Barbara Mikulski

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I do want to speak in support of the bill that is offered as our Democratic alternative. It is a balanced solution to preventing the dysfunctional, disruptive, across-the-board spending cuts called sequester. Sequester is a Washington word and a Washington invention we came up with during the budget crisis debacle in August of 2011, where we would cut $1 trillion over 10 years or $110 billion at a time. That was supposed to have been resolved through the supercommittee, but that didn't happen. It was supposed to have been resolved through the fiscal cliff, all the way up to New Year's Eve. What happened? We punted. We delayed for 2 months, and so here we are. While we are facing the Draconian implications of the sequester, we do have an answer. That answer is composed of a balanced approach, where we look at increased revenue and strategic cuts that will not cripple our economy nor weaken America's strength here or abroad. What does it do? Yes, it does go to increased revenue. The revenue we are talking about is to close these juicy loopholes, to end these outrageous tax earmarks that happen in the stealth of the night. Look, we got rid of earmarks on the Appropriations Committee. Let's get rid of tax earmarks on the Finance Committee, and this is one of the ways to do it. I want to compliment the Senator from Rhode Island, Mr. Whitehouse. He has done incredible research on just exactly what these cushy, lobbyist-driven tax breaks are. Our closing the loopholes cuts spending, and it also protects the middle class, ensures essential government services, and keeps America strong. What does it do? Yes, it does reform the Tax Code. The first loophole it closes is something called the Buffett rule. It saves $53 billion and it means wealthy taxpayers will pay lower effective tax rates than the middle class. In plain English, and this is what Warren Buffett said, a billionaire should pay the same tax rate as somebody who makes about $55,000 a year. Guess what. We Democrats believe in entrepreneurship. We believe in rewarding hard work. So that tax doesn't kick in until your second million. If I were a billionaire, I would take that deal. I am not a billionaire. But, more importantly, neither are 99 percent of the American population. We also eliminate a special loophole to the oil and gas industry for $2 billion where they get oil from tar sands. That would be also subject to a tax. But my favorite one is it eliminates tax breaks for shipping jobs overseas, another significant amount of money. I am an appropriator, so let me talk about spending cuts. We have come up with spending cuts: Yes, 27.5 in domestic spending, and 27.5 in defense. Let me start first with defense, because much has been said about defense. Many tables have been pounded, many chests have been thumped talking about it. And we do have to look out for our military. But our $27.5 billion recognizes the reality of boots on the ground. The reality of boots on the ground. Our troops are coming home. They will all be home by the summer of 2014. Our defense cuts kick in in 2015, so nothing we do will in any way dilute, diminish, end or terminate money that would go to our men and women in harm's way. So our cuts don't kick in until 2015, and then it will be $3 billion a year over a 9-year period, which our generals and our Acting Secretary of Defense, Secretary Hagel, now concur with. So we are OK with defense. And, most of all, the military is OK with it. Then we also cut domestic spending. Here, we cut $27 billion in the farm bill. It eliminates subsidies we don't need to do anymore. The Presiding Officer is from an agricultural State. We love your cheese. We even from time to time cheer on the Green Bay Packers. So we know agriculture is important. But essentially, we have a tax subsidy structure that goes back to the 1930s--a different economy, a Dust Bowl, people vacating homes in Oklahoma and following the grapes of wrath trail to California. So we came up through the New Deal with a way of subsidizing farms, restoring the land, and restoring people to their land. But a lot of those subsidies aren't needed anymore and, quite frankly, a lot goes to agra business for crops not even planted. So working with the Agricultural Committee--Appropriations didn't do this out of the blue--we come up with $27.5 billion. Much is said about asking Democrats if we know math. Yes, we know math. We have $27.5 billion cuts in domestic spending, $27.5 billion cuts in defense kicking in in 2015. That is $55 billion. Getting rid of tax-break earmarks and making those who make more than $2 million a year pay their fair share, we come up with 110. Quite simply, that is our plan. I spoke quite a bit during this week about the impact of sequester. Sequester was never meant to happen. We have got to end sequester. We could do it this afternoon. For all those people who are crying their tears and don't want it, do they want to protect America's middle class, the 99 percent, or do they want to protect billionaire tax-break earmarks? That is the choice. So they can rally: We don't want to pay more taxes. You can't have a government without paying taxes. And ordinary people pay them every day. Do you know what drives me wild? There is this fix the debt crowd flew in. I watched them fly in. I loved it. They stayed in Washington where they could take expense account deductions while they came to lobby us. And how did they come in? On their subsidized tax-break jets and their expense accounts that they could deduct, from sushi to Cabernet. They came to tell us to raise Social Security. Then they told us to raise the age in Medicare because, after all, people live longer. Maybe when you have all that wealth you can afford health care and you don't need Medicare. Nobody has to take Medicare. If you don't need it, you don't have to take it. If you don't need Social Security, you don't need to take it. My whole point was, often the very solutions are given by people who get the most tax breaks. That is a pet peeve of mine. But really what hurts me is this: I represent some of the great iconic institutions in America--the National Institutes of Health, the National Security Agency, each doing its own work to protect the American people. The Federal Drug Administration--I have 4,000 Federal employees keeping our drugs and medical devices safe for the American people. And food safety. We have to make sure those people work so our private sector works and we keep our economy strong. The Democratic alternative is sound from the standpoint of policy, it is sustainable and reliable. We could end sequester this afternoon. I will be back to talk more about it. But I think we have a good idea here. Let's not follow the politics and let's not dither in the U.S. Senate. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, today I rise to speak on the impact of sequester on the American people, on their safety, their security, our economy, and the way local and State governments can use wise resources to protect their people. I know we have each been assigned 10 minutes. I have a robust number of Appropriations Committee members who want to speak. I will ask the Chair to let me know when I have used 5 minutes, and if Senator Landrieu arrives, I will then yield to her.

