Barbara Mikulski

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Would the Senator from Maine like to have 1 minute to conclude?

Ms. MIKULSKI. I yield back.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I want the Senator to know our side does support the Second Amendment, but we support all of the amendments of the Constitution--not just one. One of those is the right to speech, and implicit in that is maybe to get a real vote on real substance. I yield to the Senator from North Dakota to far more articulate the substance. Let's not only support the Constitution but the oath we took to defend all people against enemies, foreign and domestic, and that is what we want to do.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, it looks like this week is coming to an end in terms of legislative efforts--or the lack thereof--in the House and in the Senate. I want everyone to know what this week was. It seemed like the week of disruption. We had a filibuster in the U.S. Senate, and we had a sit-in--an unprecedented sit-in--in the House of Representatives. What was that all about? It wasn't only over the substance--it goes to the struggle to find the best way for gun control, which really we want to be violence control. And what did we filibuster about? Yes, we wanted to take up the no-fly, no-buy issue, which says that if you are on a terrorist list, you shouldn't be able to buy a gun, and to extend background checks to Internet sales and gun shows, but it was also about the right to vote. The filibuster was to get a vote. We didn't say how people would vote. We knew that would be a subject of debate, further amendment, further amendment, and then a vote. Votes are called yes or no. But the filibuster was about getting the opportunity to offer the amendments, to even be able to vote at all. Let's go over to the House of Representatives. What did they sit in about? This was not just a spontaneous spout or pout. One of the most distinguished Americans, the Congressman from Georgia, John Lewis, led a sit-in. He led a sit-in, once again, about getting a vote. This is a man who marched across the Pettus Bridge from Selma, AL, faced being beaten, faced dogs, and bears the permanent legacy and wounds of that civil rights struggle, but he wanted to march for the right to vote and was willing to bear any burden. Then why did this man at a certain age and stage literally sit down on his hands and knees again? And what was that for? That was for the right to vote. That wasn't taking on some authoritarian Governor; that was simply in the House of Representatives: Give us a vote. People will say: Well, why did they do that? Those votes lost in the Senate. But there were actually two compromises here--a Collins amendment and, at the last minute, a Johnson amendment. I want people to know what is going on here. There is the substantive debate on how we can curb violence in our country and violence perpetrated where we are just awash in guns in our country. That is the subject of debate and discussion. I welcome all ideas. I recognize and support the Second Amendment of the Constitution. As I said earlier in the discussion, I support not only the Second Amendment, I support all of the amendments, and I really take seriously my oath to defend the Constitution and to defend the American people against all enemies, foreign and domestic. We took that oath. So I am saying here, can we get rid of the obstructionism to get to votes and to get to real votes, not only votes that are some kind of parliamentary procedure linguistic thing going on. We vote on the motion to proceed. We vote to table the motion. Those are really legitimate parliamentary processes, but they are the fog. They are the fog of parliamentary procedure. The American people have a right--I think the Congress and Members of it should have a right to offer solutions to national problems. I think that should come in the form of legislation and the amendment process following the rules. Follow the rules. Put out the bill. But when it comes time to vote, we should be able to have a vote and we should be able to vote clearly yes or no. That is all we are asking for here. We are going to go through yet one more week, and I hope that next week we can actually face our responsibilities and try to come up with real solutions to a very real national problem, which is how to curb violence in our country; to come up with a variety of ideas, and from those ideas, offer them through legislation and amendment and have very clear votes. People would like us, first of all, to act like Senators and Congresspeople. They would also like us to act with civility. We have seen it time and time again here. But they would also like for us to speak in plain English and have rules that we should follow and that they can understand. So as this week comes to an end--this has been an unprecedented week in our country of a lot of turmoil and tumult. There has been a lot within our mutual institutions. I hope calmer heads prevail when we come back. Let's really get back to the legislative process that has been established by Senate rule and tradition. Let's have civil debate. Let's approach it with intellectual rigor. Let's approach it with the sincerity I feel is known on both sides of the aisle. But, please, let's seek solutions to our national problems and not seek solutions to solve our party problems. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Will the Senator withhold for just 1 minute? Will the chairman of the committee yield for a question? This is not to hold you up, but I do have a question for the chairman of the committee.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. Chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, is it the desire of the other party to be doing, like, a colloquy--an extensive colloquy--dealing with the Veterans First Act? I am trying to get the lay of the land here on the floor, because the Commerce-Justice act--this is really a parliamentary question to you. The pending business is the Commerce-Justice-Science appropriations bill. We are now debating the Veterans First Act. I am not objecting to that, but could you tell me what the lay of the land is here?

