, nor his means of delivering them. In the President's own words, the purpose of these strikes is ``to degrade Asad's capabilities to deliver chemical weapons.'' Indeed, you will not find any military or intelligence official who believes that the strike contemplated by the administration would eliminate Syria's chemical weapons stockpile or all of the delivery systems. General Dempsey wrote to Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin that even if an explicit military mission to secure Syria's chemical weapons were undertaken, it would result in the control of ``some, but not all'' chemical weapons in Syria, and that is not what is being discussed because that would undoubtedly involve boots on the ground. According to the President, the purpose of his more narrow objective is to deliver a calculated message to convince Asad not to use his remaining chemical weapons and delivery systems ever again. But would such a strike be effective in preventing Asad from using these weapons again on a small scale after he has absorbed the strike just to deliver his own message that he retains the capability to do so? Asad would retain a sufficient quantity of chemical weapons, and he knows that we did not respond to smaller chemical weapons attacks that he undertook before the August 21, 2013, event. So on the one hand, the President is seeking to conduct a precision military strike that is sufficient to deter Asad from using any chemical weapons again. On the other hand, he wants to narrow the scope of a military strike so that Asad does not perceive this act of war as a threat to his regime. Yet the President has previously stated that U.S. policy is the removal of Asad. While administration officials have gone out of their way to state that the military strikes are only to deter and degrade Asad's chemical weapons use and are not intended to pick sides in the civil war, the text of the resolution before us is at odds with the administration's representations. The text states that it is the policy of the United States to ``change the momentum on the battlefield in Syria so as to create favorable conditions for a negotiated settlement that ends the conflict and leads to a democratic government in Syria.'' Well, no one could ever consider the Asad dictatorship to be a democratic government in Syria. Furthermore, on September 3 Secretary of State John Kerry testified that ``it is not insignificant that to deprive [Asad] of the capacity to use chemical weapons or to degrade the capacity to use those chemical weapons actually deprives him of a lethal weapon in this ongoing civil war, and that has an impact.'' That is a very mixed message from this administration about the purpose of these strikes. All of us want to see a peaceful Syria, no longer led by Asad, nor controlled by the radical Islamic extremists who are part of his opposition. But is military action that could well get us involved in Syria's civil war the right answer? When I think about the proper response to Asad's abhorrent use of chemical weapons, I am mindful of the suffering and death that has occurred as well as the international conventions banning chemical weapons. Since this is an international norm, however, where are our international partners--the United Nations, NATO, the Arab League? I have grave reservations about undertaking an act of war to enforce an international convention without the international support we have previously had when undertaking similar action in the past, such as in Kosovo, Afghanistan, and even Iraq. While NATO's Secretary General has expressed support for consequences, NATO's North Atlantic Council, which is the body that approves military action for NATO, has not approved this military action. The Arab League has condemned with words the use of chemical weapons, but there is yet to be any Arab League statement that explicitly endorses military action or promises to be engaged in that action. Even our ally who has been most supportive, France, has asked for a delay to allow the U.N. inspectors to deliver their report next week. Let me add that I believe that report early next week will verify that it was the Asad regime that used sarin gas. That is my expectation. A military strike may well enforce the international norm with respect to chemical weapons, but at the same time it would weaken the international norm of limiting military action to instances of self- defense or those cases where we have the support of the international community or at least our allies in NATO or the Arab League. In addressing this difficult and tragic crisis in Syria, the administration initially presented us with only two choices: Take military action or make no response at all. I reject and have rejected from the start the notion that the United States has only two choices-- undertaking an act of war or doing nothing in response to President Asad's attack on his citizens. There are a variety of nonmilitary responses to consider that may well be more effective. The most promising of these options, proposed by the Russians--one of Asad's strongest allies--would place Syria's chemical weapons stockpile in the custody of the international community before they would ultimately be destroyed. I am not naive about ``trusting'' the Russians. My point is that this option may well be in Russia's own interests, would be more effective in securing the stockpile of chemical weapons in Syria, and would involve the international community. This diplomatic alternative would put Syria's chemical weapons under verified international control and would once and for all prevent Asad or anyone else in Syria from using those weapons. A risk of attacking Asad's facilities is that the chemical weapons could fall into the hands