Ms. MIKULSKI. I come today not only as the chair of the entire Appropriations Committee but as the chair of the subcommittee that funds the Commerce Department, Justice Department, and the majority of our science agencies. I wish to talk about the impact on public safety and our future, but you have to know I come with a heavy heart. I note and bring to the attention of my colleagues that a guard was killed in a Federal prison on Monday. This guard worked at the Federal penitentiary in Canaan, PA. He was stabbed and attacked by a prisoner with homemade weapons. The entire Justice Department, the Office of Prisons, the union people who represent them, all mourn at Mr. Eric Williams' death. We don't know the full extent, and I will be asking for a report on the investigation on how this happened. But one of the things I do know as the chair of the committee, we face prison overcrowding. We have Federal prisons, some we don't even open because we refuse to put the money in. You can say: Well, Senator Barb, you are on the committee. Why don't you put the money in? We are in gridlock, deadlock, hammerlock on not being able to move our bills in regular order with due diligence and oversight. That is why we are at this crisis of sequester: Oh, boy. Can't we just cut 2 percent like American families? American families don't run prisons. They don't build their own roads. They don't have to put out their own local police department. They depend on their government to do that. They are willing to expend revenue, pay taxes so they are protected. There are reasons people are in Federal prison. They were bad guys and gals who did bad things, and when they are in prison, they still want to do bad things, such as attack a prison guard. Do you know what sequester will mean? Across- the-board cuts. It will have a direct impact on America's prisons. Oh, sure. The prisoners will still have their food. They will still have their hour to be able to do their exercise. But the prison guards will face furloughs, layoffs, and even reductions in the workforce. We are placing them at risk while they protect us from risk. Where are our national priorities? One of the ways we can honor this man is to get serious about our appropriations process. I wish to cancel the sequester and come up with a balanced solution of revenues and strategic, targeted cuts, not across-the-board cuts to 1,300 correctional guards who might face layoffs. About our Federal prosecutors. We in Maryland have one of the best U.S. attorneys going after violent gangs, drug cartels, child predators, mortgage frauds. But we are going to say to those smart lawyers who can make megabucks in law firms, stick with us. But when you do, you can be laid off and furloughed. Why is it that the criminals are able to hire the lawyers, but the Federal Government doesn't want to pay for them? Priorities. We need to be able to have the right law enforcement at the Federal and State level to catch the bad guys, whether it is white-collar crime, such as mortgage fraud, or street crime, or despicable crimes such as trafficking in women and children. We have to look out for our FBI, our major force in counterterrorism. They face, again, layoffs, and it will go to our local law enforcement. We will be cutting the funds for things such as the Byrne grants, which enable local law enforcement to put cops on the beat and buy the equipment they need to protect themselves. There is a program here that we have a line item. It is not the biggest thing in the Federal budget, but it is the biggest thing to cops. Why? Because it buys bulletproof vests.

Ms. MIKULSKI. I could talk another 55. I could talk another 505. But I want everyone to get the point that cuts have consequences. So things such as, oh, why don't we cut the budget as families do--well, let's do what families do. They, first of all, make plans and stick to them. I think it is time we have a regular order. I want to deal with this sequester now. I want to look at this thing called the continuing resolution so it resolves the funding for fiscal 2013, for fiscal 2014, to work on a bipartisan basis across the aisle and across the dome. Let's look at our spending, how we protect the American people, and make public investments that help create jobs today and jobs tomorrow. In conclusion, before I turn to my most able subcommittee chair on Homeland Security, Senator Landrieu, I just wish to say to the family of Officer Eric Williams, the entire Senate wishes to express its condolences to the family. I believe we can show our deepest sympathy by making sure it doesn't happen in our Federal prisons. Let's get on and solve the problem of sequester. Let's work together and get the job done. I yield to Senator Landrieu, the chair of the Subcommittee on Homeland Security, a very crucial committee.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from South Dakota, the Chairman of the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Subcommittee, for presenting a stark and compelling explanation of the impact of sequestration on veterans and military installations, and the consequences these ill-advised budget cuts will have on local communities. I am particularly troubled by the impact these cuts could have on Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans who are already struggling to find jobs, many of whom are also coping with combat-related physical and mental health issues. The unemployment rate among women veterans is truly shocking. These brave Americans have served on the frontlines of our war on terrorism, and they should not be subject on their return home to a manufactured budget meltdown that could further complicate their job prospects and job security. Of course we need to rein in the federal debt, but we need to do so in a thoughtful, constructive way that brings both reasoned budget cuts and additional revenue to the table. The President has called for, and Senate Democrats are proposing, a balanced way forward. NNSA and CCE

Ms. MIKULSKI. As the Chairman of the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Subcommittee, I would ask the Senator from California to describe the impact of sequestration on the Department of Energy and the Corps of Engineers. Please provide specific examples that would help Members of Congress and the American people understand the consequences of sequestration on basic and applied research for future energy technologies, nuclear weapons modernization and nonproliferation activities, and maintaining critical water infrastructure.