Ms. MIKULSKI. First of all, thank you, to the Senator. I, in no way, want to impede this conversation. I didn't realize that you had asked for 45 minutes, and I really found these comments by the supporters of the bill really quite instructive, and I appreciate the discussion and the debate. Why don't you proceed. I would just like to bring to the distinguished chairman's attention, though, that we are trying to get the VA-MILCON bill conference done--real money and the real checkbook-- to support the great work this authorizing committee is doing. I don't know if you know that the House is proposing a $500 million cut below the Senate level. So you and I should talk about that. I thank the Senator from Alaska, and please proceed with your colloquy.

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

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, we just heard a very instructive discussion on legislation proposed by the veterans authorizing committee. I wish to compliment both the chair and the ranking member on the debate. It was content rich, it was civil, and there were moments where we learned things about what was going on at the VA that were new to many of us. What was so impressive was the fact that they worked together on a bipartisan basis. They saw that their first duty was a patriotic duty, which was to serve veterans. You just heard the distinguished chair and ranking member speak to that. I thought it was terrific. They took about 45 minutes off because the bill pending is the Commerce-Justice-Science bill. Because I knew compromises were being worked on, this was time we were more than willing to share with them. So I want to compliment them. That also happened in the Committee on Appropriations. Senator Kirk, who chairs the Appropriations Subcommittee on MILCON-VA, and the ranking member, Senator Jon Tester, have worked hard too. Right now we are trying to get a conference report done so there are the financial resources to help implement the policy objectives my colleagues so eloquently and instructively presented to us just now. I would hope we have a conference that is worthy of the authorization that is being presented. I can assure you--again, in the spirit my colleagues represented here--our patriotic responsibility comes before personality or party, which is the way to go. That is what our team did in the Appropriations Committee under the very able chairmanship of Senator Thad Cochran and I hope the tone I have set as the vice chair. So stay tuned for this conference because we want to match the appropriations with the authorizing. I think this is the way we ought to be operating. Take our patriotic duty first, over party, over personality, over ego or party logo. I just want to say that as I sat here hoping to get compromises achieved on gun control, under the leadership of the distinguished Senator from Maine, I think this is what the American people want: civility, intellectual rigor, commitment to responsibility, and fiscal responsibility. I would like to salute my colleagues. It was an excellent debate. I wish more could be like this. I thank my colleagues very much. Mr. President, as we are waiting on the Commerce-Justice-Science bill, this is what I hope is going on behind the scenes. I know we have had a spirited debate--at times quite tense and at times even terse on the issue of gun control--but for us it is not about gun control. It is about violence control. It is not about gun control because then people want to immediately grab their gun and say: What are you trying to do to us? Nobody is trying to do anything to any law-abiding citizen, but we are trying to control violence. Violence is a national epidemic. It has been a national epidemic for some time, and there are many reasons for it. This is not the day to talk about root causes, but it is time to talk about the mood and tone of the institution. Right now, the House is engaged in a sit-in. Can you believe that, a sit-in? Why would the House be sitting in? Well, it is not the House. It is the House Democrats. Why are they doing that? They are doing it simply because they cannot get a vote on the no-fly, no-buy. What does that mean? If you are on the no-fly list, you shouldn't be able to buy a gun. There are many different solutions to this problem. I am the first to recognize that. In our own institution, we had an amendment offered by the distinguished Senator from California, Mrs. Feinstein, that was rejected. There was an amendment offered on the other side of the aisle, and that was rejected. Now the Senator from Maine and Senators on both sides of the aisle are meeting to see if they can fashion a compromise. We believe ``compromise'' is not a word to be dismissed or denigrated. Compromise does not mean capitulation on principle. I can assure you, from those of us who want to control violence, we in no way want to impinge upon Second Amendment rights, but we do want to do what we can to curb violence in our country. In the spirit offered by the Senator from Maine, which she has done before, I hope we can achieve this. I think we ought to give her a chance, and I think that is happening now. I sure hope we give her idea a vote. I am not sure how I will vote on it until I know the substance, but I sure have an open mind on it. What I would like to do, using the words of my colleague from Maryland, Congressman Elijah Cummings--and we have just lived through quite a turmoil in Baltimore--is seek not only common ground but we seek higher ground. How can we kind of get above the muck and mire of partisan politics or personality, strutting or whatever, and focus on the issue of the day? I know people on both sides of the aisle want to curb violence. We have a set of solutions. They were rejected. Could we now, in the tone we just heard here, try to find this? What I do hope is that we don't block attempts to find solutions to parliamentary procedures. Too many people think about the Congress and the Senate, that when all is said and done, more gets said than gets done. This is what they are frustrated about. They are frustrated about many things--their future, their hope for their children, the safety and security of our country. This is what Senators should be thinking and talking about, and as we think and talk about it, though, we should do more thinking and less talking. In our thinking and doing less talking, maybe we can find this common ground and higher ground. I look forward to continuing to move the Commerce-Justice-Science bill. I so much appreciate the chairman of the subcommittee, Senator Shelby. We have put together a very good bipartisan bill. We would hope, as we move our bill forward--and we have done our best to fund the Justice Department, science, and technology, to talk about jobs today and the kind of research that will give us the jobs of tomorrow-- that we also now seriously take a deep breath and a deep dive into policy alternatives and come up with a compromise to curb violence in our country. Once again, I thank the Senator from Maine for taking the diplomatic role she has undertaken. I wish her well. I support all my colleagues involved in it. They will find no obstructionism in Barbara Mikulski. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, I rise as an enthusiastic supporter of the Murray amendment requiring the EEOC to implement the change recommended by President Obama that would add compensation data to its employment data form, and also to provide it with $1 million to be able to pay for its implementation. First, I would like to salute the Senator from Washington State, who has been a longstanding and assertive advocate of equal pay for equal work for women. I thank her for her ongoing, persistent advocacy. I so admire this amendment, which insists we develop even better tools to pinpoint those companies with over 100 employees in terms of their pay. The Senator from Washington State was right there when we passed the Lilly Ledbetter bill. She has been right there as we tried to move to the next step on the Paycheck Fairness Act, and now today she is here to implement the EEOC rule that would also help to do the kind of work we need to do to ensure that the Equal Pay Act of 1963, a major civil rights law which guaranteed equal pay for equal work, is enforced. We spent days talking about enforcement of civil rights laws. Let's enforce the law passed over 50 years ago to guarantee equal pay for equal work. Here is a quick history. The Lilly Ledbetter bill kept the courthouse door open for when people wanted to file wage discrimination based on gender claims. That courthouse door was slammed in the face of Lilly and other women who found out too late about what they were paid. We kept the courthouse door open. Then, we introduced the Paycheck Fairness Act. The Paycheck Fairness Act would get rid of the other barriers to women getting equal pay for equal work. One of the biggest barriers is that pay is kept a secret. One of the biggest secrets in the United States, other than national security, is what women get paid in the workplace. Let's keep it our little secret, they say. In fact, in many instances, you have to sign an agreement in order to be hired that you will not disclose your pay to another worker. If you do, you can be fired. We are not talking about small businesses. We are not talking about those mom-and-pop stores like my dad's grocery store. But I can assure you that my father paid equal pay for equal work to my mother. But in January, our President--President Obama--announced that the EEOC would add compensation data to its employment data form that companies must submit annually that will help shed light on the wage gap across geographic regions and industries. Our colleague from Tennessee, the distinguished Senator, Mr. Alexander, has introduced an amendment preventing this change from going into effect. We had dueling amendments. I am for the Murray amendment. It requires the EEOC to implement the Obama change and provides $1 million to do it. What is the EEO-1 form? It is the employer information report that requires companies to submit information annually about their employees based on race, ethnicity, gender, and job category. So it is equal pay, equal work. The form helps identify and prevent discrimination and protects employees' civil rights. In January, President Obama announced that companies with over 100 employees--remember, this is over 100 employees--must include compensation data on their EEO-1 form that would identify the wage gap based on gender and ethnicity across regions. This change has been strongly supported by many of us, and I support it. Much is said about the President overreaching. I don't get it. Sometimes--often, the President is being criticized on the other side of the aisle for not doing too much--that he is not a leader, that he is not a fighter, that he is not a champion. I take exception to that. I think he is a leader. I think he is a fighter, and I think he is a champion, and he certainly has been that on behalf of the empowerment of women and girls. What did he do? He exercised his Executive authority to declare that the EEOC action on pay data collection would do this. The EEOC, in partnership with Department of Labor, has a proposal to annually collect summary pay data--as I said, in addition to gender, race, and ethnicity, which it already collects--from companies with over 100 employees. This proposal would cover 63 million employees. It stems from a recommendation of the President's Equal Pay Task Force in a Presidential memorandum issued in 2014. It will help focus public enforcement of equal pay laws and provide better insight into discriminatory pay practices across industries. Today the EEOC is proposing revisions to its longstanding form to require these companies, not just contractors, to provide this information. It would go across 10 job categories and 12 pay bands, but it would not require the reporting of specific salaries of individual employees. Remember, the report is on the basis of job category and pay band. We won't know if Suzy Smith gets paid more or less than Sam Jones. What we will know is what they are paying computer operators. We will know what they are paying lab technicians. These are jobs that tend to be gender neutral. We will know if you are working in a call center or a firm that employs 100 people that you would be able to do it. Remember, it covers 63 million people. The proposal is broader than one that was originally published by the Department of Labor, and it lays important groundwork for progress towards achieving equal pay. It will encourage and facilitate greater voluntary compliance by employers dealing with existing Federal pay law. It will also assist the EEOC, and in case of contractors, in better focusing investigations on employers that are unlawfully short- changing workers based on gender, race, or ethnicity. It wouldn't go into effect until September 2017. Why is this important? It covers only companies of 100 or more employees. It will affect 63 million people. Nobody's personal privacy will be impinged upon because it is information with job category and pay band. But it will show, first of all, which are the good-guy companies. These become the best places to work. My gosh, this can be a small recruitment tool. You go to work for X company, and they do pay equal pay for equal work. But if it has been a persistent pattern of egregious violation of unequal pay for doing the same job, it enables sparse resources at the EEOC to be targeted. One, I say cheers to President Obama for taking leadership to get to the real facts of the matter, and to pinpoint who the egregious violators are that employ more than 100 people. So, again, there is no negative impact on small business, and it gives no personal information, but does give corporate information. I think the Obama action was outstanding, and I think the Murray amendment defending the Obama action is exactly what is needed on this bill to take the very important steps of ensuring the enforcement of civil rights laws passed by Presidents Kennedy and Johnson that said equal pay for equal work. I am sure there will be additional debate on this issue. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. What is an example of one?