of terrorist elements in the country. That risk would be eliminated if the weapons were removed completely from Syria. One of the arguments advanced by proponents of the authorization for the use of military force resolution is that America's credibility is on the line. This is a legitimate concern. To be sure, it was unfortunate that the President drew a line in the sand without first having a well-vetted plan, consulting with Congress, and obtaining the necessary support for doing so. I would maintain, however, that the credibility of our great Nation is beyond that of just one statement by the President, even in his important capacity as Commander in Chief. The credibility of the United States is backed by a military that is the most advanced and capable in the world. The strength of our military sends the clear, unmistakable message that the United States is capable of exerting overwhelming force whenever we decide it is the right thing to do and it is necessary to do so. It would be a mistake for our adversaries to interpret a single vote regarding a military response to Syria's chemical weapons program as having ramifications for our willingness to use force when our country or our allies face direct imminent threats, especially with regard to the proliferation of nuclear weapons and intercontinental ballistic missile capabilities. At the very least we have an obligation to pursue all nonmilitary options that may well be more effective in preventing the future use of Asad's chemical weapons than the military option the President has proposed to undertake. For these reasons, should the authorization for the use of military force approved by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee come to the Senate floor, I shall cast my vote in opposition. My hope, however, is that the negotiations underway with the Russians will pave the way for the removal of chemical stockpiles from Syria and for their verified ultimate destruction. That is the best outcome for this crisis. That would lead to a safer world.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, first, I wish to congratulate the bill's sponsors, Senators Shaheen and Portman, for crafting the underlying bipartisan, commonsense energy efficiency bill. I am proud to be a cosponsor of their legislation, and I am pleased to see that the bill is being considered and look forward to the debate on energy efficiency. I would hope that as we consider amendments to this bill, we could consider amendments that relate to the issue of energy so we can make real progress and that we don't end up--as happened before the recess when I was managing a bill on the transportation and housing appropriations for the minority side--distracted on two issues that had nothing to do with the underlying bill, important though it was. I am very pleased to join my colleague, the distinguished Senator from Colorado Mr. Udall in sponsoring an amendment to help streamline the available Federal Energy Efficiency Financing Program to help improve the health and lower energy costs of our Nation's schools. There are a number of Federal initiatives already available to schools to help them become more efficient. However, in many cases schools are not taking full advantage of these programs. I think this is particularly a problem in rural States such as Alaska or Maine, where the schools don't have the luxury of having grant writers who can spend all day searching for Federal funding that might allow them to upgrade their energy efficiency or reduce emissions from their energy systems. Large urban schools may have the ability to hire those full-time grant writers, but I know in my State of Maine it is very difficult for schools to even become aware of these programs. One of the purposes of the amendment that Senator Udall and I are offering is to help schools, regardless of their size, take advantage of existing programs. I wish to stress that we are not creating a whole lot of new programs. All we are doing is providing a streamlined coordinating structure for schools to help them better navigate available Federal programs and financing options. I also wish to emphasize--particularly to my Republican colleagues--that our amendment still leaves all the decisions to the States, local school boards, and local officials about how best to meet the energy needs of their schools. So what does our amendment do? Specifically, the amendment would establish the Department of Energy as the lead agency in coordinating a cross-developmental effort to help initiate, develop, and finance energy efficiency, renewable energy, and retrofitting projects for our schools. It would also require a review of existing Federal programs and financing mechanisms, the formation of a streamlined process of communication and outreach to the States, local education agencies, and schools of these existing programs to make them more aware of their existence, and the development of a mechanism for Governors, State energy programs, and local educational and energy officials to form a peer-to-peer network to support the initiation of these projects. Finally, the amendment would require the Department of Energy to provide technical assistance to help schools navigate the financing and development of these projects. Assisting our Nation's schools in navigating and tapping into existing Federal programs that will help them lower their energy usage and save the taxpayers' money at a time of very tight and constrained educational budgets simply makes good common sense. