Barbara Mikulski

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Are there any amendments that need to be set aside?

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I am going to speak from the heart--a heavy heart--because six Marylanders died at the Navy Yard on Monday. I join with all Americans in expressing my deepest condolences to all of the families of those killed and injured in the Navy Yard shooting, and I particularly express my condolences to the Maryland families. I also thank our first responders, including the local and Federal law enforcement officers who were first to arrive at the scene and took control of this terrible, horrific situation. I thank the doctors and all the support staff at MedStar trauma center who worked so hard to help the injured and saved lives that day and every one of those who played such an important role in responding to that emergency. My heart goes out to the victims and the families and to everyone who is mourning the loss of the men and women who died there. This has deeply affected those of us in Maryland, as it has those in nearby Virginia and the District of Columbia. But for us in Maryland, this is whom we mourn, a cluster of people, the dead, the shooting victims. This is Maryland and Virginia--hands across the Potomac--and we just can't believe it. We think of Kenneth Bernard Proctor. He was 46 years old. He was a civilian utilities foreman at the Navy Yard. He worked for the Federal Government for 20 years. He lived in Charles County and married his high school sweetheart in 1994. They have two boys, now teenagers. He loved his sons and the Redskins. Then there was Sylvia Frasier, who was 52 years old. She was a resident of Maryland and one of seven children. She studied computer information systems at Strayer College. She received an undergraduate and her master's degree in computer information systems. She worked hard to get her education, and she wanted her education to work hard for America. She had worked at the Navy Sea Systems Command since 2000, and she worked a few nights a week at Walmart as a customer service manager, helping her family, paying off student debt. Sylvia really was a remarkable person. Then there is Frank Kohler. He was 50 years old. He lived in a community called Tall Timbers, MD. And we certainly say that Frank was a tall timber when it came to working for his country. He too was a computer specialist. He worked as a contractor for Lockheed Martin. He was a graduate of Pennsylvania's Slippery Rock College, where he met his wife Michelle. He was president of the Rotary Club and was honored for his Rotary Club work. Down in southern Maryland, in St. Mary's County, they have an oyster festival that is coming up. He held the title ``King Oyster'' for his community service and organizing the Rotary Club's annual festival to raise money for the much needed Rotary Club Challengers. He was a great family man and loved by many. There is John Roger Johnson, who was a civilian employee for the Navy who lived in Derwood, MD, for more than 30 years. He was the father of four daughters and a loving grandfather. His 11th grandchild is due in November. Like so many who live in our community, he loved the Redskins. His neighbors described him as smart, always had a smile, and was always there for his neighbors. Then there is Vishnu Pandit, who was 61 years old. He came from India in his early twenties. He lived with his wife Anjali in North Potomac, MD. He was the father of two sons. He was well liked in his community and was known for helping people and particularly those who are part of the Indian heritage community in Maryland. He was known for talking about job opportunities, educational opportunities, and was a strong advocate for them. He was proud of his heritage from his mother country, but he was proud of being a citizen of the United States of America. Richard Michael Ridgell, 52 years old, was a father of three. This guy, though, was a Ravens fan. When the Ravens came into Baltimore at No. 1, he bought season tickets and has owned them for the last 17 years. He grew up in a community called Brooklyn, MD, but settled in Carroll County in Westminster. He was a Maryland State trooper before he came to work in Federal service, a brave guy, and someone who really liked to protect and defend people in many ways. Those are six of the 13 who died, and there are those who are recovering. It is just a heavy heart we have. In the wake of yet another senseless tragedy and mass casualties, I hope we do take action to end this kind of senseless act of violence that takes innocent lives in our communities. I hope we do something about it. There are those who are calling for renewed background checks, and I support that, and renewed efforts to get guns out of the hands of dangerous people, and I support that. But there are also people who suffer from mental illness. This case is currently under investigation, so I am not going to comment on the person we know did this horrific act and the struggles he had with the demons inside of him. I just know we have to come to grips with problems. Yes, background checks are one thing, but really--and this is where I truly agree with the NRA--we have to do something about mental illness and early detection and early treatment. We mourn for those whose lives were lost on Monday. We mourn for their families. And we hope now that out of this something positive grows. But I want to say to their families that today is not really the day to talk about public policy. The men and women who were at that Navy Yard were Federal employees. They worked hard every single day. They were proud to work for the U.S. Government. They were proud to do everything from IT service to security service. Some had master's degrees, some had a high school education. Whatever their education, whatever ZIP Code they came from, they really served one Nation and one flag. I acknowledge their tremendous service to this country. I also acknowledge the wonderful way they were involved with their families and their communities. And on behalf of all of Maryland, I know Senator Cardin and I express our deepest gratitude to them for their lives and express our heartfelt sympathy and condolences. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Ms. MIKULSKI

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

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

Ms. MIKULSKI. Which is?

