Barbara Mikulski

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I join with my House colleague from Baltimore, Congressman Elijah Cummings, to introduce the REBUILD Act. The people who live in our most distressed neighborhoods deserve a government on their side--one that works as hard for them as they work for their own families and communities. This bill is about rehabilitating neighborhoods, making them healthier and safer, and creating jobs today and jobs tomorrow for communities that need it most. By supporting small businesses, rebuilding infrastructure, expanding opportunity for our young people and tackling crime, we will lay the foundation for a brighter future. The REBUILD Act is an emergency supplemental bill for fiscal year 2015 to help inner-city neighborhoods across the United States. It focuses on four key areas: physical infrastructure, meeting compelling human needs, community safety, and assistance to small business owners. This bill provides robust funding for U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development programs that will remove blight, rehabilitate aging housing properties, including those with lead paint, and fund youth and senior centers. I especially want to highlight the Community Development Block Grant funding to help those communities most impacted by violence and civil unrest this year. That includes my hometown of Baltimore. This bill also extends the moving-to-work contracts through 2028. For meeting compelling human needs, this bill funds U.S. Department of Labor's job training and apprenticeship programs to help dislocated workers, veterans and youth make a living wage and learn new job skills. It also funds the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' Healthy Start Initiative. This program helps moms and infants get access to primary and preventative health care to reduce infant mortality rates. In the area of community safety, there is significant funding for targeted U.S. Department of Justice grant programs. This funding will help reduce youth violence, tackle crime hot spots controlled by gangs and rampant with gun violence, and reduce methamphetamine and heroin trafficking. There is additional funding for drug, mental health and veterans courts to break the cycle of drug use and criminal behavior. For our small business owners and entrepreneurs, this bill provides loans, grants, training and counseling services. There also is money to help underserved businesses with Federal contracting. Recent events like the riots in Baltimore remind us of the unmet needs of our Nation's inner city neighborhoods. We must do more. This means immediately getting to work on a sequel to the landmark Murray- Ryan budget deal to replace sequester. The impact of the status quo and deep cuts to our Federal programs on the mission to lift up these communities is unacceptable. The opportunity of the American Dream should be within every American's reach.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, this week, we commemorate the 50th anniversary of Medicare and Medicaid, programs that have made such a difference in the lives of so many. Upon signing these programs into law 50 years ago, then-President Lyndon Johnson reminded us of a shared tradition within our great Nation--one that ``calls upon us never to be indifferent toward despair . . . commands us never to turn away from helplessness . . . directs us never to ignore or to spurn those who suffer untended in a land that is bursting with abundance.'' That deep-seated tradition--to lend a hand to our neighbors and friends and to honor our mothers and fathers--is what guided Congress and country to do the right thing so many years ago. With the stroke of his pen, President Johnson, and all those who fought before and alongside him, made sure that there would be care for the sick and serenity for the fearful. I know just how important Medicare and Medicaid are for the people who rely upon them. In the 1960s, I was a young social worker in Baltimore for ``Operation REASON'' (Responding to the Elderly's Abilities & Sickness Otherwise Neglected). Our goal was to help Maryland seniors get the health care they needed. You have to remember, in those days, when you retired, you usually lost your health insurance, which meant that many seniors also lost access to their doctors and health care. More than half of America's seniors had no health insurance. This meant that middle-class seniors were a heart attack away from bankruptcy, a cancer diagnosis away from destitution. It didn't matter if you were a senior of modest means or middle-class. Everyone was vulnerable. But our job was to help. So, with teams led by social workers and nurses, we worked to help sick elderly people get health coverage and get to their doctor's office. We were focused on helping seniors who had neglected their chronic conditions because of inability to travel, ignorance of services available to them, fear of asserting their right to such services, or other barriers placed in their way. I saw firsthand how hard Baltimore's seniors were struggling. They were foregoing medical care because they didn't have insurance, because they couldn't afford the bills, or simply because they didn't have transportation to get to doctor's office or hospital. I knew Medicare and Medicaid could help these seniors and all seniors. So every single day I would go out to churches and senior citizen centers. I would inform people about their options, organize transportation for them, and help them fill out complicated forms. In those days, we didn't have computers or cell phones. We had to physically go meet seniors where they were. And it worked. After 4 months of operation, we had 103 clients with a variety of chronic diseases, and we helped them get the care they needed. And Congress took notice of what we were doing. In 1966, I was invited to come testify before Congress in the Senate Subcommittee on Aging, which was chaired by Senator Kennedy. We told the committee what we were doing, told them who we were fighting for. We were fighting for people in need, people who lived in unsafe housing, had inadequate diet and clothing, a dearth of recreational opportunities, who were lonely and were in need of health care. These people, our seniors and our families of modest means, were the reason Congress passed Medicare and Medicaid in the first place. And thank God we did. Today, 55 million Americans--nearly every senior--has access to Medicare's guarantee. An additional 68 million of our Nation's most vulnerable have health care coverage thanks to Medicaid. Because of Medicare and Medicaid, more Americans have health insurance. Before Medicare, 48 percent of seniors had no insurance. Today, only 2 percent of seniors are uninsured. Out of pocket costs have decreased. Before Medicare, seniors paid 56 percent of health care expenses out of pocket. Today, seniors only pay 13 percent. Life expectancy is longer. Medicare has contributed to a 5-year increase in life expectancy after age 65. Deaths from heart disease have dropped by a third for people over age 65. Our elderly's poverty rate has declined dramatically, from 29 percent in 1966 to 10 percent today. Seniors have more affordable drugs. Since 2010, over 8 million seniors have saved more than $11 billion on prescription drugs. Kids are getting comprehensive early childhood screenings, and 32 million children nationwide now get needed childhood screenings. In Maryland alone, Medicare ensures that 1 million Maryland seniors can get the health care they need at prices they can afford. And Medicaid ensures that 975,000 Marylanders can get the health care they need, including 478,000 Maryland kids--that is one in three of Maryland's children--149,000 Marylanders with disabilities, and 77,000 of our low-income seniors. Over the past half century, we have seen Medicare and Medicaid prolong and enhance the lives of millions of Americans. Ensuring access to health care for America's most vulnerable ranks as one of our Nation's greatest public health accomplishments. That is why I am committed to doing everything within my power to keep Medicare and Medicaid strong, so that these programs can continue helping those who rely on them today, as well as those who will need them tomorrow. That means fighting for reforms that keep Medicare solvent, as we did in the Affordable Care Act, where we extended Medicare's solvency by more than a decade. It means fighting for improvements that make Medicare stronger, as we did in the Affordable Care Act, where we closed the prescription drug ``donut hole,'' where we gave seniors free preventive services, where we put the focus on quality of care, not quantity of care. And it means fighting to protect these vital programs from those who want to turn them from a guarantee into a voucher and political promise, as Republicans have repeatedly tried to do in their budget proposals. Make no mistake, Republican proposals to privatize Medicare, to turn it into a voucher program, would end Medicare as we know it. I will not let that happen. I will fight side-by-side with those 1 million Maryland seniors and 55 million American seniors. We will fight to keep Medicare and Medicaid strong and healthy so that they can continue to provide for the health care needs of our citizens As you can see, there is a lot to celebrate as we mark Medicare and Medicaid's 50th anniversary. For the past five decades, these programs have accomplished their two main goals: ensuring access to health care for the elderly, for the disabled, and for those of modest means. And protecting people against the financial hardship of health care costs. I consider it a great honor and privilege that I have been able to devote so much of my career to protecting, improving, and fighting on behalf of Medicare and Medicaid and all the people served by these programs. From my days as a young social worker helping seniors and families get the health care they needed, to my days in the House and Senate fighting against efforts to privatize Medicare or block grant Medicaid, to those years spent working to refresh and improve these programs through the Affordable Care Act, including closing the ``donut hole,'' expanding Medicaid eligibility, and ensuring seniors could get free preventive screenings. I believe ``honor thy father and mother'' is a good commandment to live by and a good policy to govern by. That is why I have fought to save and strengthen Medicare and Medicaid to ensure that health care is affordable, accessible, reliable, and undeniable.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I support the reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank and support American manufacturing, because a country that doesn't make something can't make something of itself. I have seen everything manufactured in Maryland, from crab cakes on Kent Island and ice cream in Laurel to commercial truck engines in Hagerstown and unmanned aircraft in Hunt Valley. I have met with innovative manufacturers who credit the Export-Import Bank with helping them grow their businesses by exporting to new markets overseas. Through critical assistance, at no cost to taxpayers, these small and medium-sized businesses are able to sell American products around the world. I visit businesses all over Maryland. I have visited bakeries, microbreweries, factories of small machine tool companies. I visited Main Street, small streets, rural communities. And I have talked with business owners and their employees. These are ``good guy'' businesses. They work hard and play by the rules. They have jobs right here in the U.S. They want to expand. They want to hire. They need a government on their side and at their side. Some business owners I met with said that the secure financing at the Export-Import bank helped them strengthen their business and grow. Selling your products overseas isn't as simple as selling them locally. But getting secure credit insurance helped Maryland manufacturers that relied on cash-in-advance payments for exports expand their businesses by exporting to new markets. Other business owners I met with said that the Export-Import Bank was a lifeline during a difficult economy. They told me that they relied on private financing before 2008, but during the credit crisis even safe investments couldn't get help from the private sector. The Export- Import Bank helped them weather the storm. The Export-Import Bank provides critical direct loans and loan guarantees to foreign buyers of U.S.