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support the Udall- Collins amendment numbered 1845. I thank not only the sponsors of the bill but the leaders of the energy committee, Senator Wyden and Senator Murkowski, for their help and assistance to us. I hope we can start the debate on this bill on a positive note by adopting a bipartisan amendment that is going to help our schools save money, reduce energy costs, and also lower emissions. That is the way to start the debate on this bill. I thank the Presiding Officer and yield the floor.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, 12 years ago Al Qaeda terrorists attacked our homeland, killing nearly 3,000 people. I will never forget the heroes of that day, many of whom laid down their lives for others. Their courage is epitomized by the words spoken by a fire department captain at the World Trade Center. He radioed in to say, ``We're still heading up.'' Indeed, these firefighters were still heading up while others were fleeing the flames and the acrid smoke. Where that kind of courage and determination comes from is hard to contemplate, but we are so grateful our first responders have that kind of dedication and courage. Nor will I ever forget the many people who continue to live with the scars, whether they are civilians who lost a loved one that day, firefighters, police officers, or other first responders who rushed to the scene, or our brave military servicemembers who answered the call to defend our country in the years that followed. We must never lose sight of their sacrifice. This week we have been considering the weighty issue of whether to grant the administration the authority to use military force against Syria. This day, the anniversary of those horrific attacks on our country 12 years ago, should not pass without our calling attention to another important matter of unfinished business critical to our national security and to our Nation's conscience. A year ago today terrorists with links to Al Qaeda attacked our diplomatic facility in Benghazi, Libya. Despite a steadily escalating stream of threat reporting, and an obvious inability of Libyan security forces to protect our diplomatic personnel and our facilities, the State Department had denied urgent requests for increased security measures. Officials kept the woefully vulnerable Benghazi compound open, setting the stage for attackers to essentially walk right into the compound and set it ablaze. Tragically we lost four brave, dedicated diplomats and security personnel that terrible day and night: Glen Doherty, Tyrone Woods, Sean Smith, and Ambassador Chris Stevens. We laud their courage and we honor their memory, but we must also remedy the security failures and punish those responsible for their deaths. Today I draw attention to the lessons that must be learned from the attacks in Benghazi and to the work that still must be done to bring the attackers to justice. First we must ensure that such wholesale failure to read the signs of escalating danger and to respond to urgent security needs never happens again. Last year, as chairman and ranking member of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, former Senator Joe Lieberman and I conducted an investigation into the terrorist attacks at Benghazi. In our bipartisan report entitled ``Flashing Red,'' we found the State Department downplayed the terrorist threat in Benghazi despite numerous previous attacks on western targets, that they ignored repeated requests for additional security, and that they insufficiently fortified a shamefully ill-protected American compound. The Benghazi facility should either have been closed until security was strengthened or the threat abated. We identified changes that must be made, including greater attention to security at high-risk posts around the world and better management to ensure that the recommendations of previous security reviews are fully implemented. It was discouraging to read previous accountability review board reports after the attacks in Africa, for example, back in the late 1990s and see similar patterns of requests for security being denied in Washington. Second, Secretary of State John Kerry should hold personnel accountable for the problems identified in our committee report and by the Accountability Review Board. After our committee and the ARB identified systemic failures and leadership deficiencies that contributed to the grossly inadequate security in Benghazi, it is totally unacceptable for the State Department to hold no one responsible for the broader mismanagement that occurred prior to the attack. Finally, a year after the attack, the terrorists who invaded the Benghazi compound still have not been brought to justice despite repeated promises and pledges by President Obama to do so. After a long-delayed investigation, including a period of weeks when the FBI agents were not allowed to even access the Benghazi facility, Federal authorities have recently filed criminal charges against several suspects. But serious questions remain about the pace, the extent, and the effectiveness of these investigations and charges. A major problem is the willingness--or lack thereof--of the Libyan Government to fully cooperate. I am told that the whereabouts of one of the prime suspects is known and that he is walking about fully, openly, and freely. Yet he has not been picked up. He has not been arrested. He has not been taken into captivity. Why not? The administration must follow through on its commitment by taking the steps necessary to bring the attackers to justice, as the President promised. And the State Department, in the meantime, must implement all of the actions needed to prevent a Benghazi-like attack from taking place again. Surely, on the anniversary of the attacks on our Nation 12 years ago and the attacks 1 year ago in Benghazi, we owe it to Chris Stevens and his colleagues and to the American people. Madam President, seeing no one seeking