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, it is to that ominous resolution that I would like to speak. Within a few days the Senate will be called upon to vote on whether to give the President of the United States limited authority to use military action in response to Syrian President Asad's use of chemical weapons against his own people. It is an enormous and grave decision. It is the most serious vote I can take. When a U.S. Senator is called upon to authorize America's use of military action or military might, it calls for the most sober reflection, the most due diligence analysis of the facts and the compelling need because once you vote to authorize the use of military might, you cannot take it back. It is one of the few votes you can't take back. We can vote on our budget this year, but there will be another vote next year. You can vote to confirm a member of the Cabinet, but they serve at the pleasure of the President. But once you vote to use military might or military action, it is irrevocable, so I take it very seriously. I say to the men and women of our military that we owe them a tremendous debt of gratitude. I think that should not only be with yellow ribbons, but we also owe it to them to do the due diligence to choose the wisest, most prudent course. This is what I have done as I have contemplated my vote on the Syria resolution. I went to numerous briefings before Asad used chemical weapons, and I have gone to all of the briefings since then. I participated as a member of the Intelligence Committee in a variety of meetings. I went to a classified House and Senate briefing. I have listened carefully to the President, to the Secretary of State, to the Secretary of Defense, and even had the opportunity to sit with the Vice President of the United States in the Situation Room at the White House to go over this situation and what options are available to the United States of America. In addition to listening here in Washington, I have also listened to my Marylanders, whether at events or meetings going around the State, whether it has been grocery shopping or just being out in the Maryland community. I have also gotten thousands of e-mails and calls from Maryland constituents, and I want to thank them for their civic engagement. They overwhelmingly oppose military action in Syria. My constituents have spoken loudly and clearly. They don't want a war. They don't want boots on the ground. They don't want an all-in effort. They don't want to use or expend America's talent and treasure on another military expedition. They don't want war, and neither do I. Yet the use of chemical weapons--a weapon of mass destruction--grim and ghoulish, mandates a response. The use of chemical weapons flies against all international law and international norms. It is an act that should have consequences or I believe it surely will happen again--in Syria, possibly in Korea, possibly used by Iran. Since the attack, I have been waiting and hoping for a worldwide reaction because if it is serious enough for the world to be aghast, then it is serious enough for them to respond. I have been waiting to hear from the 189 countries that are signatories to the Chemical Weapons Convention. I believe if you sign a treaty or a convention, you sign up for the responsibility that comes with that, which means stop proliferation of the weapons you signed against; stop the proliferation of chemical weapons; also, if necessary, to take action if mandated. I am waiting to hear from the Arab League. I wanted to hear from the Arab League, beyond: Yes, we want Asad to be accountable. I don't know what that means--hold him accountable. What does that mean? Does it mean if we use missiles they will send in Arab men to defend Arab women and children? I have not quite heard that. I have waited to hear from our allies, and there are a hearty, reliable few who have supported us. Are they going to help support the chemical weapons treaty? Are they going to help support the moderates in the opposition? Have they called for a donor conference on refugees? Hello out there. Then there is the U.N. Security Council. By the way, I applaud the work of the U.N. weapons inspectors and the U.N.'s work on refugees, but where is the Security Council? People will say: Oh, we can't act unless the Security Council acts. Three times Asad enablers at the U.N., Russia and China, have vetoed every effort to move to a political solution--vetoed three times efforts to move to a political solution. The U.N. seems paralyzed in this effort. In deciding my vote, I had to be sure that chemical weapons were used by the Asad regime. I was 1 of 19 Senators who voted against going to war in Iraq. I did vote after 9/11 to use lethal action against the Taliban, but when it came to the Iraq war, as a member of the Intelligence Committee I had reviewed these briefs and I did not believe Saddam Hussein had nuclear weapons so I voted no. I was right. This time is different because, after extensive briefings and the evidence that has been outlined to members of the Intelligence Committee, I am satisfied that, indeed, chemical weapons were used in Syria and I am satisfied the Asad regime gave the order to do so. There are those who say to me: Senator Barb, aren't you concerned about the risks and the retaliations if we take action? You bet I am. I worry about that. I worry about my own country. I worry about our own military. I worry about treasured allies such as Jordan, Israel, Turkey. But I also worry about the risk of doing nothing because, as I weigh this, I believe the risk and retaliatory possibilities are the same even if we do not act because if they do not use them in retaliation against us there is a very good chance that if we leave it unresponded to, they will use