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I haven't yielded the floor yet. I asked because the distinguished Senator from Utah is the chair of the Finance Committee. The ranking member has arrived, and I didn't know if they planned a colloquy. That is why I turned and asked my colleague if he wished to make a comment, but I was not giving up the floor.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I have a question for the distinguished Senator from Utah. What are the Senator's proposals to stabilize the Social Security trust fund?

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, the Senator from Utah said that we Democrats have politicized the debate.

Ms. MIKULSKI. No, but my friend did say that we have injected politics into the Social Security debate and then went on to talk about how others have written articles. I don't dispute what my friend said. But because he chairs the Finance Committee, I wondered what his five ideas are for the stabilization of the trust fund. Maybe we can find common ground because it is a troubling matter.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Right. As the chair of the committee, my question is this: What are my friend's ideas so we can find common ground?

Ms. MIKULSKI. OK, that is one we agree on.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I appreciate the response of the Senator from Utah, for whom I have a great deal of respect, but I want the record to show that the Democrats are not playing some kind of privatization card. The proposal to do that has come from the other party time and again.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I believe I have the floor.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, we are not playing a Social Security card. We don't believe you should play with Social Security, and that is why many of us opposed the chained CPI. Everybody knows what chained CPI is. That is Washington talk that would dramatically and irrevocably lower the cost of living that Social Security beneficiaries already get. If speaking up to protect and make sure senior citizens are getting their cost of living is playing the Social Security card, deal me in. Talking about Social Security solvency and trying to find common ground and identifying what are the basic proposals that we could at least discuss is not playing a card. I don't believe in playing the card, and I don't believe in playing the game. Let's not go around implying that Democrats are somehow or another making Social Security a political football. It is a political football, but what I worry about is, in the game of political football on Social Security, who gets kicked around but the seniors. That is who gets kicked around in the game of political football on Social Security. Yes, the stability of the trust fund is a very real issue, and I note that the ranking member on the Finance Committee is here, and I ask if the Senator wishes to speak.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, does Senator Wyden wish to speak at this time?