recognition, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, the Senate will shortly decide whether to invoke cloture on the fiscal year 2014 Transportation, Housing and Urban Development appropriations bill. We have spent nearly 2 weeks debating this bill and working through approximately 85 amendments. We were making progress. We even had a vote on a nongermane amendment, which clearly would have fallen to a point of order had one been raised. So no one has been shut out of this process. Chairman Murray and I have repeatedly encouraged Senators to come to the floor, file, and debate their amendments to improve the bill we reported. It has been an open and transparent debate thus far, a return to regular order--something I have heard virtually everyone here urge us to do. Nevertheless, some Senators are intent on preventing this legislation from moving forward, despite the fact that this bill is not the final version of the transportation and housing appropriations bill. It is only one step in the process but an essential step--one that will allow the Senate to move forward and eventually negotiate with the House of Representatives to decide on a top line and to further improve the bill. A considerable number of my colleagues have advocated for the House funding level of $44 billion and have opposed the Senate bill. But I would like to point out that not one of my colleagues has offered a specific amendment, account by account, to reduce the funding levels, program by program, in this bill to meet the $44 billion level in the House bill. I personally offered an amendment that said that in October, if we find we have breached the top line of the Budget Control Act, we would go back to the appropriations process and redo the bill to meet that top line. I would also point out that yesterday the House leadership was forced to pull its THUD bill from the floor due to lack of support. Some Republican Members thought the spending levels were too high. But it is surely significant that a substantial number of Republicans felt the bill, as written, was far too low and would hurt our homeless veterans, would delay repair of our crumbling infrastructure, and would slash the Community Development Block Grant Program to the lowest level in history, to below the 1975 level when it was first created by President Ford. Let me point out that the numbers in the House bill were not realistic. That is one of the reasons it failed. The numbers in our bill are not unrealistic. They are too high. They would come down in conference. The President's request was artificially low due to several budget gimmicks and scoring differences. We took care of those gimmicks. We have an honest bill that is before our Members. Let me give you just one example of a gimmick that was in the President's budget. His request for the section 8 project-based rental assistance is insufficient to fully fund the 12-month renewal contracts with private owners. We are not going to be throwing people out of those subsidized apartments after 10 months in the year. So Senator Murray and I added funding to more accurately reflect what was needed. That was over $1 billion of the difference. There was the difference in the scoring by CBO and OMB. We have to go by CBO. That accounted for $1.8 billion. It is disappointing to me that we have not gone to conference on the budget because we would not be in this dilemma. We would have agreed- upon allocations that would guide the appropriations process. But in the absence of that, what is wrong with proceeding with this bill with cutting spending in it? If Members have amendments they wish to offer to cut spending--and there are a few that have been offered, but as I said, none that bring it down to the House's level in an account-by- account manner. I am still hopeful we will be able to pass this bill and start bringing other appropriations bills to the floor before the end of the fiscal year because forcing the government to operate under continuing resolutions is irresponsible. It ends up costing more money in the long run. It is wasteful because we continue to fund programs that are no longer needed because we are just continuing current law. So I urge my colleagues to think very carefully about this vote. It would be so unfortunate if we go home to our constituents in August and are forced to tell them we are unable to do our job. We should continue working on this bill. We should invoke cloture. This bill undoubtedly would have been reduced in conference had we been allowed to go forward. I do wish to thank many of my colleagues for working with us as we tried so hard to advance this important legislation. I am particularly grateful to Chairman Murray for her bipartisan approach and collaboration and for working so closely with me throughout the process. Finally, I would be remiss if I did not thank our staffs on both sides of the aisle for their hard work. They have worked night and day on this bill. I will put all of their names in the Record. I know my time is expiring. Let's do the right thing. Let's proceed to end the debate on this bill, take care of the rest of the germane amendments and proceed to final passage and ultimately to conference with the House. Let's show that we mean it when we say we are committed to full and open debate and returning to the process that used to serve us well.