Ms. MIKULSKI. It is my understanding that NNSA also funds nonproliferation activities. Would sequestration undermine the 4 year goal of securing all vulnerable nuclear materials around the world by the end of December 2013?

Ms. MIKULSKI. Equally important to our national security are efforts to reduce U.S. dependency on foreign oil and mitigating the effects of global warming. What impact will sequestration have on basic research needed to accelerate future energy technologies?

Ms. MIKULSKI. Before our time is up, let's also discuss the impact of sequestration on water infrastructure. What will be the impact on the Civil Corps of Engineers?

Ms. MIKULSKI. I thank Senator Feinstein for her sobering assessment of the impacts of sequestration.

Ms. MIKULSKI

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

Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, what is the pending business before the Senate?

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may speak as if in morning business for approximately 10 minutes.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I was so excited when I came in because I have a new desk in the Senate. With seniority, I have now moved to the row where giants in our institution once stood. This is the particular seat which just a few weeks ago was held by John Kerry. Although my desk location is new, I come to the floor with what seems to be a persistent pattern in the Senate and in the Congress, which is that when faced with big problems that affect the fate of the Nation, let's delay, let's blame, and let's not get to the work the American people elected us to do. I rise today to speak about sequester--something that was never, ever meant to happen. It came out of the dark days of the debt ceiling debacle in the summer of 2011 when we were facing a downgrade of the U.S. economy and a dysfunction of the Congress. In order to get us to the table, we came up with an agreement to have a supercommittee that would meet on both sides of the dome to come up with how we could begin to solve the serious fiscal issues facing the United States of America. There was an insistence, yes, by one side of the aisle that we have a trigger. And, yes, the President looked back on history. What we have now is a situation where we said what we would propose as a trigger if we didn't get our act together, which we have not. We would put into place something so serious, so Draconian, so unthinkable, so unworkable that we would solve the problems through regular order and find that sensible center Colin Powell has so often talked about. Well, the supercommittee collapsed--not because there weren't the great efforts of people such as Senators Murray and Durbin and Members over at the House, such as Maryland's very own Chris Van Hollen. Then we were faced with New Year's Eve. We had put it off to New Year's Eve and after the election, and here we were--while people were wearing funny hats all over America, we were doing funny things. And what did we do again? We put off sequester for 2 months--again not solving the problem. Well, now we have a rendezvous. On March 1, sequester will happen. I am opposed to sequester. I think it is bad policy for our country. It will hurt our economy. It will exacerbate the fragile job situation we have. It will affect not only government employees but those who work in private sector jobs because of the Federal Government. I support what was originally intended: a balanced approach that would look at increased revenues--particularly plugging up tax loopholes, particularly getting rid of tax-break earmarks--along with strategic cuts in spending and a review of mandatory spending to see how else we could get more value for our dollar. I am going to speak tomorrow about the impact on science, technology, innovation, and jobs. Today I want to speak about my own beloved State of Maryland and the people who work there. Maryland is home not only to the Super Bowl champions but to Nobel Prize winners and also people who work every day to help create the jobs today and the jobs tomorrow. I have the honor of representing 130,000 Federal employees. They say: Wow, how many of them can we get rid of? Well, why would we want to get rid of the people who work at the Social Security Administration? These are the people who calculate the eligibility for the benefits in regular Social Security and in disability. Why would we want to get rid of anybody who works for the Food and Drug Administration, people who every day are analyzing clinical trials to see if they can be moved to pharmaceutical or biotech or medical device production, ensuring that when they come out into clinical practice, they are safe, they have efficacy, they can be taken by the American people, and we can export them around the world? Why would we want to get rid of anybody at FDA who is helping make sure our drug supply is safe? How about the food inspectors? Right now, one of the turbo engines of my Eastern Shore economy is seafood production and poultry production. You can't have poultry production unless you have food inspectors. When we start laying off or furloughing food inspectors, it is going to affect those private sector jobs. If you don't have an inspector, you are not going to be able to have those companies working with the same level of production. Hundreds of thousands more work because of the Federal Government, iconic contractors, particularly in defense and also at NASA Goddard, which is our space science center. Yes, there are 3,000 civil servants, but there are also thousands of contractors. And what are they facing? Layoffs, furloughs, pay cuts, and lousy morale. What are they worried about? Their future. And they wonder whether they should give us another future. Make no mistake; we are not only going to hurt our economy, but there is an anti-incumbent fever developing around the country. Now, as we look at solving the problems, there are those who want to protect lavish tax breaks or tax earmarks for a few. I want to stand up here for the many, not only the people who are multimillionaires or billionaires who can take a tax deduction on their corporate jets. I am for the people who are working every day right now to find a cure for Alzheimer's, to find a cure for autism, to find a cure for AIDS, to find help a cure for the arthritic, and most recently not only what is done by government but even what is done in private institutions. Within the last few weeks at Johns Hopkins University, under Federal help from the Veterans' Administration, on an American war veteran from Iraq who had lost both arms, Hopkins was able to perform surgery that did the first successful arm transplant. Doesn't that bring tears? That happened because of the genius of the Hopkins personnel, with financial help from the VA to do the kind of research to make sure that not only the surgery