-made goods. The Export-Import Bank also provides working capital loans to small businesses that are exporting. And it provides insurance for exporters in case a foreign buyer fails to pay. In all these cases the bank is filling gaps in the private market. It is an important tool for U.S. companies that are seeking to compete with foreign firms, and those foreign firms often get aggressive trade financing support from their own national governments. On July 1, 2015, the authorization for the Export-Import Bank lapsed. Right now, the bank is unable to process applications or engage in new business. The bank cannot authorize any new transaction to do any new lending or help any businesses with any new exports. That puts American jobs at risk. American businesses and workers are missing new opportunities because they can't get the new financing they need to close the deal and make the sale abroad. A vote to support the Export-Import Bank is a vote to support American manufacturing jobs. Reauthorizing the Export-Import Bank means Maryland will be able to export more, manufacture more, and create more jobs. The Export-Import Bank helped over $27 billion in export sales in fiscal year 2014 and supported 164,000 jobs nationwide. Nearly 90 percent of the transactions done by the Export-Import Bank directly supported small businesses. From 2007 to 2015, the Export-Import Bank financed $2 billion in exports from Maryland. The Export-Import Bank is about helping Main Street. It is about helping the entrepreneurs with a dream in their heart, with a small business underway, with the grit and determination to be able to create a job for themselves and for others. I call upon my colleagues to think about where America is going in the 21st century. Where are we going to be? Are we going to create more opportunity? Are we going to create more jobs that pay good wages with good benefits? I am proud to stand firm in my commitment to manufacturing jobs from Hagerstown to Stevensville and from Baltimore to Easton.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, today I wish to talk about my reasons for voting against Senator Burr's amendment to change the title I formula and on cloture to cut off debate on the Every Child Achieves Act. The bill before us is not perfect, but it is a step in the right direction towards giving all kids a shot at quality education and fixing the failures of No Child Left Behind. I support a number of the provisions in this bill, including raising academic standards for students, supporting teachers with additional development tools, and providing resources to the lowest performing schools. However, the bill also includes an amendment offered by Senator Burr to change the title I formula, which would drastically and negatively affect Maryland. Every single school district in my State would have lost money. I could not let that happen. So I rolled up my sleeves and got to work. I formed a coalition with other Senators whose students--like mine--would lose under this amendment. The amendment was eventually changed. Now it says that any funds Congress appropriates for title I above $17 billion will be subject to a new formula. Since title I is currently funded at $14.5 billion, the new formula will not kick in at any time soon and Maryland won't lose any of its funds. I am happy that I saved Maryland from losing $40 million, but the language sets a terrible precedent. It penalizes States that do right by their students and their schools. As the Senator for Maryland, I can't support any formula that could cause Maryland to lose Federal dollars in the future--even one labeled a ``compromise.'' As vice chairwoman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, I cannot support any disincentive to fully fund title I when additional funds would harm Maryland. As long as this amendment is included, I cannot vote to move this bill forward and will vote no on cloture.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I am here today to stand up for Maryland and for all the students who could lose resources under an amendment offered by the Senator from North Carolina, Mr. Burr. There is much I admire about Senator Burr, but his current amendment would cause Maryland tremendous problems. The Burr amendment would punish States that make significant investments in those students who need extra help. This amendment would not do one thing to lift kids out of poverty or to close the achievement gap. In fact, it makes it worse. The so-called hold-harmless provision that is in the amendment does not hold Maryland harmless. It does not prevent any of the Maryland school districts from losing money. Under the Burr amendment, Maryland would lose $40 million. Let me repeat. Under the Burr amendment, Maryland would lose $40 million. Marylanders know that I have always been on the side of students, teachers, those who run programs, and the taxpayers who pay for them. We in America believe in public education, where one generation is willing to pay taxes to fund the education of the next generation. Title I in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act was created to lift children up and to close the education gap. Let me tell you what the Burr amendment would do. Right now, every county and Baltimore City would lose money. There are 24 school districts in Maryland, with 400,000 public school students. Mr. President, 170,000 students--or 45 percent of that population--are eligible for something called title I funding. If the Burr amendment passes, every single one of those boys and girls would lose academic resources they currently get. Let me give you the numbers: Baltimore City, 12 percent; Baltimore County, 23 percent; Garrett County in western Maryland, 20 percent; Somerset County on the Eastern Shore, 15 percent. From my students in urban schools in the Baltimore/Washington corridor to my rural schools in western Maryland and the Eastern Shore, every single one loses resources, and if you lose resources, you lose opportunity. If we believe in an opportunity ladder, then do not cut off the rungs. It is not the schools that lose, it is the kids who lose. They lose resources and they lose opportunities. I have heard from school superintendents across Maryland. They tell me the same thing over and over: Do not cut the money for title I. Dr. Henry Wagner, the superintendent in Dorchester County over on the Eastern Shore, says that the rural schools on the Eastern Shore would be impacted and that he would have to eliminate teaching positions, reduce reading and math services. And the very services to bring in parents would go by the wayside. Over in Washington County, the gateway to the Eastern Shore, Dr. Clayton Wilcox, the superintendent of Washington County schools, describes how a rural school would be harmed. In his letter in which he describes title I, he said: Senator Mikulski, title I resources ``have allowed us to create hope.'' He said: ``They have enabled us to provide extra instructional support in literacy and math--subjects that open up windows and doors often shut to [these boys and girls].'' Without title I dollars, Washington County would have to cut this instructional support in literacy and math. He writes: ``Senator Burr's amendment is bad for the children and young people of Maryland.'' It is bad for all of the children in Maryland. Baltimore City, where we certainly have had our share of problems lately, would be deeply cut. Right now, Baltimore City receives $50 million. It will lose 10 percent of that funding. Mr. President, $5 million in Baltimore right now sure means a lot. If we cut that money, we are going to shrink pre-K access. The afterschool and summer learning programs will go by the wayside. If they go by the wayside, you will not only have kids with time on their hands, but they will fall behind in reading, in the very things they had gained over the school year. And the professional development for teachers, especially those new teachers we were bringing in, will be eliminated. I am so proud that Maryland allocates more of its title I dollars to schools that need it the most. For example, 85 percent of students in Baltimore--those kids live in poverty. It has the lowest wealth per pupil in Maryland. So the State allocates more of its resources in this area. Maryland actually gets penalized under the Burr amendment for putting money where it will do the most good, and, in fact, Maryland gets penalized for making education a priority. Well, I thought we believed in State determination. If a State determines it is going to make a significant investment in public education and make the funding of the closing of the achievement gap a priority, why punish it for States that cut taxes, cut opportunity? And now we want to change the formula to reward their behavior when we should be rewarding the good behavior of States like my own. This amendment is bad for Maryland, it is bad for other States, and most of all it is bad for children. Mr. President, 58 percent of the students who benefit from title I funding will get fewer resources, less opportunity. Title I certainly does need to be reformed and refreshed. Senators Murray and Alexander should be congratulated in the way they led the committee through a civil, cogent process. But we cannot make changes based on the needs of a handful of States that essentially have penalized their own children. The last time the Congress reauthorized the Elementary and Secondary Education Act was in 2001. During that reauthorization, Congress clearly stated that it shall be a national priority that title I should be a priority. In that bill, Congress committed to steadily increase funding for title I. But Congress never fully funded the program. It never provided the adequate funds. In the major effort that was done just 2 weeks ago within the appropriations bill of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, Senator Murray offered an amendment to increase title I by $1 billion. Every single Republican on the committee voted against it. We cannot keep doing this. We need to fully fund title I. This is not about statistics. This is not about numbers. This is about human beings. The genius of America is that we believe--we believe--in the education of our people, that we truly believe that the way we lift all boats in our country is to have a public education system that works well and is funded adequately. We have had a formula that has worked for title I because it rewards those States that are willing to make public education and the next generation a priority. Let's keep the formula we have. Let's reform where we need to. And let's make sure that our focus is not on bottom lines but that more children get to the head of the class. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Thank you very much. Mr. President, first, I compliment the Senator from Connecticut on his initial statement related to student privacy. I think it is an essential element to clarify that privacy is meant to protect but not inadvertently inhibit our ability to give help to those who desperately need it. Certainly, I wish to associate myself with his remarks on doing something about the background check, the timely response. I think the massacre at Emanuel AME Church deeply troubled the Nation, and the very least that can come out of this is not only the flag coming down and all that meant, but other barriers to safety should come down as well. I want the Senator from Connecticut to know that he has my admiration and my support. Protecting Federal Employees Mr. President, while we are waiting for the vote, in approximately 15 minutes, I know Senator Kaine will be coming to the floor to talk about an important postsecondary education remediation reform, but I want to comment on the 21 million Federal employees whose personnel records have been hacked by--it looks like--a foreign government. I am not going to go into the who and the attributing of who did the hacking, but I do want to say that, first of all, those Federal employees need to feel they have a government on their side to now protect them. We should have protected them in the first place with the security of dot-gov and certainly our personnel records. Now, in addition to a bill I have introduced and cosponsored with my colleague from Maryland, Senator Cardin, where we have put in additional credit protection, credit monitoring, and liability protection, I have also sent a letter to the President today. The President of the United States is not only the Commander in Chief but he is the Chief Executive Officer of something called the U.S Government dot-gov, and therefore, OPM is his HR operation. With all due respect to our President, I have called upon him, on behalf of the 300,000 Federal employees and Federal retirees who I