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President. I rise today to commemorate the 250th anniversary of the Town of Fryeburg, ME, the first town established in the beautiful White Mountains of Maine and New Hampshire. The same spirit of determination and resiliency that carved a community out of the wilderness two and a half centuries ago still guides Fryeburg today. In 1763, the Seven Years' War between France and Great Britain for control of North America ended with a resounding British victory. In recognition of his courageous service, GEN Joseph Frye, an American- born militia commander, was rewarded with a homestead grant in the White Mountains region. He chose the place where the great Saco River tumbles from the mountains on its journey to the sea, a place of vast forests and fertile farmland. That first settlement of seven lots soon grew into a thriving town, incorporated in 1777 and named in General Frye's honor. That first settlement was built on the foundation laid a half century before by another early American hero, CPT John Lovewell. His valiant deeds to secure the colonies' northern frontier--including the legendary Battle of the Pond in 1725--were celebrated by such authors as Longfellow, Hawthorne, and Thoreau. From those long ago days to the present, the Veterans Honor Roll in Bradley Park memorializes the more than 1,200 patriots from Fryeburg who have served our Nation in times of peril. As the town of Fryeburg became a bustling center of industry with lumber and grain mills, the townspeople invested their prosperity in education and in 1792 established Fryeburg Academy, one of America's oldest preparatory schools. Among the academy's first teachers was Daniel Webster, before he began his remarkable career as a statesman in the U.S. Senate and as America's Secretary of State. Fryeburg's connection to the world of ideas was strengthened in 1997 when the International Musical Arts Institute was established, bringing world- class musicians and conservatory students together every summer for concerts that enrich the community. The coming of the railroads in the mid-19th century made Fryeburg, with its spectacular scenery, mountain breezes, and pristine waters, a favorite destination for city dwellers escaping the summer heat. Among those who found their way to Fryeburg during that era was the legendary Arctic explorer Robert Peary, who sharpened his navigation skills while surveying the town as a young civil engineer. Today, visitors and residents alike enjoy Fryeburg's many quiet parks, beautifully maintained historic buildings, and exciting outdoor recreation opportunities. The annual Fryeburg Fair, Maine's largest agricultural exhibition, keeps the town's origins and traditions alive. The celebration of Fryeburg's 250th anniversary is not merely about the passing of time. It is about human accomplishment. We celebrate the people who, for longer than America has been a nation, have pulled together, cared for one another, and built a great community. Thanks to those who came before, Fryeburg, ME, has a wonderful history. Thanks to those there today, it has a bright future.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, it is with great regret that on behalf of Senator Coburn, I am objecting. I wish to point out that we have worked very hard to clear this list of amendments, and they include amendments from Members on both sides of the aisle. It is a fair list, and I had hoped we would be able to proceed tonight. Regrettably, there is an objection on our side from Senator Coburn. I am, however, optimistic that with further work we will be able to deal with that objection. My hope is that in the morning we will have an agreement that will allow me to agree, as the manager on our side, to this list. Unfortunately, at this time, I do need to object.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, in one terrifying week this spring, Lewiston, ME, my State's second largest city, was attacked by arsonists who destroyed nine buildings and left hundreds of people homeless. I rise today in tribute to the firefighters of Lewiston who answered those cruel attacks with skill and courage and who saved their city with no loss of life or serious injury. We have always had a deep respect and admiration for our firefighters and first responders. In recent years, however, the American people have been reminded of the vital protections they provide to our communities. From the Twin Towers in 2001 to the Boston Marathon in 2013, we have seen these heroes rush into danger that others flee. We have seen them risk their lives to save the lives of others. That is precisely what the people of Lewiston have seen since their first fire company was established in 1849. Through the years, fire has claimed textile and lumber mills, stores and schools, homes and even city hall. Yet never has a fire, no matter how fierce, been allowed to spiral out of control into a conflagration. The willingness of the people of Lewiston to always rebuild is testament to the confidence they have that their valiant firefighters will protect their property and their lives. That protection comes at a high price. The Lewiston Firefighters Memorial bears the names of nine men who made the ultimate sacrifice in the line of duty. Today, under the leadership of Fire Chief Paul LeClair and International Association of Firefighters Local 785 president Rick Cailler, the Lewiston Fire Department is recognized as one of the best in Maine, known for its professionalism, efficiency, and dedication. In the special language of the firefighter community, the Lewiston firefighters are considered ``the toughest Jakes on the job.'' They are tough yet filled with community spirit and compassion. Through the generosity of its members, the Local 785 Community Fund sponsors youth sports teams, charities, and the arts, and provides children in need with Christmas toys. Their annual ``Fill the Boot'' campaign raises many thousands of dollars for the fight against Muscular Dystrophy. America's firefighters play a vital role in the security of our Nation and the safety of our people. Whether it is in response to a terrorist attack, a natural disaster, or a fire, Americans rely on our firefighters, and our firefighters always answer the call. The firefighters of Lewiston, ME, are a shining example of that commitment, and I join the people of their city in saluting them.