was a success but also that the autoimmune suppression was also. This is what the American people want us to do to not only help that veteran, but what we learn through the VA will also then move into civilian clinical practice. We have to come up with a solution where government is doing the job to help the American people with compelling human needs or America is doing the job that enables other people to keep their jobs or protect their livelihoods--for example, weather. People watch the Weather Channel and say: Isn't that Cantore great? I love Cantore. We even tweet each other from time to time. But Jim Cantore and the Weather Channel get a lot of their information from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. That is the agency in Maryland that runs the weather forecast for all of America, predicting hurricanes, tornadoes, and it also ties up with the global weather prediction system that protects our ships at sea--civilian, cargo, military--as well as whether airlines can fly or not. When we look at our legislation we have to know that there are real consequences to those employees. The numbers sound like a lot, but their contribution to saving lives and saving livelihoods is enormous. Then we look at compelling human need. Do the American people really want to protect people not paying taxes on their second million over Head Start? If the sequester goes into effect, we are going to have a terrible effect on special education. Special education teachers would be affected, and it would be an across-the-board cut in education. The same with title I. Maryland would lose over $14 million. Federal law enforcement is something I know you are very keenly interested in, Mr. President. If the sequester goes into effect, it is going to affect over 1,000 Federal agents--at the FBI, at the Drug Enforcement Agency, at the Marshals Service. We don't know much about our Marshals Service. They are so quiet and efficient. Do you know what they do? They protect our judges at the Federal courthouses. You remember some got shot or wounded. It also serves warrants for runaway fugitives, and it also enforces the law on sexual predators in our country. Do we really want to furlough these men and women? I don't think so. Then there is the FBI. The FBI is crucial not only in mortgage fraud, financial fraud, but now the world of cyber. Do you know, last year in America there were 300 bank robberies? That is a terrible number if you are one of those banks. But there were thousands of attacks by cyber on our American financial institutions, of which the FBI was prime time. Do we really want to lay them off? No, I don't think so. There is another issue of safety, and that goes to aviation safety. I am deeply concerned about the cut in air traffic control with furloughs, layoffs, or asking even fewer to work longer hours. We cannot have it. When we think about law enforcement, it also cuts Border Patrol. I am for comprehensive immigration reform, but I am also for protecting American borders. We now have 57,000 border control agents, a surprising number. If the sequester goes in, we could be forced to lay off or furlough 5,000 of them. Do you know what a furlough is? It says to someone who is going to be out there in the desert facing those who engage in the illegal traffic of people, guns, or drugs: While you are out there in that hot Sun, you are in harm's way, putting your life in danger, we are going to ask you only to work 4 days a week, and we are going to furlough you one-fifth of the time. To that border control agent being furloughed, that is a 20-percent cut. I will say this: If the Federal employees are going to take a 20- percent cut and be furloughed, we should take a 20-percent cut. I think I should be treated like my Social Security employees, like my NIH employees working for cures, like FDA, the food inspectors, the people inspecting cargo coming into the Port of Baltimore or looking for illegal cargo coming into our airports. If they take a hit we should take a hit, and I look forward to moving on that legislation. I hope we do not get to that point--not for me to protect my pay, but to protect their future; to say, America, we believe in what you are doing, and we want to protect you so you can do your job for America instead of protecting all these breaks for billionaires. People can say: Didn't we do the tax break thing New Year's Eve with Biden and McConnell? Yes. It was a nonpayment, but there are lots and lots of very juicy loopholes or tax breaks--tax breaks for sending jobs overseas, tax breaks for reductions on corporate jets. Do we need those? Those are really earmarks. A tax earmark goes to people in a particular class, and it lasts indefinitely. While we are waiting for comprehensive tax reform, let's go after some of these and come up with a balanced approach for revenue. Mr. President, I know you were a Governor so you know about bond ratings. In my State of Maryland and my large counties, they are going to be affected by sequester because as the Federal Government goes, Moody's rates our bond rating. Maryland could lose millions of dollars and have to pay high interest rates on bonds. This is going to have a terrible impact, particularly in the area of school construction. It will cost hundreds if not thousands of jobs in not building schools we need or roads that need repair or water systems that need to be upgraded. People say: Oh, well, that is government. That is the way it is. Mr. President, I want you to realize if in fact people begin to lose their jobs or get furloughed and lose a big part of their income, they are not going to be spending money in the local economy, the real economy. It also means they will not be giving to their charitable organizations. It is regrettable, but if you have less money to spend and you save it somewhere for your family, you are not going to be giving to the United Way, to that great Federal campaign. The lab assistant at NIH who is facing losing her job is not going to give to her favorite charity. The customs official at Thurgood Marshall Airport is not going to have the same disposable income to make sure they give again to the United Way. We have to stop sequester. Thursday I will be joining with my colleagues, my Democratic colleagues. We have a plan. Our plan is simple and straightforward: We come up with $86 billion. Half of that is in revenue. What does that mean? It means we come up with money for the Buffett rule. It was argued by Warren Buffett when he said he should pay the same rate of taxes as his secretary. What that means is that on his second million--not his first; we believe in entrepreneurship, the job creators, et cetera. But on his second million he will pay the same rate as somebody who makes $55,000 a year. The other is we want to close a loophole sending jobs overseas. For too long we have rewarded exporting