have in my State, that they take additional and immediate action to provide lifetime credit monitoring, lifetime credit protection and unlimited liability, and that we also get a new contractor. I know we want to get a new contractor that does security checks, but I want a new contractor that is supposed to be answering the phone. I want a new contractor answering the phone and responding to my Federal employees, and I have conveyed that to the new Acting Director of OPM, Beth Cobert. I think she has a lot of skill and a lot of knowledge. I know she comes to the White House from the private sector, McKinsey & Company, but I conveyed to her that it is outrageous what is happening to Federal employees. They try to call to get help to find out what has happened to them, and they are on the phone for 1 hour or 2 hours, and when they finally make contact, they get disconnected. These are our Federal employees, who we count on, many of whom to protect the Nation--many of whom to protect the Nation. Our cyber shield is down to protect them, and we are also not protecting them in terms of our response to our cyber shield being down. Who are these Federal employees in Maryland? Well, first of all, they are people who work at the National Institutes of Health trying to find cures from dreaded diseases and all of the laboratory staff and so on who support them. Or they are over at FDA or they are over at Goddard Space Flight Center helping to manage the Hubble telescope. In addition to that, we have people involved in and also who are direct hands-on with national security. Maryland is the home to many Foreign Service officers. They not only have the information about their own Social Security numbers and their own health information but that of their spouses and their minor children. We are also the home to the National Security Agency. Most of the National Security Agency is made up of civilian DOD personnel with the highest of security clearances. So my feeling is we have to get in there really quickly to protect them. We have to also do something about this contractor--that he ups his game or we tell him up and out. Up your game or up and out. The third thing is the President really needs to convene an all- hands-on-deck on how we are going to protect dot-gov in this country. There will be more to say about this bill and so on, but I see Senator Kaine is now on the floor to discuss and present his postsecondary remediation amendment, so I yield the floor.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I wish to honor the extraordinary Dr. William ``Brit'' Kirwan, who recently left the post of chancellor of the University System of Maryland, USM. Not only am I honored to know him professionally, I am proud to call him a dear friend. Dr. Kirwan will be greatly missed. He has devoted himself to higher education for the past 50 years. How amazing is that? Not only is he an accomplished individual, he also throws the coolest Derby parties. I love Dr. Kirwan, and I know Maryland loves Dr. Kirwan. Prior to becoming chancellor of USM, Dr. Kirwan served as president of the Ohio State University for 4 years. Before that, he served as president of the University of Maryland, College Park, UMCP, for 10 years. Before becoming president of UMCP, he was a member of the University of Maryland faculty for 24 years--where he served as an assistant professor, department chair and Provost. Until last month, Dr. Kirwan served as the chancellor of USM for 13 years. Under his leadership, USM roared into the 21st century. He led 11 universities, with more than 40,000 undergraduate and graduate students. He boosted graduation rates while winning lacrosse and basketball games. He made sure that no campus was left out or left behind. He made sure to support the University of Maryland flagship, our schools out in western Maryland and on the Eastern Shore--Frostburg and Salisbury--and our Historically Black Colleges and Universities, HBCUs. He also worked to make sure our professional schools in downtown Baltimore remained strong. In fact, downtown Baltimore has some of the best medical, law, nursing and social work schools in the world. Students knew they could count on Dr. Kirwan. He made college more affordable by freezing tuition for 4 years. Even faculty knew they could count on him. Dr. Kirwan has so many more accomplishments that it is difficult to know where to begin. Particularly, the accomplishments I am most proud of were the ones where we worked together. When Senator Alexander and I worked together on the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act in 2008, we looked at two things: how can we make sure young people get a quality and affordable education, and how can colleges and universities control their costs. What emerged was the recognition that we needed to do something about burdensome regulations. That is why Senator Alexander and I, along with Senators Bennet and Burr, created a task force to look at the issue of duplicative, burdensome higher education regulations. Because of Dr. Kirwan's wealth and knowledge of higher education, I knew he was the right man for the job to lead this particular task force. What he was able to accomplish is astounding. The task force, under his leadership, put together a comprehensive report that identified the 10 most onerous regulations institutions of higher education were faced with. The report also provided recommendations on what Congress and the administration could to streamline regulations. As a result of Dr. Kirwan's work, my colleagues in the Senate are using his recommendations to make sure our laws are about smart regulation, not strangulation. While being a national leader in futuristic things like cyber technology, training the next generation of cyber warriors, making our economy stronger and our country safer, Dr. Kirwan helped changed higher education. He helped change the world--literally changing the global economy. I would venture to say that we would not have Google if it were not for Dr. Kirwan. Now some of you may say: ``Senator Barb, where does this come from?'' Let me tell you a story. Dr. Kiwan, is not only an able chancellor, he really is a gifted mathematician. And in his work as a mathematician, he had the opportunity to travel to conferences around the world. At one of those conferences in the 1970s, Dr. Kirwan met someone from the Soviet Union by the name of Dr. Michael Brin. Then in 1974, Congress passed a little piece of legislation called Jackson-Vanik, which helped put pressure on the Soviet Union to remove its emigration restrictions. When this happened, Dr. Brin reached out to Dr. Kirwan and said: ``Do you think you can help me?'' And boy, did Dr. Kirwan help him out. Thanks to the work of Dr. Kirwan and the USM Board of Regents, not only could Dr. Brin get out of Russia, he was able to come to the University of Maryland. With him, Dr. Brin brought his son Sergey. Sergey was a brilliant little boy--some may even say a bit difficult. He was so smart that he was able to graduate from College Park in 1993 at the age of 17. From there, Sergey went on to Stanford where he worked out of one of those garages we all hear about. Well, the rest is history. Sergey Brin, of course, is Google. And had it not been for Dr. Kirwan meeting Dr. Brin, Congress doing Jackson- Vanik, the University of Maryland providing a home for Dr. Brin, we would not have Google. I think that is a fabulous story that shows what good immigration policy can do, and also what a gifted, talented, and dedicated humanitarian Dr. Kirwan is. Though he changed the world, what has never changed is the man himself. Dr. Kirwan is a man we admire, a man we respect, and a man we value. It is safe to say that Dr. Kirwan is a man we have such affection for, for his passion for education, for his deep concern and caring for our students. For Dr. Kirwan, it was never about building buildings, it was about building a future for our young people and for the great State of Maryland. Dr. Kirwan, there will never be enough ``thank yous'' in the world but: thank you, thank you, thank you for your determination and dedication to making Maryland a better place. We will all miss you dearly but wish you much success in your retirement.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I come here today to speak about the bill pending before us, the Every Child Achieves Act. This is the successor to the No Child Left Behind Act, which is the successor to the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Fifty years ago, in 1965, as part of Lyndon Johnson's wanting to end poverty in the United States of America and to lift people up, he asked Congress to pass the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. It was the first legislative act where the Federal Government was involved in education. Up until that time, education was thought of as the purview of the States and local districts. President Johnson agreed with that, as did the Congress, but at the same time they knew there were children living in the abysmal situation of poverty, and at a time of national prosperity he wanted to lift those children up. Great legislation passed during the next 50 years ago, such as Head Start, which continues to be a hallmark of early intervention to help our children. Of course, programs such as Medicare were also passed at that time. But it was the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, and particularly title I, that would bring additional Federal resources to our local communities. Again, this was focused on helping poor children close the achievement gap and giving them the ability to fully participate in our society. Well, that bill went on until 2001, when President Bush said he wanted to make sure that children were out of poverty. President George Bush said: I am a compassionate conservative. I am concerned about the soft bigotry of low expectations of poor children, particularly poor children of color, and we have to do something about it. That brought about the experiments that occurred in the States relating to metrics and so on for highly qualified teachers, using words such as ``evidence-based,'' and we passed No Child Left Behind. What happened, though, instead of helping poor children--we had many successes. We did face the fact that we did have low expectations. There was a soft bigotry. We agreed with the wonderful comments of Secretary Condoleezza Rice that were spoken at the Republican National Convention when she said that education is the civil rights issue of this time. Now, what do we have here? We have a bipartisan effort led by Senators Alexander and Murray to come up with yet one more reform of this historic legislative framework. I support their efforts. I want to salute their efforts. What they were able to do in this bill was to focus again on helping poor children achieve and supporting State and local governments not with intervention but with assistance in order to help. We do know that one of the legacies of having metrics was that we so regulated our teachers to make teaching almost inflexible, and we started to race for the tests instead of racing for the top. I believe the efforts of Senators Alexander and Murray deal with the mistakes of No Child Left Behind and move ahead to close that achievement gap. I support the general framework of this legislation. I am proud of the additions I have made to this bill, one of which was to really make sure there were allowable uses for something called wraparound or integrated services. While we insisted there be highly qualified teachers in the classroom, the teachers cannot deal with poverty. They cannot deal with the fact that 30 percent of our children who come to school every day are homeless. They have no home. The school is their educational home. They need a social worker. They need a school nurse. The mental health challenges of many of our children are astounding. So we were able to add that in. The other thing is we were overlooking a national treasure. I was a big supporter of something called the Javits bill. Senator Javits of New York many years ago realized we had an overlooked treasure in our communities, and it was the gifted and talented children, children who are of exceptional educational capacity. Again, coming back to the words of George Bush, there is that soft bigotry of low expectations. We often come with a latent bias that we don't believe poor children are smart. We don't believe--many times because of latent bias or overt bias--that they are capable of achieving. What I moved in this bill was, under title II, once again, acknowledgment that in poor schools with poor children, there are gifted and talented kids, many of whom have been identified by outstanding programs--in my own State, the Johns Hopkins school for gifted and talented children. We were able to put that in the bill. I look forward to moving this bill forward because I believe we support our teachers, we once again deal with low-performing schools, and at the same time we provide administrative and local flexibility so that we minimize national mandates and maximize local achievement. I salute Senators Murray and Alexander. I know there are some amendments which will be pending, such as Burr to title I, which I will oppose because every county in my State loses money and will lose up to $40 million. I note that the hour of noon is arriving and that a vote will soon be underway. I look forward to supporting the bill, provided that the Burr amendment is not included. I salute Senator Alexander for his leadership and for encouraging bipartisan participation. I thank Senator Murray for her leadership and for including so many of these important reforms in our bill. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to fast-track trade promotion authority. I am a blue-collar Senator. My heart and soul lies with blue-collar America. I spent most of my life in a blue-collar neighborhood. My mother and father owned a neighborhood grocery store and when Bethlehem Steel went on strike, my dad gave those workers credit. Blue-collar workers in the labor movement stood with me during my first campaign for the House in 1976. I wish there were more of them left to stand with me now, but the great manufacturing unions have been whittled away. On this fast-track trade vote, and in my last years in the Senate, I will continue to stand with the unions. Let me be very clear that I support and encourage trade. Trade is very important to my State. It is vital to The Port of Baltimore and Maryland's agricultural industries such as poultry on the Eastern Shore. In the past I have supported bilateral trade agreements. We have leverage in those situations to get strong enforceable labor and environmental provisions into those agreements. We can improve living standards and stop child labor in sweatshops. And Maryland workers can compete successfully in a global marketplace if they are given a level playing field. But I have always been suspicious of multilateral agreements such as NAFTA. I have seen too many of these big deals fail to deliver the promises of new jobs and businesses. Every time somebody talks about a big multilateral trade agreement that will provide a cornucopia of opportunity, we lose jobs in Baltimore. And my constituents in Dundalk don't have a steel industry anymore. They wonder why Congress didn't do more to protect them from the effects of trade. I believe that a renewal of fast-track trade authority for the Trans- Pacific Partnership and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership means more Americans will lose their jobs. We should use the leverage of our trade agreements to ensure fair competition. That means workers in other countries should have the right to organize into unions. Without the strength of collective bargaining, their wages will always be below ours. They should also have worker safety protection and retirement and health care benefits. We should use the leverage of our trade agreements to encourage countries to respect the basic human rights of their citizens. Everyone deserves the right to live in a healthy, clean, unpolluted environment. And every worker should be guaranteed fundamental rights at work. Why is the role of Congress so important in trade agreements? To make sure that the American people get a good deal. I am ready to support trade agreements that are good for America, good for workers, and good for the environment. Congress should consider trade legislation and amendments using the same procedures we use to consider other legislation. I have to base my decision on the facts and what I know to be true in my State. I know that proponents of fast-track say it is inevitable that there will be winners and losers. The problem with these big trade deals is that America's workers and their families always seem to be the losers. They lose their jobs. If they keep their jobs, or find new jobs, they lose the wage rates they have earned. Working people have faced the loss of jobs, lower wages, and a reduced standard of living, and a shrinking manufacturing base. I have to stand with my constituents who have felt repeatedly betrayed by the trade deals. I have to vote against fast-track trade authority.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I have introduced legislation along with Senator Cardin called the Building And Lifting Trust In order to Multiply Opportunities and Racial Equity, or the BALTIMORE Act. The people of Sandtown-Winchester, the people of Baltimore, and all Americans need to know they have a government on their side. Right now there is a trust gap between the people and the police department. Baltimore is my hometown. I have lived there all my life. But what happened in Baltimore earlier this year could have happened anywhere, in anyone's hometown. I don't want to see this happen anywhere else. Where there is broken trust, we must rebuild it. And where there is lost hope, we must restore it. That is why I joined Senator Cardin in introducing the BALTIMORE Act. This bill is a package of reforms intended to reestablish a sense of trust between communities and the police departments that protect them. First, the bill would ban discriminatory profiling by State and local law enforcement based on race, ethnicity, religion, or national origin. The bill makes sure that if police departments are receiving Federal funding, they are also adopting practices to cease the use of discriminatory profiling. It holds police departments accountable by requiring them to share officer training information, including how officers are trained in the use of force, racial and ethnic bias, de- escalating conflicts, and constructive engagement with the public. It also authorizes a grant program to assist local law enforcement agencies in purchasing body-worn cameras. We need to look at how our sentencing laws contribute to racial disparity in our justice system. That is why this bill would reclassify specific, low-level, non-violent drug possession felonies as misdemeanors. The bill also eliminates the distinction between crack and powder cocaine. Finally, the bill authorizes $200 million annually for the Department of Labor's Reentry Employment Opportunities Program through the Workforce Investment Opportunity Act. This is important funding to give people a hand up--not a hand out. It also encourages the White House to ``ban the box'' in the Federal contracting process. This would allow employers to eliminate questions about criminal convictions on initial job applications. Baltimore has begun to heal. We will come together as a community and a city to rebuild. But I do not want to see another great American hometown follow in Baltimore's footsteps. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I have introduced legislation along with Senator Cardin called the Building And Lifting Trust In order to Multiply Opportunities and Racial Equity, or the BALTIMORE Act. The people of Sandtown-Winchester, the people of Baltimore, and all Americans need to know they have a government on their side. Right now there is a trust gap between the people and the police department. Baltimore is my hometown. I have lived there all my life. But what happened in Baltimore earlier this year could have happened anywhere, in anyone's hometown. I don't want to see this happen anywhere else. Where there is broken trust, we must rebuild it. And where there is lost hope, we must restore it. That is why I joined Senator Cardin in introducing the BALTIMORE Act. This bill is a package of reforms intended to reestablish a sense of trust between communities and the police departments that protect them. First, the bill would ban discriminatory profiling by State and local law enforcement based on race, ethnicity, religion, or national origin. The bill makes sure that if police departments are receiving Federal funding, they are also adopting practices to cease the use of discriminatory profiling. It holds police departments accountable by requiring them to share officer training information, including how officers are trained in the use of force, racial and ethnic bias, de- escalating conflicts, and constructive engagement with the public. It also authorizes a grant program to assist local law enforcement agencies in purchasing body-worn cameras. We need to look at how our sentencing laws contribute to racial disparity in our justice system. That is why this bill would reclassify specific, low-level, non-violent drug possession felonies as misdemeanors. The bill also eliminates the distinction between crack and powder cocaine. Finally, the bill authorizes $200 million annually for the Department of Labor's Reentry Employment Opportunities Program through the Workforce Investment Opportunity Act. This is important funding to give people a hand up--not a hand out. It also encourages the White House to ``ban the box'' in the Federal contracting process. This would allow employers to eliminate questions about criminal convictions on initial job applications. Baltimore has begun to heal. We will come together as a community and a city to rebuild. But I do not want to see another great American hometown follow in Baltimore's footsteps. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to commend the honorable men and women in Maryland--including the 28,939 men and women on Active Duty, the 6,223 in the National Guard, our Reservists, and our civilian employees and contractors--who are serving our Nation. When I go around the State to bases such as Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Fort Meade, Fort Detrick, the U.S. Naval Academy, and others, I see the people who put their lives on the line every day to defend America. I support you. I am fighting to make sure you and your families have the resources you need, from equipment, to training, to fresh, healthy food at our commissaries. That is why today I voted against the final passage of the National Defense Authorization Act and the motion to proceed to the Defense appropriations bill. My vote was not a vote against our national defense; it was a vote for our national defense. It was a vote to end sequester and a vote for military readiness. How will voting against a funding bill help end sequester? Because it brings us to the table now--in June--to agree on how we are going to fund the vital programs that we all agree are necessary to protect our Nation. Not in September. Not in November. Not when another funding deadline looms or when there is a clock ticking until the government shuts down. We are going to address this now, so the Senate can do its job to support our troops, our military families, our veterans, and our national security. National security is more than the Department of Defense. We need diplomacy around the world to prevent conflicts when we can and end them once started. So we need our State Department. We need embassy security to keep our Foreign Service safe--and that is not funded by the Department of Defense. Our law enforcement agencies here at home also protect our national security. The FBI, tracking down ``lone wolf'' terrorists; the Coast Guard, protecting our coasts from smugglers and drug traffickers; Customs and Border Patrol; the Drug Enforcement Administration; Immigration and Customs Enforcement--all standing sentry to protect America. Yet none are funded by the Department of Defense. Nation states and organized crime are infiltrating our cyber networks, and we need the Department of Homeland Security, the FBI, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology to help us protect dot-com and dot-gov. Those key cyber warriors are not funded by the Department of Defense. Finally, we need troops ready for duty. Sadly, only one in four recruits can pass muster, many for lack of education or lack of physical fitness. We need great schools turning out great graduates ready to work. We need childhood nutrition to feed them healthy meals that build healthy bodies. But education and nutrition are not funded by the Department of Defense. In order make the Department of Defense successful, we need to stop hollowing out America. This means making sure our other agencies have the resources necessary to meet national security needs at home and abroad. However, the Republican Budget uses two sets of rules--first, pretend funding for basic, essential military operations--things that are supposed to be in the base budget--taken from the Overseas Contingency Operations, OCO, account that was created for funding wars. This gimmick allows $38 billion of extra defense spending by evading the budget caps. The second rule the Republicans are using is saying: We are going to apply the sequester budget constraints to the rest of the Federal agencies. That is not acceptable, but we can fix it. We need to end sequester for defense, without gimmicks, and we need to end sequester for the rest of our agencies. We need to make sure defense has the right resources, but we also need to make sure that the other agencies that protect our country and make it great and are not included in the Defense bill have the resources they need too. Today, I voted no to moving to the Defense appropriations bill, but that no is meant to speed up the process of getting a better outcome for our troops and our country. Many of my colleagues fail to mention that we in Congress can go through these motions: We can pass funding bills, go to conference, and send them to the President's desk. But that will do no good if the President vetoes these bills, which he has said he will do if they include budget gimmicks. I hope that after having this vote, our leadership will sit down and negotiate a new budget deal, now in June. We need to have a real solution for the budget constraints that impact all of our Federal agencies, so that our Nation can be protected and the government can serve the people. That is what the people deserve.