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Ohio, who is the Presiding Officer. We have been in session for over a half-hour, and I have spoken for only 5 minutes. I just want to reiterate that the solvency of Social Security and its trust fund is indeed of significant national interest. We have had a variety of commissions. We have had a lot of proposals. We have had a lot of meetings. We now need to have the will to act, but the will to act goes in pinpointing solutions and not pointing a finger at someone because of the political party they belong to. Mr. President, I am now going to yield the floor.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, we have heard a spirited debate between two distinguished Senators, two distinguished Americans, who are very passionate about defending America, and I know there will be more debate on this. The Senator from Arizona and those who cosponsor his amendment want to add more authority to the FBI. I rise to say that in the next day, when there is an opportunity to offer another amendment, I will be offering another amendment to give the FBI more money to do the job with the authority it does have. Working on a bipartisan basis, the distinguished Senator from Alabama and I tried to produce a very good bill to fund the Justice Department, one of which is the FBI. We did do a good job, there is no doubt about it, but we operated within the budget caps. Within that, we did the best we could, but there is no doubt that the FBI could use more resources to be able to enhance its counterterrorism efforts and also increase its surveillance by tracking the terrorist threats. So when the opportunity arises, I will be offering an amendment that gives more money to the FBI, that also gives more money--working with the Senator from Wisconsin, Ms. Baldwin--to deal with hate crimes, one of the other significant issues here. Also, while we are talking about, again, the more authority issue, this amendment would include a section by Senator Leahy, the vice chair of the Judiciary Committee, that would have tough penalties for those who knowingly transfer or receive a firearm or know or have reasonable cause to believe it will be used to commit a crime of terrorism, violence, or drug trafficking. It will reduce the threat. We can debate all we want about more authority for the FBI. I think it is a good debate, the tension between security and civil liberties. The distinguished Presiding Officer is also a member--an active, diligent member--of the Intelligence Committee. These are not easy issues, but my amendment should be an easy issue. My amendment would add $175 million dedicated to the FBI's counterterrorism efforts that would raise funding for the FBI above what the House suggested. It would strengthen the FBI's counterterrorism workforce. The FBI would be able to restore--remember, not add--restore more than 350 positions, including 225 special agents for critical FBI investigations related to counterterrorism and counterintelligence. It would also give the FBI new tools to be able to go where these bad guys have access to new technology and new ways of avoiding detection. The number of terrorism threats disrupted by the FBI grew from 214 in fiscal year 2014 to 440 in fiscal year 2015. In one fiscal year, it actually doubled. As the threat goes, the FBI needs increased resources to hire and sustain the agents and intelligence analysts who interrupt these plots. Again, while we are talking more authority--and that debate will go on--I am saying, if you are going to give them more authority, and whether you are giving them more authority, the FBI is stretched thin. We did the best we could under the budget caps, but my amendment would be emergency funding. We don't look for offsets in order to take from one important Department of Justice function to give to the FBI or take from other Federal law enforcement to give to the FBI, or take from local law enforcement to give to the FBI. And it would be a tremendous boost. It would also boost the FBI's surveillance capabilities and add critical personnel, including special agents. Additional funds would be provided for 36 new positions, 18 fully dedicated to tracking terrorist threats, and it would certainly help to gather evidence on high, high priority targets. Again, while we are working at more authority, please, regardless of where you are on the lone-wolf debate, the Mikulski amendment offers the opportunity to add more funding.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Certainly, to the Senator from Oregon.

Ms. MIKULSKI. The Senator has identified my rationale and its actual underpinnings in a most accurate and precise way. You see, I am from the school of thought--along with, I know, the ranking member of the Committee on Armed Services, also a member of the Committee on Appropriations--that the defense of the Nation and the protection of its people doesn't rely only on the Department of Defense. There are also other muscular ways of protecting it, some of which are, first of all, response and surveillance and so on in existing, constitutionally allowed authorities and giving more money to the FBI to operate under the law as we have currently defined it. But you know what, we need to do prevention. Prevention really comes from the kind of intervention that would occur with the State Department--again, a tool of diplomacy. And what they have is a whole effort underway to deal with the recruitment and radicalization of Islamic jihadist terrorists on the Internet. Well, we have to support that. When they were going for more money for defense, we made that argument. But I am not going to relitigate old arguments. We have before us Orlando. We have before us those who want to curtail the terrorist threat. I want to curtail that terrorist threat. And some of the ways I want to do it are, No. 1, add more money for the FBI; No. 2, join with our colleague from Wisconsin, Senator Tammy Baldwin, in adding more money to deal with hate crimes--hate crimes-- because often those are the aegis and the incubator and so on of future violence; and the other is to close the loophole to keep guns out of the hands of terrorists, violent criminals, and traffickers that our distinguished ranking member of the Judiciary Committee mentioned.