jobs while we should have a Tax Code that rewards export of products, whether it is that great pharmaceutical industry or art, protecting intellectual property, and so on. We have come up with that, and then we have a cut in the farm subsidy program where we will no longer pay people not to plant. That will be about $27 billion. Then, yes, we do cut defense, but that doesn't trigger until 2015 when our troops are home from Afghanistan. We never want to, through our budget problems, put our troops into harm's way. I wanted to share what is going to happen. In my State we represent many great Federal iconic agencies that moved to Maryland in the early 1930s, 1940s, and 1950s when real estate was so high in Washington, DC. I am so proud of them. They win the Nobel prizes. They help us win the markets. They are coming up with the new jobs, the new ideas for the new jobs for tomorrow. They are out there--for example, the Coast Guard--making sure the Chesapeake Bay is safe or they are dealing with our customs. Money is going to the University of Maryland, to Johns Hopkins, to not only help our veterans get new arms but to get a new life. Isn't that what the people want? We can be more frugal. We have to be sensible, but let's not do sequester. It is bad money management, and we can do better. What we cannot do is continue to delay and put the entire burden on discretionary spending. Let's stand up, let's be counted, let's have a vote on Thursday. I do hope the Democratic alternative prevails. I yield the floor.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I join with Senator Cardin as a fellow jock to support the resolution commending the Baltimore Ravens. What a great season we have had. It was thrilling; it was exciting. I have been a Ravens fan since they came to Baltimore, and I was originally a Colts fan. I was a little girl when the National Football League came to Baltimore. It was the Baltimore Colts. They even had a telethon to buy tickets. Just imagine, we could buy season tickets to the Baltimore Colts for $15. One of the first things I did when I graduated from college and had my own money was to go in with my Uncle Fred to be able to have tickets to go to the Colts games at Memorial Stadium. I remember watching TV when we had that famous game with New York and Johnny Unitas tossed that winning touchdown to Lenny Moore and won 10 seconds before the game was over. I didn't think football could ever be that exciting again. But then came this Ravens season just roaring to the finish. There they were playing the Broncos in Denver, the mile- high city. Senator Udall really razzed and did some pretty uppity trash talk. But we, with our usual pride and gentility, weathered the storm. I could not believe it. I thought the game was over. I was ready to kick back and call my sister when, oh, wow, there goes Flacco with that 70-yard toss, and it was a touchdown. Even though I am short and chunky, I was ready to do cartwheels around my condo that evening. The team went on to deal with the New England Patriots and then all the way to the Super Bowl. We were out there winning again when all of a sudden the lights went out in New Orleans. Even though they went out for 38 minutes in New Orleans, the lights were on all over Baltimore and we were purple. We were purple with pride and purple with joy. We were so pleased that they brought us victory not only on the playing fields of the National Football League, but do you know what else they did? They created a sense of community and a sense of energy. If you came with me to one of our great major league institutions, such as Johns-Hopkins or the University of Maryland, you would see that we are shoulder to shoulder with Nobel prize winners who are working in our institutions. The facility managers, nurses, and even the patients had on their purple ties or purple shirts. We were united. It was a sense of community, and it was a sense of pride. What is it that we liked? Because we did our best. We were the underdog team. Some of the national sports writers would often look down their nose at the football players. We don't carry a chip on our shoulder, we carry the football across the goal line. That is the way Baltimore is. We are gritty, we are strong, and we will fight and take it all the way to the end. So I want to congratulate the Ravens for creating a sense of energy, creating a sense of community, and, yes, winning the Super Bowl. They were champs, but really what they created was not only champions of the Super Bowl, they were champions on their way to victory to create this sense of community. Also, a special acknowledgment to Ray Lewis. Ray Lewis has had a tough life. It has been hard-scrapple and hard-tackle for him. He has faced some life challenges and has had some dark moments. Out of that, he has reclaimed his life, and in the process of reclaiming his life and giving essentially all honor to God, he has then gone on to work with other football players and people in our community about how you get your life together, how you hold your life together, and how you are a winner both on and off the field. So I wish to congratulate the Ravens. We are really proud of them. We are glad they won the Lombardi Trophy for the second time in 11 years. I have a purple coat that I bought for the first Super Bowl. Some women have special-occasion cocktail dresses; I have a special coat for football season. I pulled it out, and I am ready to wear it, and I am ready to wear it for victory for next season.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, I recognize the concerns of the Senator from Oklahoma. His amendment has good intentions by seeking to find ways to reduce duplication for all Department of Justice, DOJ, grants to State and local governments and nonprofit organizations. I agree with the Senator from Oklahoma that we need to pinch every penny. However, as chairwoman of both the Appropriations Committee and the Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice and Science, CJS, I must oppose the amendment. It directs the Justice Department to develop and implement a plan that eliminates, consolidates or streamlines seemingly similar existing grant programs to find at least $780 million in savings. Then, regardless of whether or not duplication in grant programs is identified, $780 million would be automatically rescinded for deficit reduction, unless DOJ chooses to redirect a portion for DNA backlog reduction grants. I oppose this amendment for two reasons. First, the fiscal year 2013 Senate CJS bill already rescinds over $61 million from DOJ grants, coming on top of $93 million rescinded in the fiscal year 2012 enacted bill. The Justice Department's grant components are already struggling to meet those mandatory rescissions. In order to meet an additional $780 million, this amendment would give the Department enormous power to