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Thank you very much. Mr. President, standing here listening to the debate and discussion by colleagues on both sides of the aisle really makes the point that many of us are saying. We need a new budget agreement. We have people-- I think we all agree on both sides of the aisle that we need to defend America. There is no doubt about that. In order to do that, we need to look at national security both in its funding for the Department of Defense, but we also need to be looking at what are the components to national security. Many of the key agencies that are not in the Department of Defense are also important to the national security. Yet, at the same time, we have defense with this budget gimmick, and that is what it is. It is a budget gimmick to avoid the caps we have on spending on both defense and discretionary spending. What this bill is, is a gimmick to have the money through something called OCO, which was meant to be a specific expense for overseas contingency funds. It was meant to deal with specific wars. Now it has been plussed-up by several millions and millions of dollars to avoid the budget caps. This isn't a budget debate here. I will be saying more about it on the floor. But I just want to say to my colleagues, think about national security. Yes, we do need a strong national defense and we do need to support our troops and we do need to support our military families. We do need to support our troops. We do need to support our military families. That is what I am going to be elaborating on in a minute. But we also have to look at the other aspects. First of all, you need a State Department. Part of national security is diplomacy. You need a State Department. Second, in the State Department, you need Embassy security. If you don't want another Benghazi, you must put money in the Federal budget to make sure we have Embassy security. You have to fund the State Department. That is in discretionary funding. You do not like the cyber attacks? We are going to have meetings, and we are going to hold hearings, and--hoorah--all of the things we should have been doing 3 to 5 years ago but were stopped on this Senate floor because of concerns of the chamber of commerce that we would overregulate. We have a Department of Homeland Security. It needs to be funded. It is in discretionary spending. You want to have a cyber security workforce? Yes. They need to be trained at our great colleges and universities. We need a Department of Education with the Pell Grants and so on to be able to help our people get the jobs for the 21st century so they can do the type of work we are talking about we need them to do here. I could go through other agencies. I am not here to stand up for government agencies. I am here to stand up for America. I am here to say: Yes, we do need national security. We need to fund the Department of Defense, but we need to fund those other agencies and programs that are integral to national security. That is why I think we need a new budget agreement along the lines of Ryan- Murray, and we need to end the sequester. I hope--and I call upon leadership on both sides of the aisle but particularly on the other side of the aisle: Let's get to it now, sooner rather than later. I am the vice chair of the Appropriations Committee and am working very closely with my esteemed colleague, the senior Senator from Mississippi, on trying to bring bills to the floor, but we simply have to come up with a new agreement. So we will go through a lot of parliamentary motions and commotion, but I am not so sure we are going to get the locomotion we need to look out for America. We cannot let our military be hollowed out. We cannot let our country be hollowed out. We need to really move ahead with this new agreement, and a perfect example is why I come to the floor. All through this debate, I have heard that the most important tool to a strong military is the military themselves, the military and their families. Consistent through all, from both sides of the aisle, is that we must look out for our troops. Well, I could not agree with that more. Yet, what is it that we know in this bill, tucked away, is really an erosion of one of the key earned benefits our military and their families and the retirees have--commissaries. Commissaries. Commissaries have been around since the 19th century. They have been around since 1826. Military families have been able to shop at networks of stores that provide modestly priced goods--primarily groceries--to military families and to retirees. There are 246 of them, many in our own country, many overseas, many in our country where they are only place our military can go. There are those in some other countries where they are not even looked upon and welcomed in some of these countries, even though we are there. So what is in this bill? Two things: One, let's privatize the commissaries; the other is, let's cut their budget by $322 million. I am for saving money by eliminating Pentagon waste, but I will tell you that no money is wasted at a commissary. In fact, just the opposite happens. The commissaries are the most popular earned benefit the military has. Also, this is not Senator Barb talking; this is coming from the military themselves. If you listen to the National Military and Veterans Alliance, they say this: Commissary and exchanges are a vital part of pay and compensation. The military community greatly value these benefits. The proposed cuts would dismantle the commissary benefit relied upon by shortening hours and raising prices. When we look at commissaries, we know that people shop there, they save money, and at the same time they are also a major source of employment. What I want to do is work with my colleague, the Senator from Oklahoma, a member of the Armed Services Committee, Senator Jim Inhofe. It is his amendment. We want to prevent the commissary privatization pilot program. I also have an additional amendment. I would like to restore the $322 million in cuts to commissaries. We have an offset to be able to pay for it as well. The benefits of the commissaries are significant. That is why I want these two amendments to be offered. They feed our troops, they help military families stretch their budgets, and they provide jobs to military spouses and to military children old enough to work and military retirees. The military families tell me they get significant savings--sometimes as much as 30 percent--on their bill. For a family of four, that could be $4,500 per year. As I said, 60 percent of the commissary workers are spouses or retirees at these commissaries. DOD says we want commissaries to be more self-sustaining. They have proposed cuts of more than $1 billion through 2020. They are talking about, in fiscal year 2016, cutting $322 million. Next year, they want to cut $1 billion. And they also want to look at how to privatize. Joining with my colleague from Oklahoma, the distinguished senior Senator, Jim Inhofe--he has legislation to deal with the privatization. In this bill that is pending, they implement this commissary pilot plan. Well, we have heard that before. I think it is a plane without a pilot. But we do not even know if it is a good option. It was made up by Pentagon bean counters, Pentagon bean slicers who were told: Find savings. So they went after the commissaries. Well, the Senator from Oklahoma and I want to require the DOD and GAO to study the impact of privatization before a plan can be implemented. In other words, before you privatize, why don't you study the impact? The Senator from Oklahoma is proposing that this study be due in September so that we would be able to act appropriately in our appropriations. I support him in his amendment. I also am looking for support in the cuts to commissaries. Right now, proposed in both the authorization and then they tried it in our appropriations bill, is a cut in the appropriations by $322 million. This means hours would be cut, so instead of operating 7 days a week, they would be open 5. It would raise prices in many instances by as much as 25 percent. In far-flung places such as Hawaii or Alaska, prices could even go up by as much as 50 percent because of the formula being used. This is just not right. Of all of the places that we could save money, let's not go after commissaries. Let's not go after commissaries. They help military families and retirees stretch their budgets. For many of our young military, particularly the enlisted, the commissary is the place where they learn how to stretch their dollar. At the same time, it provides employment to military spouses, in some instances military children, and also to retirees. What is the problem here? We cannot get votes on our amendments. We cannot get a vote on the privatization issue proposed by the Senator from Oklahoma, and I cannot get a vote on my amendment to restore the $322 million. I know the leadership is now meeting on how to wrap up this bill. Well, I don't want to wrap up this bill. I think that what we need to do is to be able to vote on these two amendments. We have had all kinds of amendments. We had one on the sage-grouse. I know the sage-grouse is a protected species. As an appropriator, I had to deal with this as a rider on the appropriations bills. So I am not against the sage-grouse. I am not against talking about the sage-grouse. But why, with all of the problems facing America, do we need a sage-grouse amendment on defense when I cannot get a vote on protecting commissaries, protecting an earned benefit of our military, helping them stretch their dollar, and making sure some of them have a chance to work on a military base? Why can't I get an amendment? Why can't the distinguished Senator from Oklahoma get a vote on his amendment that would call for a halt to the privatization pilot until we get a study from GAO on impact? So you can stand up for the sage-grouse, but I will tell you that I am standing up for military families. I urge the leadership at the highest level and the leadership moving this authorization to give Inhofe-Mikulski privatization of commissaries a vote and give me a chance to offer my amendment. Let the Senate decide. Let's not have me stopped and stymied because of parliamentary procedure. You might say--and to everybody listening--well, Barbara, you are pretty outspoken. You are not shy. Why can't you offer your amendment? Under the rules of the body we are now operating under, I have to get consent. That means all 99 other Senators should not object to me offering an amendment. Well, I am stuck. So what I need is for the leadership to give me the consent to at least have my amendment discussed and debated in the light of day. I want to hear their justification why they have to go after commissaries. Let's stand united. Let's get a new budget agreement. Let me offer our amendment. We should not be fighting with each other over these things. Instead of going after commissaries, let's go after the bad guys in the world and let's do it in a united way. I yield the floor.