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Thank you, Madam President. Colleagues, as the chairman of our subcommittee, Senator Murray, has pointed out, we are continuing to work through the amendments that have been filed on this bill. I do not think I need to remind any of our colleagues on either side of the aisle that the August recess is fast approaching and the Senate will have to wrap up its work on this bill before we adjourn. So I would say to my colleagues, if you have good ideas or even not so good ideas about this bill, we urge you to come to the floor and file your amendment and do so as soon as possible. As Chairman Murray has pointed out, there has been an open amendment process. We have disposed of some amendments; a couple through rollcall votes, a few others through unanimous consent. But we could have done a lot more last week had people been willing to come to the floor and allow us to proceed to amendments that were filed. I also want to highlight a letter the Appropriations Committee has received from more than 2,420 national, State, and local organizations, and State and local government officials in support of the funding that is in the programs that are included in this important bill. This is an important bill. It is a bill that will help us rebuild our crumbling infrastructure. It is a bill that helps us meet the housing needs of homeless veterans, of disabled senior citizens, of very low-income families. It is a bill that will help the private sector create thousands of new jobs at a time when our economy needs them--in fact, hundreds of thousands of new jobs. It is not surprising to me that so many organizations are lending their voices in support of this bill. I want to read one quote from the letter from these organizations. The letter notes that: Through these investments, Congress supports small business job creation, expands our nation's infrastructure capacity, supports economic recovery and growth, reduces homelessness and housing hardships, and promotes lasting community and family economic success. I think that is a very good description of the purpose and the programs in this bill. One of the programs in this bill that is extremely popular and has been used very well to promote economic development and community reinvestment in my State is the funding for the Community Development Block Grant Program. That is an area where our bill differs greatly from the House bill. I want to point out that tomorrow the House of Representatives is expected to consider its version of the fiscal year 2014 Transportation and Housing and Urban Development appropriations bill. Think about this. If we pass our bill, they pass their bill, we could actually proceed to a conference committee and work out the differences between our respective bills. The differences are marked. I do not minimize the differences in terms of priorities and funding, but that is what Congress is all about. If we do pass our bill and the House proceeds to pass its version of the T-HUD appropriations bill, we will be the first but I hope not the only fiscal year 2014 spending bill that is ready for conference, goes to conference, and I hope becomes law. Finally, let me say, I recognize the Senate bill is not perfect, despite the heroic efforts Senator Murray and I made in committee and the input and insight from our colleagues that are incorporated into this bill. But it is a good-faith bipartisan effort that attempts to strike the right balance between fiscal responsibility and our Nation's infrastructure and housing needs. I am confident the bill that would come back from conference would be, frankly, at a lower spending level, which I and many on my side of the aisle want to see. But I was encouraged by the Senate's vote last week of 73 to 26 to allow the Senate to proceed to this bill. I know we can make improvements. That is what the amendment process is all about. Again, I want to second what our chairman has said and encourage our colleagues to get their amendments filed and to work with both of us so we can proceed to wrap up this work session on a high note of passing, on time, an individual appropriations bill. I am willing to work hard over the recess to conference the two bills, to get going on that. I know the chairman is as well. I want to thank the chairman and my staff and her staff also for working so hard.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, later this afternoon, Senator Toomey will be offering a motion to recommit the Transportation-HUD appropriations bill back to the Appropriations Committee. While I commend Senator Toomey's goal of ensuring that the fiscal year 2014 spending levels comply with the Budget Control Act spending caps, I do not believe this is the right approach. Let me be clear. I voted in the Appropriations Committee, as did every Republican member of that committee, for a top-line level of $967 billion. That is the amount that is in the Budget Control Act. That is law. But this is the very first appropriations bill that has been brought to the Senate floor. We have no idea where we are going to be at the end of the process. The two leaders of the Appropriations Committee have called for regular order, and I commend them for bringing appropriations bills to the floor starting with this one, one at a time, for debate, amendment, and full consideration. We have had many amendments filed to this bill. Several of them would reduce spending that is in this bill. One reduces