unilaterally terminate programs with no input from Congress. Second, Justice grants have already been slashed, and are likely to take more cuts in the coming months and years. Since fiscal year 2010, DOJ grants have been cut by more than $1.5 billion, a 41 percent reduction, from $3.6 billion in fiscal year 2010 to $2.1 billion in fiscal year 2012, shifting the burden of crime fighting to State and local governments where budgets are also stressed. Should sequestration kick in, grants will be cut by at least $110 million, or another 5 percent reduction. This amendment would cut another $780 million from programs like Byrne Justice Assistance Grants, COPS Hiring, youth mentoring, bulletproof vests, and the Violence Against Women Act. Altogether, this would be an astounding cut of $2.4 billion, or 64 percent, since fiscal year 2010. The Senator from Oklahoma and I agree that we need to be strong sentries over taxpayers' funds. I have encouraged the Attorney General to follow GAO's recommendations, and he has responded by directing the Department to assess and consolidate grant programs when possible in order to prevent unnecessary duplication. But the Coburn amendment implements sweeping cuts, which will impact every Justice grant program. It will hurt our law enforcement and community partners at home, who are already struggling with limited tools to keep our families and neighborhoods safe and help victims of crime. I oppose this amendment and urge my colleagues to vote no.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, I come to the floor today in strong support of the Violence Against Women Act. The Violence Against Women Act is a strong, inclusive, and bipartisan bill supported by the vast majority of our colleagues here. This bill has major, necessary improvements to programs that are vital to millions of women, children, and men in every State, and neighborhood in our country. The communities served by VAWA deserve to have these improvements. The issues are too important for partisan wrangling. I stand here today to call on the entire Senate to enact on these critical issues in order to protect our families, protect public safety, and protect the communities we serve. VAWA is crucial in all of our communities. Every day VAWA is providing vital services to families in desperate need. I hear from my constituents far too often about the challenges they are facing, often involving significant economic struggles only to be complicated by deep emotional pain and fear. This is not about politics. Here are the statistics: one in four women will be victims of domestic violence. Sixteen million children are exposed to domestic violence every day. And over 2 million will be victims themselves of physical or sexual violence each year. Twenty thousand cases are in my own State of Maryland. Since we created the legislation in 1994, the national hotline has received millions of calls. Millions of women felt in danger and millions had the chance of being rescued. In my own State of Maryland VAWA is making recovery possible for victims finding legal help to separate from their abusers. They are also getting vital services at rape crisis centers and navigating our immigration system to ensure protection. I heard from one of my constituents, Jean, on the Eastern Shore of Maryland. Jean had been married to her husband for 10 years and shared two children. She benefited from VAWA's Legal Assistance for Victims Grant after being abused so brutally one evening. Jean called the hotline and got the legal assistance to file for a protective order, which she ultimately was awarded and is now living her life safely with her children. I also heard from Danielle. Danielle was sexually assaulted at the age of 19 by an associate that she knew. She was aided by VAWA's Sexual Assault Services program when she made the connection with the rape crisis center a few days after her attack. Danielle got the support she needed at the crisis center. She received personalized safety planning and counseling and was provided a lawyer to help her get a peace order. I also hear from law enforcement in Maryland who say VAWA is helping them make communities safer and how the reauthorization will strengthen this. The Lethality Assessment Program, pioneered in Maryland and now a model for the Nation, is strengthened in this bill. The program is used to identify high-risk situations at the outset and link up local police with domestic violence professionals, thereby providing wrap-around services and empowerment to get victims out of harm's way and reduce homicides. This was made possible because of VAWA which provided the Federal funding to make this a reality. As chair of the Appropriations Subcommittee that funds the Justice Department, I fund the Violence Against Women Act programs. These programs ensure tougher penalties for abusers, coordinated assistance with community organizations, and court advocates for abused to boost reporting and prosecution. In the fiscal year 2013 CJS spending bill, I provide a robust $421 million for Violence Against Women grants. I am fighting for historic funding levels even within the stringent budget reality. I also provide strong investments in core VAWA programs including $189 million for STOP formula grants, which coordinates community response to domestic violence and also trains police, prosecutors and judicial staff; $25 million for sexual assault services that direct services for victims of rape; $25 million for transitional housing grants so victims have safe and affordable housing after shelters; and $50 million for Grants to Encourage Arrests, which teaches police and prosecutors how to support victims and ensure offender accountability. We know that VAWA works, so approving it should be a nobrainer. The Senate VAWA bill makes these improvements, and not just in the ways that get attention, but in ways which will make the difference in a victim's life. I fund this bill, its improvements are measures that I fully support, and I put money in the Federal checkbook each year to make sure VAWA is available to those who need it. Maryland has done such a good job, and I won't let the United States Congress fail these families in need. I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. If the Senator from Pennsylvania will withhold? After he speaks, the Senator from Montana will speak, and then may I be recognized on the Portman amendment? I ask unanimous consent I be recognized after the Senator from Montana.