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

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I am speaking on an amendment that the Senate will be voting on shortly, the Inhofe-Mikulski amendment. Really, the amendment was led by the distinguished Senator from Oklahoma, Mr. Inhofe. This is really about commissaries. We are here ready to vote on the Department of Defense authorization. We want to stand up for our troops. One of the most important things we can do is to stand up for their families. Senator Inhofe and I are deeply concerned that DOD has the misguided viewpoint that shrinking or eliminating or privatizing the commissaries will save money for the U.S. Department of Defense. We do not even know what the impact of that will be. Senator Inhofe, with my encouragement and support, wants to have an amendment that would actually look at the impact of privatization and a private program to do so. So I want my side of the aisle to know we stand shoulder to shoulder on this. The Senator from Oklahoma has done an outstanding job as always in standing up for the troops and their very important benefits. I note that he is on the floor. I ask that when the rollcall is called, we support the Inhofe-Mikulski amendment.

Ms. MIKULSKI

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

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I was first going to offer an amendment, but both the chairman and ranking member of the committee suggested that I wait until after they have had a chance to review some of the technical details. So I will speak on an amendment that I will in all probability offer at a later time. My amendment really goes to how we make sure we help our troops with the many stresses that are in their lives. My goal is to add money to funding our commissaries. This amendment, which I will offer at a later time, restores $322 million in cuts to commissaries proposed by the Department of Defense. It would authorize $1.4 billion in funding--the same level that is in the House National Defense Authorization Act and in the House Defense appropriations bill. It offsets the $322 million for commissaries by reducing the Pentagon's budget in failed policies to buy spare parts. They have a lot of waste there, and we think we can find the $322 million we need there, and that is the technical issue we need to work, also known as the offset. But what is not technical is the fact that we have to make sure our commissaries function at their current level. Commissaries represent one of the most significant and lasting benefits for military members and their families. Commissaries have been around since 1826, giving military families the ability to shop at a network of stores. The commissary system is simple. If you are Active Duty, Reserve, National Guard, or a retired member of the family, you have access to 246 commissaries worldwide. They are particularly important to many of our troops overseas, and they give military families affordable access to healthy foods. The benefits of commissaries are significant. They feed those people who are actually members of our military. They help military families stretch their budgets, and they also help provide jobs to family members in the military who work in those commissaries. Our distinguished colleagues on the authorizing committee, Senator McCain and Senator Jack Reed, are themselves military men. Senator McCain is a graduate of the Naval Academy and Senator Jack Reed graduated from West Point. They know that one of the big expenditures right now for our military is rising health costs. The military itself is looking at how to make sure they keep our troops healthy not only while they are doing their job but also how to keep them healthy so that when they move on, they will be in excellent shape. The commissaries do those kinds of things. They provide what grocery stores provide--fresh fruits and vegetables. They provide healthy foods. Also, for example, my own commissary at Fort Meade, which is part of the Healthy Base Initiative, has shown people how to stretch their dollar more so they can get more for their family budget and also has actual recommendations on how to add nutrition--save money and add nutrition. If we want to bend the health care cost curve, while we are looking at important medical research, research shows that good food leads to good health. The other thing is this: Military members get a significant savings from commissaries. The average savings is about 30 percent on a grocery bill. For a family of four, that comes to over $4,000 a year. Everyone knows how much military families are stretched, and for our men and women who are enlisted, this is a really big deal. We need to make this available for them. What many people don't realize is that the commissaries not only create jobs, but 60 percent of commissary workers are spouses of men who serve in the military. About 100,000 jobs are supported through commissaries. The other thing the DOD wants to do is cut their hours. Well, if they cut their hours, that does cut jobs, but it also cuts opportunity. When you are in the military, you work around the clock. You are not on the clock; you work around the clock. So if you are a military police officer, you could be getting off of duty late at night. If you are someone who repairs our helicopters or airplanes, you could be getting off at night. The commissary at Fort Meade serves agencies such as the National Security Agency. They essentially work a 36-hour day. They work around the clock, 24 hours a day. Our commissary isn't open 24 hours a day, but I can tell you it can't be open from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. and still meet the needs of our military workforce. The Department of Defense wants to make the commissaries more self- sustaining, and we don't argue with that. We can always find efficiencies and look at new ways to do things. But don't cut $322 million and further cut it close to $1 billion over the next 4 years. What we want to do is make sure our military families have what they need. First of all, we want them to have good food. We want them to be able to go to these commissaries at hours that work for military families. We also want to look at the long-range effects of bending the health care curve. I am going to come back to the commissary at Fort Meade. I am very proud of the fact that Fort Meade is what we call a compassionate post. That means if you are in the U.S. Army and you have a special needs child, one of the highly desirable places to be based is at Fort Meade. Why? Because Anne Arundel County has one of the best programs for special education in the State and in the country. You also have access to Kennedy Krieger, which is one of the internationally iconic agencies that address the needs of children with not only special needs but multiple special needs. We are very happy that Fort Meade is in Maryland and that it is known as a compassionate post. But think of those families who have a child with cerebral palsy or multiple complications that might even require the child to constantly need a respirator. All of these things go on along with the stress of being a military family. We can certainly keep the commissaries open so that they can get the food they need for their families and have the commissaries open during the hours that work for them. This is what real life in the military is. After Desert Storm, I remember when the Appropriations Committee met under the leadership of Senator Byrd and Senator Ted Steven. They asked General Schwarzkopf what he needed in an after-action report. He said: We need better intelligence. And we worked really hard to upgrade to where we are. He also said: We need better food. We need better food for our troops, and people need to believe their families are being taken care of while they are in harm's way. We ask a lot from our military, and our military families are now asking us: Don't cut the commissaries. Keep them open. Keep them affordable. Keep them available. Once we clarify the technicalities of the offset, which is required, I will come back and offer my amendment, which I hope will pass the Senate with a 100-to-0 vote. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, today I rise in support of the amendment offered by the Senator from Rhode Island, Mr. Reed. Characteristic of him, it is a thoughtful solution to a very serious problem related to the funding of our national security needs. I would like to support and salute Senator Reed for his outstanding job. Many don't realize that Senator Jack Reed is a graduate of West Point. He served in the U.S. military, bringing that breadth of his considerable background to additional public service, both in the House and now in the Senate. He is the ranking member on the defense authorization committee and also serves in great capacity on the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee. Now, let us talk about the Reed amendment and the funding for the Department of Defense. I want to be very clear. I do want to support funding for the national security of the United States of America. We take an oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic, and we must uphold that oath not only with lip service but with real money in the real Federal checkbook. We need to do it in a way that doesn't use gimmicks or smoke and mirrors to end sequester or to finesse or do a shell deal behind the budget caps. Remember, we passed a bill that does have significant budget caps. But the way to deal with that problem is not to cap the Department of Defense but to be honest about what it takes to fund national security. The Reed amendment does that. It makes clear that the Department of Defense should receive $38 billion, but in its base budget to take care of the troops, to protect the troops while they protect us, to make sure they have the right gear, the right equipment, the right technology, and also the right intelligence to be able to do their job. The Reed amendment also looks out for military families. It does what we need to do. Only when there is a new budget agreement that increases the defense budget as well as the budget for domestic programs will we be able to solve the problem that is facing us. Now, what our generals have told us is we cannot meet our defense needs with the current budget caps. They also say: Senator--this is General Dempsey, and this is General Odierno, who spoke so well at the funeral of the Vice President's son on Saturday; these men have devoted their lives to the defense of our country and to have the best military in the world--don't give us sequester. Instead of figuring out how to fight terrorism, we have to figure out how to fight the stupidity of Congress. Now, they do not use those words; I am using those words. When we instituted sequester, it was a technique to force us to make the tough decisions. We keep hiding behind the technique. We need to change that. The bill we have now raises funding for something called the overseas contingency fund by $38 billion, but it uses it to fund activities that should be in the base bill rather than the war cost it was intended for. Essentially, it is a budget gimmick. What is the overseas contingency fund? It was meant to be a line item where we could actually see what war costs us. In Afghanistan and Iraq it was kind of commingled through a lot of the other items related to defense, but we didn't know the actual cost of the war. OCO is meant for war. It is not meant to be a way to avoid the budget caps. Instead of just raising the caps and funding DOD at the needed level, this bill uses this gimmick, so nothing about it