spending by $50 million for the HOME program that is being offered by the Senator from Arizona. There is another that reduces spending by over $1 billion for the Community Development Block Grant Program. That is not a cut I happen to believe should be made, but that is a legitimate amendment that, if it passes, would reduce spending in this bill by $1 billion. There are other amendments that have been proposed to reduce spending in this bill. So this is turning the process upside down. It is recommitting to committee a bill before we have had the opportunity to determine what the final spending level in the bill is even going to be as a result of the many amendments that have been filed. Furthermore, we are not going to know if we have reached the cap until we finish all of the appropriations bills. I realize my Democratic colleagues want a far higher spending cap than I do and that the Budget Control Act provides, but I don't think we should short-circuit the process when there has been a good-faith effort to bring appropriations bills to the floor. What I would propose in lieu of the approach offered by my friend and colleague Senator Toomey is an amendment which I am going to file this afternoon that says not later than October 1, the Committee on Appropriations shall revise the suballocations to the subcommittees for fiscal year 2014 such that the suballocations comply with the discretionary spending limits that are in the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act--what we refer to as the Budget Control Act, the BCA. To me, this is the proper way to do it. If, at the end of the fiscal year, we find that the appropriations bills that have been passed exceed the statutory cap in the BCA, then we should reopen the process and reallocate the funds--the ceilings, the caps--across each of the subcommittees and produce bills that comply with the law. Frankly, since current law applies this cap anyway, if we don't do that, sequestration will take effect on January 1 of next year. I do not think that is a good approach because it treats all programs as if they are the same and does not allow us to set priorities. So I think the approach of the Senator from Pennsylvania is premature, a blunt instrument, and there is a reasonable alternative. I think it discourages a return to regular order where we bring the appropriations bills to the floor and where Members are free to eliminate whole programs, to cut billions if they wish to do so. Indeed, Members have worthwhile amendments that would reduce spending, but to send the bill back to committee before we have even had a chance to consider those amendments and before we have allowed the Senate to work its will is, to me, completely upside down of the way the process should work. Furthermore, I will make the point once again that this is the first appropriations bill. How can we say the cap is breached when it is the very first bill to be brought before the Senate? Frankly, having gone through this process where we did have a freestanding Transportation- HUD bill and Senator Murray and I went to conference with our House counterparts, we came back with a consensus bill that became law that was in between the amounts in the Senate bill and the House bill. So we ended up at a lower level, which we knew we would, and which I will not feel I am going out on a limb in predicting we would in this case as well, since the Senate bill is higher than the House bill. Why can't we let the process work? Why can't we consider the amendments that have been offered, some of which may well pass and reduce spending? Why can't we go to conference with the House where I believe additional cuts are probably likely? And why can't we let the appropriations process unfold the way it should? Why should we short- circuit it now by saying, that is enough, let's return the bill to committee, we don't trust what is going to happen, when there are safeguards we can put in to ensure that at the end of the day we will be at the cap of $967 billion? As I said, I will file my amendment this afternoon to give us an actual mechanism to ensure that at the beginning of the fiscal year we are at those levels. That is one approach, and I think it is a far better approach. Thank you, Madam President.

Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, it is my understanding that the Senator from Arizona wishes to address the Chamber about an upcoming motion to recommit the bill. I yield time to the Senator from Arizona.

Ms. COLLINS. I yield 5 minutes to Senator Hoeven.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I too wish to comment on the progress we have made this week. We have been considering this appropriations bill under regular order. We have actually cleared several amendments today. We have had some votes. We have defeated a motion to recommit the bill to committee so that we can proceed to go forward. Senator Murray and I will be here on Monday, ready and open for business. We will start sequencing amendments. I hope Members on both sides of the aisle will approach this bill in a cooperative spirit with respect to further rights of Senators to offer their amendments and get votes, and that we will not see Members drawing lines in the sand or deciding that they are going to block action going forward because I think this bill could be a model of how we should operate. Thank you, Mr. President. Amendment No. 1744

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. I would say through the Presiding Officer that is my understanding as well. And I think this was a very good example of everyone operating in good faith. I, for one, am prepared for the Senator from Oklahoma to proceed, but I would note that the Cardin amendment is the pending amendment.