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I stand as the chair of the full Appropriations Committee to respond to two Portman amendments. I will comment on one and speak to the one related to automatic CRs, which is in the jurisdiction of the Appropriations Committee. First I will speak to the dollar-for-dollar cuts, which the Senator from Montana and chair of the Finance Committee spoke to. I want to say I absolutely support his position. As an appropriator, I agree with his arguments. The dollar-for-dollar cuts would make the Boehner rule permanent. It would raise the debt limit by mandating a $1 trillion cut in spending. This amendment could allow the minority of 41 Senators to dictate the fiscal policy to the majority. I also oppose the Portman amendment related to automatic continuing resolutions. What does the amendment do? It sounds good. I must say I have great admiration for the Senator from Ohio. He has a well-known reputation for working on a bipartisan basis. When he was in the House, he worked so well with my colleague Senator Cardin. I look forward to having these kinds of discussions and seeing how we can work out some of these issues. In listening to the debate, I think we are all in agreement of our goals, but we disagree on the means. As I read it, Senator Portman's amendment says if Congress fails to pass an appropriations bill or a continuing resolution related to it, instead of a government shutdown, automatically a continuing resolution would go into effect. Now that sounds good. However, there is an additional part that says every 3 or 4 months, if Congress fails to replace the CR, it would decrease agency funding by 1 percent across the board. That sounds pretty good too because, after all, what is 1 percent? Well, 1 percent compounded has Draconian results. This amendment would set up essentially the framework for many sequesters that would go into effect automatically if Congress doesn't pass the appropriations. I agree with the Senator from Ohio that we need to follow regular order, which means bringing up appropriations bills one by one, open, transparent, debatable. If you want to shave or save, offer amendments. If we had regular order, we would be able to pass our bills. We cannot have a situation in the Congress where we have not been able to bring up bills because of the filibusters and deleterious tactics of some Members, and then when we can't bring them up, we are punished for it. I oppose this amendment for three reasons. The amendment is the wrong solution, regular order is the solution. Mr. President, I note the absence of a quorum.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Is that okay with the Senator?

Ms. MIKULSKI. I thank the Senator for the courtesy. Both the Senator from Montana and I have been hit by this bug.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Little germs are doing to me what my opponents couldn't, which is stop me from talking. I thank the Senator for his courtesy. Mr. President, I oppose the Portman amendment related to automatic Continuing Resolutions with cuts if Congress does not pass appropriations bills. I acknowledge the legitimacy of his concerns, and I agree that we are all tired of governing from crisis to crisis. And I share his goal of keeping the government open so our Federal agencies can carry out their missions, and serve the American people. But I very much oppose this proposed solution. Now, what does the amendment do? It sounds good, and I must say, I have a great admiration for the Senator from Ohio. And he has a well- known reputation for working on a bipartisan basis. He has worked so well when he was in the House with my colleague, Senator Cardin. And I look forward to having these kinds of discussions and seeing how we can work out some of these issues. I think in listening to the debate, we all are in agreement of goals, but we disagree on means. His amendment, as I read it, says if Congress fails to pass an appropriations bill or a Continuing Resolution related to it, instead of a government shutdown, an automatic Continuing Resolution would go into effect. That sounds good. However, there's an additional part that says, after four months, if Congress fails to replace the Continuing Resolution, it would decrease agency funding by one percent across the board. Well, that sounds pretty good too. Because after all, what is one percent? Well, one percent every 90 days compounded has draconian results. This amendment would set up essentially the framework for mini- sequesters that would go into effect automatically if Congress doesn't pass appropriations bills. I oppose this amendment for three reasons. First, the amendment is a wolf in sheep's clothing. The amendment's stated purpose is to establish automatic Continuing Resolutions, but the amendment wouldn't just extend funding for government operations. It would also cut funding one percent across the board for every 90 days that Congress doesn't pass Appropriations bills or a Continuing Resolution. Mr. President, this amendment just creates a new crisis instead of providing confidence and clear direction. This type of robotic-cutting Continuing Resolution would add uncertainty to the operations of the Federal government. Second, this amendment is the wrong solution to a long-standing problem. A problem we have become too familiar with, and too comfortable with. I'm talking about not operating according to regular order. I agree with the gentleman from Ohio, we need to follow a regular order. Regular order means Congress receives the President's budget. Regular order means the Appropriations Committee holds hearings and marks up bills. Regular order means bringing up appropriations bills on the Senate floor, one by one, a process that is open, transparent, and allows debate. If a Member wants to save money or shave spending on these bills, that Member can offer amendments. If we had regular order, we would be able to pass our bills. The solution to the problem of governing from crisis to crisis, of avoiding Continuing Resolutions and government shutdowns, is not an automatic Continuing Resolution. The solution is to get back to regular order, where Congress makes smart decisions about where to make needed investments and where to cut. Permanent robotic-cutting Continuing Resolutions are not the solution. You have a situation in Congress where we haven't been able to bring up bills because of filibusters, and because of the dilatory tactics of some Members. We can't bring our bills up, and we're punished for it. There are those who have thrown sand in the gears of regular order by tying up appropriations bills with controversial riders and calls for draconian cuts, and then complain when we have to do Continuing Resolutions to keep the government working for the American people. They can't have it both ways. Regular order is the solution. Third, this amendment simply gives up Congress's Constitutional responsibility, the power of the purse. This amendment would put the government on auto-pilot for months, perhaps even years. In a divided Congress, it is hard to come to an agreement on spending. But every time we pass a Continuing Resolution, we are giving the executive branch more and more control over the federal budget. This means Congress gives up control to OMB and Cabinet officers. By not passing our bills, we weaken Congressional oversight. The Appropriations Committee is the only committee that reviews every spending account of every agency. The Committee digs down further than any other committee to make sure that agencies are not wasting taxpayer dollars. And when we find things that need to be fixed, we fix them in our bills. But if we can't get our bills to the President's desk, then our efforts at oversight are not realized. Mr. President, I agree with the Senator from Ohio that we should stop our dependence on Continuing Resolutions, especially long-term Continuing Resolutions. They are a terrible way to govern. It is time for us to show we can govern. The American people want to see us govern. We all need to work together in good faith and in a timely manner. This is what the Appropriations Committee does. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. Mr. President, I also oppose the amendment from the Senator from Ohio that demands a dollar in cuts for every dollar increase in the debt limit. Under this amendment, the debt limit could not be raised without spending cuts equal to the amount to be raised, unless the requirement is waved by a super-majority of 60 votes. This amendment would make the ``Boehner Rule'' permanent. The amendment means that in order to raise the debt limit by $1 trillion, Congress would need to cut $1 trillion in spending over the next ten years. This is a terrible amendment. The point has been made before, but I make it again. The debt limit is not about cutting spending, it is about paying for spending that Congress has already authorized. If enacted, the Portman amendment would require trillions and trillions of dollars in cuts to earned benefits programs over the next decade. Cuts to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, and all of our other mandatory programs. It would also squeeze discretionary spending, including defense, to the point where I doubt our agencies could carry out their most basic responsibilities. I remind my colleagues that under this amendment, if the Congress were to pass a tax cut, revenues would fall but spending would not. So the next year, when less revenue comes in, Congress would be forced to pay for the tax cut with equal spending cuts. If Congress passed another huge tax cut for the wealthy, like the Bush tax cuts, then Congress would have to cut programs for the middle class to pay for it. And I also remind my colleagues that if Congress passed emergency spending, like the Sandy bill, then guess what? Next year, Congress would have to find even more cuts to earned benefits or to discretionary spending to pay for that. The Senate has a history of always protecting the rights of the minority. But it is one thing to protect the interests of the minority party, and it is quite another to allow a minority of 41 Senators to dictate policy to the majority. By requiring an affirmative super- majority of 60 votes to raise the debt without draconian spending cuts, this amendment gives veto power to the minority over most fiscal decisions that the majority supports. Tax changes, spending, earned benefit reforms, Budget Resolutions, and even Reconciliation. That is simply not acceptable. Mr. President, the objective of this amendment is obvious to me. The American people do not support cuts to their earned benefits, to Social Security and Medicare. This amendment is a way to force huge cuts in these programs without ever having to justify them. I suggest that if Members want to cut a trillion dollars from Social Security over the next ten years, let them come down and offer an amendment that does just that. And if Members want to change the rules for Medicare, in order to remove Americans from eligibility for Medicare, or from Medicaid, let them come to the floor with legislation in hand to do just that. We're talking about trillions of dollars here. Chained CPI is not going to do it. Cuts to providers won't do it. And that's the problem. Cuts of this magnitude require immediate cuts to Social Security. And these cuts reduce the number of people helped by Medicare and Medicaid. And of course, they gut non-defense discretionary spending. And I say to my colleagues, if I'm overstating the case, I look forward to someone coming down here and offering legislation that saves trillions of dollars and doesn't do those things. We need to get our financial house in order. But we need a balanced solution, one that includes revenues, sensible reforms to earned benefits that save money but do not hurt the middle class, and spending cuts. This amendment could not be less balanced. This amendment is all cuts and no revenues, and contains not one specific policy that would save a single dollar. Tens of millions of middle class Americans work their whole lives, play by the rules, and pay their taxes every year so one day they can retire with some dignity and some security guaranteed to them. That's the promise this government made, and it's a promise the Congress needs to keep. With reforms to revenues and with reforms to our earned benefits programs. With frugality. With compromise. That's the solution to our fiscal challenges. Mr. President, this amendment would fundamentally rewrite the social compact between the government and its citizens. Without a single hearing. Without a single witness. This approach is unacceptable, and I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. I yield the floor.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, I oppose the amendment. It would trigger an automatic CR if Congress doesn't pass appropriations bills or a CR. I understand the Senator's goal, but I oppose the amendment for three reasons: One, the amendment is really about cutting; it is not about keeping the government open. It includes an automatic CR with a 1- percent cut every 90 days, which means it would be compounded--these would be compounded cuts by compounded interest--if the Congress does not pass an appropriations bill. So a cut every 90 days would be a 1- percent cut, and then the following 90 days another 1 percent. The amendment gives up Congress's constitutional responsibility. If we go on auto pilot, it gives the major power of the purse, which is mandated in the Constitution, to OMB and Cabinet officers--essentially nonelected political appointees. I don't think the Congress or the American people want to give the power of the purse to nonelected political appointees. Also, I agree we need to get back to regular order. Madam President, because I disagree with this amendment, I move to table the Portman amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, I rise to speak on the Paycheck Fairness Act. I would ask how much time is remaining.

Ms. MIKULSKI. I ask unanimous consent that we extend for another 15 minutes.