is really in the national interest. Our military leaders tell us: No. 1, get rid of sequester. No. 2, you must increase the base bill. Defense budgeting cannot be done on a year-to-year basis. It must be multiyear because it is for the planning of procurement for them to have the best weapons systems. It is recruitment and training and sustaining of the military and their personnel needs. Defense Secretary Ash Carter said: ``Our defense industry partners, too, need stability and longer-term plans, not end-of-year crises.'' GEN Dan Allyn, Army Vice Chief of Staff, said: ``OCO does not give you the predictable funding to be able to plan the force we are going to need.'' I want to make another point. The defense of the United States doesn't lie only with DOD. That is our warfighting machine. But we have other programs that are related to national security that come out of domestic discretionary spending that are shortchanged and are shrinking and, quite frankly, I am concerned about it. What am I talking about? In order to have national security, you need to have a State Department. You need to have a State Department to do the kind of work that involves diplomacy. That involves working with nations around the world and the needs of these nations and also to engage in important negotiations such as we have now ongoing on the Iran nuclear. That is not done by generals. That is done by diplomats. You need to have a Department of State. Look at what happened in Benghazi, where there is so much focus on this. While they are focusing--and we should focus--on Benghazi, we appropriators are focusing on embassy security. Embassy security is funded through the Department of State and funded by discretionary spending. If you want to protect Americans overseas, you have to have embassy security. You have to have a Department of State. Then we have the Department of Homeland Security. Look at all the cyber attacks on us right at this minute. We need to have a cyber component to defense, but we need to have the cyber defense strategy at the Department of Homeland Security. Even our military is being hacked. Insurance programs are being hacked. People in the United States are having important information about their health records, their Social Security numbers, and so on being stolen. We need to have a robust Department of Homeland Security. They have a program called Einstein that is supposed to do it, but we don't have to be Einsteins to know that in order to protect America we also have to protect the Department of Homeland Security. Then of course there are the promises made and promises kept. There is the Subcommittee on Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies. We must fund our promises made to our veterans. That is out of discretionary spending. That is not out of defense. But the infrastructure for our military, our military bases here in our own country, come out of military construction. I don't want to sound as if I am defending government programs. That is not what I am here to do. I am here to defend the Nation and defend it the right way. We need to be able to put money in the Federal checkbook that funds our Department of Defense without gimmicks, without sleight of hand, without finessing or playing dodge ball. We have to play hard ball with the terrorists and others who have predatory intent against the United States. We have to be Team U.S.A. not only on the sports field but on this playing field right here on the floor of Congress. Let us work together. Let us get a new budget agreement. Let us solve the problems. Let us end sequester. Let us work together to be able to do it. I believe a big step forward would be supporting the amendment offered by the Senator from Rhode Island, Mr. Reed. I ask, in the interest of national security, that we vote for the Reed amendment and that we go to the budget. Let's go to the negotiating table and come up with a real framework to fund the compelling needs of our Nation, and let's do it, Team U.S.A. I yield the floor.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, I rise to speak about where we are as we debate the various aspects of the USA FREEDOM Act. However, before I proceed with my statement on the current issue before the Senate, I really wish to note the very sad passing of our Vice President's son, Beau Biden, who passed away at age 46 of brain cancer. Of course, the world knows this now because of the news announcement. Standing on the Senate floor, where I served with the Vice President when he was a U.S. Senator, I just personally want to express my condolences to him on behalf of myself, his friend in the U.S. Senate and his colleague on so many issues, as well as the people of Maryland. Once the news broke over the weekend, many people asked me in my home State: Did you know him? Had you ever met him? There is just a general outpouring of sadness for his family, his wife, his two children, and, of course, the Vice President and his stepmother Jill. So, Mr. Vice President, if you have the opportunity to listen, know that the U.S. Senate is sending our thoughts and our prayers to you during this difficult time. Madam President, I wish to speak now about where we are in terms of our parliamentary situation. Once again, here we are in the Senate where, when all is said and done, more is getting said than is getting done. I am a very strong proponent of the oath I took to defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies. By that I mean we have to be able to protect this country. We need to have a sense of urgency about it. I am not only disappointed, I am deeply, deeply, deeply frustrated that the key authorities of the PATRIOT Act expired last night, when we had a path forward on legislation that would be constitutionally sound, would be legal, and would be authorized. But what did we do? We got ourselves into a parliamentary quagmire with the filibuster of one individual, which now has left us exposed in the world's eyes. Major authorities were given to our intelligence community to be able to pursue the surveillance of potential terrorists, and they have expired. Those authorities included ``lone wolf,'' the roving wiretap, and some other aspects involving surveillance, and we have just let them expire at midnight. Right now, I hope we do what we can to pass the USA FREEDOM Act without delay. We need to get these authorities restored. Do we need reform? Absolutely. But let's not delay. Let's get it going. Others are going to speak later on today on the merits of the USA FREEDOM Act. I believe it is our best opportunity to protect the Nation, while balancing privacy and constitutionally approved surveillance. I do support reforming the PATRIOT Act, but I don't support unilateral disarmament. I don't want to throw the PATRIOT Act away. I don't want to throw away our ability to place potential terrorists under surveillance. I don't want to give in under the guise of some false pretense about privacy where we say, Well, gee, I worry about my privacy, so the terrorists don't need to worry about us being able to pursue them. Our Nation needs to know that when bad guys with predatory intent are plotting against the United States of America, we are going to know about it and we are going to stop it. We are going to know about it because we have the legal authority to track them, put them under surveillance, and we are going to stop them before they do very bad things to our country. The purpose of my comments today is to stand up not only for the ability to have a law but also for the men and women who are working for the intel agencies--for the people who work at the National Security Agency in my own State, the FBI, and other agencies within our intel community who are essential to protecting our country against terrorist attacks, whether it is a ``lone wolf'' or State-sponsored terrorism. These dedicated, patriotic, intelligence professionals want to operate under a rule of law. They want to operate under a rule of law that is constitutional, that is legal, and that is authorized by the U.S. Congress. They are ready to do their job, but they are wondering when we are going to do our job. Congress needs to pass a bill, as promptly as it can, that is constitutional, legal, and authorized. We on the Intelligence Committee have worked long and hard on such a legislative framework. We have cooperated with members of the Judiciary Committee, including Senators Grassley of Iowa and Leahy of Vermont, who have also worked on this. We worked together putting our best ideas forward, doing the targeted reform that was essential, not pursuing unilateral disarmament, and we now have legislation called the USA FREEDOM Act. Is it a perfect bill? No, it is not perfect, but it is constitutional. If we pass it, it will be legal, and it will be authorized. I know the Presiding Officer is a military veteran and I support her for her service. The Presiding Officer knows what it is like when people try to trash America. Ever since Eric Snowden made his allegations, the wrong people have been vilified. The men and women of our intelligence agencies have been vilified as if they were the enemy or the bad guys. I have the great honor to be able to represent the men and women who work at the National Security Agency and some other key intelligence agencies located in my State. They work a 36-hour day. Many times they have worked a 10-day week. When others have been eating turkey or acting like turkeys, they were on their job, doing their job, trying to protect America. Let me tell my colleagues, these people who work for the National Security Agency, for the FBI, and other intelligence agencies are patriots. They are deserving of our respect, and one way to respect them is to pass the law under which they can then operate in a way that is again appropriate. At times, these men and women, ever since Eric Snowden, have been wrongly vilified by those who don't bother to inform themselves about national security structures and the vital functions they perform. Good one-liners and snarky comments have been the order of the day. Now, the National Security Agency is located in my State, but I am not here because it is in my State. I am here because it is located in the United States of America. Thousands of men and women serve in silence without public accolades, protecting us from cyber attacks, against terrorist attacks, as well as supporting our war fighters. I wish the Presiding Officer would have the opportunity to come with me to meet them sometime. They are linguists. They are Ph.D.s. the National Security Agency is the largest employer of mathematicians in America. They are the cyber geeks. Many of them are whiz kids. They are the treasured human capital of this Nation. If they had chosen to go to work in dot-com agencies, they would have stock options and time off and financial rewards far beyond what government service can offer. We need to be able to support them, again, by providing them with the legal authority necessary. Remember, that section 215 is such a small aspect of what these intelligence agencies do as they stand sentry in cyber space protecting us. People act as though that is all NSA does. They haven't even bothered to educate themselves as to the legality and constitutionality of where we are. Now, let's say where we are and let's say where we have been. Much has been said about the PATRIOT Act. It has been sharply criticized. There has been no doubt that it does require reform. That is why the Congress, in its wisdom, when it passed the bill right after 9/11, put in the safeguard of periodic sunsets so we could take a breather and reexamine the law to make sure what we did was appropriate and necessary. Congress did pass the PATRIOT Act so the men and women at the intelligence agencies worked under what they thought was the rule of law that Congress supported. President George Bush also told us and his legal advisors told us that it was constitutional, so people believed it. Those men and women at the intelligence agencies thought they were working under legislation that was constitutional, legal, and authorized because we passed it. Well, now others say it wasn't. Others even want to filibuster about it. They want to quote the Founding Fathers. Well, I don't know about the Founding Fathers, but I know what the ``founding mothers'' would have said. The ``founding mothers'' would have said get off the dime and let's pass this legislation. We do need good intelligence in a world of ISIL, al-Nusra Front, and Al Qaeda. NSA is one of our key agencies on the frontline of defense, and the people of the National Security Agency make up the frontline. As they looked at audits, checks and balances, and oversight, there was no evidence ever of any abuse of inappropriate surveillance on American citizens. We need to know that and we need to recognize that. Those employees thought they were implementing a law, but some in the media-- and even some in this body--have made them feel as though they were the wrongdoers. I find this insulting and demeaning. The morale at the National Security Agency was devastated for a long time. People were vilified, families were harassed for even working at the NSA, and, in some instances, I heard even their children were bullied in school. This isn't the way it should be. They thought they were patriots working for America. When the actions of our own government have placed these workers where they feel under attack--they were attacked by sequester and they felt under attack by a government shutdown because many of them were civilian employees at DOD--they were not paid--and now Congress's failure to reform national security has further then said: We can take our time. What you are doing is important, but we have to talk some more. Gee, we have to talk some more. What do you mean we have to talk some more? The only person in the Chamber is my very distinguished colleague, the distinguished colleague from Indiana, whom I work with in such a wonderfully cooperative way on the Intelligence Committee. You know we are not bipartisan, we are nonpartisan for the good of the country. Where is everybody who wanted to speak? Do we see 10, 20, 30, 40, 50 Senators lined up waiting to speak? No. We have to kill time. I don't want to kill time. I am afraid Americans will be killed. We have to get on this legislation and we have to get our act together and we have to pass it. I want the people to know we cannot let them down by our failure to act and to act promptly. I come to the floor to say let's pass the USA FREEDOM Act and let's do it as soon as we can. I know a vote has been set for 11 o'clock tomorrow. That means that it will be almost 35 or 36 hours since the authorities expired, and then it has to go over to the House. So let's move it and let's keep our country safe and let's get our self-respect back. For those who looked at our country, there were three attitudes toward America: One was great respect for who we are, our rule of law; the other was our fear, because we were once the arsenal of democracy; and, third, the yearning to be in a country that worked under a Constitution, a Congress that worked to solve the problems of our Nation. Can we get back to that? I know the Presiding Officer wants to get back to that. I know my colleague here wants to be part of that. Let's get back together, where shoulder to shoulder we shoulder our responsibilities, pass the legislation we need to, protect our country, respect the men and women who work there, and say to any foe in the world that the United States of America stands united and is willing to protect us, and to the men and women who work for us in national security, we will support you by passing legislation promptly that is constitutional, legal, and authorized. Madam President, I yield the floor.

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

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I am back here during an unprecedented Sunday session hoping we can avoid a totally unnecessary disaster tonight; hoping we will do what is right for the country: Pass the USA FREEDOM Act today. Right now. I will let others speak to the merits of the USA FREEDOM Act. It is our best opportunity to protect the Nation while balancing between privacy and constitutional surveillance. I do support reforming the Patriot Act, but I do not support unilateral disarmament of our Nation's need to know what bad guys with predatory intent are planning against the United States of America. But my comments today are not about standing up for the USA FREEDOM Act. I am here to stand up for the men and women working for the NSA, FBI, and other intelligence agencies essential to protecting our country against terrorist attacks--whether it is a ``lone wolf'' or state sponsored. These dedicated, patriotic intelligence professionals want to operate under rule of law that is constitutional, legal, and authorized. They are ready to do their jobs, but Congress needs to do our job and pass a bill that is constitutional, legal, and authorized. Ever since Edward Snowden made his allegations, the men and women of our intelligence agencies have been vilified as if they were the enemy. They thought they were doing their jobs protecting us against the enemy. Let me tell you--the men and women of the NSA, FBI, and our other intelligence agencies are patriots who have been wrongly vilified by those who don't bother to inform themselves about our national security structures and the vital functions they perform. Now a special word about the NSA, which is headquartered in my home State of Maryland. The 30,000 men and women in the NSA serve in silence--without public accolades. They protect us from cyber attacks. They protect us against terrorist attacks. They support our warfighters. They are Ph.D.'s and scientists. They are linguists, cyber geeks, and whiz kids--the treasured human capital of this Nation. Remember that section 215 is such a small aspect of what the NSA, FBI, and other intelligence agencies do as they stand sentry in cyber space stopping attacks. People act like that is all NSA does. They haven't even bothered to educate themselves as to legality and constitutionality. Congress passed the Patriot Act. President George W. Bush told us it was constitutional. We need good intelligence. In a world of ISIL, Nusra Front, and al Qaeda, the NSA is our front line of defense and the people of NSA make up that front line. There is no evidence of abuse by NSA employees. The men and women of NSA have adhered to the law. They have submitted to oversight, audits, checks and balances, and reviews from Congress and the courts. The employees of NSA know that everything has to be constitutional, legal, and authorized. They thought they were implementing the law, but some in the media and even some in this body have made them feel like they were wrongdoers. I find this infuriating and insulting. Morale has been devastated at NSA. Families have been harassed for working at the NSA and their kids are bullied at school. They have also been devastated by actions of their own government. First, by sequester--then, by the government shutdown. Now, by Congress's failure to reform national security authorities that help them keep our country safe. It is wrong. I want people to remember that tonight as we discuss important reforms. Let us not let them down, once again, with our own failure to act.

Ms. MIKULSKI

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

Ms. MIKULSKI

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

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I wanted to speak earlier because I wanted to encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to come to a resolution on this problem. We cannot let this country go dark in terms of its ability to do its duty to defend the United States of America. We have to get off of what we are doing here and start getting down to the business of what we need to do. I have to believe that tonight the world is watching us and they are saying: There goes the United States Senate, and there they go home, ha, ha, ha. They have a program that someone tried to render helpless in terms of our ability to protect ourselves. Edward Snowden literally tried to disgrace the United States. Now here we are working on a program that went through the respective committees, that has the sound and sensible solution, and we have rejected it. I am not here to talk about the program, but I will tell you whom I am ready to talk about--the thousands and thousands and thousands of people who work at the National Security Agency, and I want to talk about what they go through every day. They are out there working a 36- hour day trying to defend the United States of America, and they want to work under a law that is constitutional, is legal, is authorized, so they can do the necessary work to defend the United States of America. They thought they were doing that under the old FISA bill. They thought they were doing that. They were proud of what they were doing. They mustered everything they could give to this country. Then along comes Eric Snowden. Then along come the leaks. Then along comes the pontificating about ``My, my, my, we have to worry about privacy.'' I worry about privacy, too, but I also worry about the safety and security of the United States of America. And I watched the Nation vilify the men and women who work at this Agency. So now, as we work under the current law--which will expire; make no mistake, it will expire--we don't have it together to pass a new law. So they have been vilified for what they have done. They have been vilified for what they have done, in many instances attacked by their neighbors, their children picked on and bullied because their parents work at this Agency. Morale was at a low ebb. Finally, now we are trying to deal with and cope with that. They are proud of their work. And what are we doing? We can't even pass a law. We can't even pass a law. I think that is absolutely outrageous. I am so sorry we are going home. I am so sorry we are going home. So now we will come back next Sunday. I really urge those people--who I know are of good will and well-intentioned--to really work to find a way that when we come back next Sunday, we will be able to vote and move forward and not end up in this ongoing parliamentary quagmire. I worry about our country, and I worry about our ability to govern. This is as serious as it gets. What is the role of a National Security Agency? To be able to operate and function in a way that is constitutional, legal, authorized, and obviously of necessity. So I really feel very strongly about this. And I have watched all this go back and forth. So we spent hours and days and days and days on all of these amendments on trade. That is good. I am glad we did it. But I am not glad we took that long. We had this bill. We knew we had this bill. We waited until the last minute. We got ourselves into a jackpot. Now we really have to find our way out. I just cannot speak more forcibly and enough about this. Well, I will have more to say next week. But I really urge others to do their very best. I know there are people here, such as my colleague Senator Feinstein and others, who have worked on this. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.