them anyway. There is no guarantee that by doing nothing the bad guys, who have chemical weapons, will do nothing. In fact, I fear that Asad, Iran, and North Korea will be further emboldened. Last, I had to review the President's resolution that is pending before us, that came out of the Foreign Relations Committee, modified, and the President's plan. The President's plan is very straightforward, his proposal is very straightforward, a targeted limited attack. His purpose is to deter and to degrade; to deter Asad from using those weapons again and to degrade Asad's capability and capacity to use them. I also listened to the President's promise--and I take him at his word--that any action would not be boots on the ground; that it is not an extended air campaign; that it is not another Iraq or Afghanistan; that we are not in it to try to do regime change. That must come from the Syrian opposition themselves, and I hope others help do that. It is meant to deter the use of chemical weapons and to degrade Asad's capability. I believe the President's plan is the best response to protect U.S. security interests in the region and to show commitment to our common security interests with allies such as Turkey, Jordan, and Israel. Therefore, after great reflection and as much due diligence as I could do, I want to announce today to my colleagues, and most of all to the people of Maryland who supported me, that I will support the President's request for a targeted, limited military action against the Syrian President Bashar Asad's regime in response to the horrific, grim, and ghoulish use of chemical weapons. Let me be clear: I have no grand hopes or illusions about what this strike will do. I do not believe this strike will stop Syria's brutal civil war. I do not believe this strike will stop Asad from being a ruthless, brutal dictator. I do not believe a strike will eliminate all of his chemical weapons. But I do believe it will deter and degrade his capability to strike again, and I do believe when you sign up for a convention to ban the use of chemical weapons, the United States of America acts in accordance with its responsibility. Syria is one of the toughest foreign policy issues on which we have focused; there are not many good options. Yet I believe the President's plan is the best way and, as of this moment, the only way forward. He has my support. In today's late-breaking news, I understand Russia has now said: Oh, let's put these weapons under international control. Where were the Russians during the U.N. Security Council meetings on those three other occasions? Is this another tactic for delay? Is this just another tactic to enable Asad to have more time to focus? I remain skeptical, but I will leave that to the President to analyze the Russians' intent about what their followthrough is on that. Today is not to mandate the strike. My vote does not mandate a strike. But my vote is to say: Mr. President, you are the Commander in Chief. We can only have one at a time. You analyze the situation and if you think it is necessary to protect the security of the United States of America and to fulfill our responsibilities under the conventions we have signed on chemical weapons, you have my support to act in what you think is the best way and in our best interests. I look forward to additional debate with my colleagues and also further in this debate, in coming to closure, hopefully this week. I yield the floor. I note the absence of a quorum.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. I agree that this bill in no way limits the ability of the Board to oversee projects under its jurisdiction and facilitate their construction.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on an important anniversary in our country. In just a few weeks, we will commemorate the 50th anniversary of the famous March on Washington. On August 28, 1963, we marched. We marched for jobs, for justice, for the economy, and for freedom. I remember that march. I was getting ready to go back to school. Baltimore was a staging location, and many social workers helped as marchers came down from New York and Pennsylvania. These determined individuals--a diverse group--all with a story and a cause, made up the nearly 250,000 people who marched that day. It was an important testament to the power of a collective voice, one in support of equal rights and treatment of all. And it was this collective voice that helped lead to the passage of the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act. We have had many victories, and made much progress in ensuring equality for all. We have elected a Black President to the White House, passed the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, repealed DOMA and Don't Ask Don't Tell. We have accomplished so much, but we still have so far to go. The fight for civil rights is far from over. Racial, religious and gender violence continues in our streets and in our homes. Voters rights have been threatened by the recent Supreme Court decision, leaving Americans vulnerable to prejudice and intimidation. And so we find ourselves, 50 years later, fighting many of the same fights. We need to reclaim that bill of rights, and not let any court decision take it away from us. They are chopping away at the Voting Rights Act, but let's change the law if we have to. Let us march for our liberties and the people who were there, and said ``ain't I a man'', later calling on the words ``ain't I a woman''. So it is important now more than ever to hold that dream of Dr. King in our hearts. Let's remember the history that was written here 50 years ago. And just as we marched then, we need to march today. Together we can end injustice. Together we can break down barriers to equality, so that all people regardless of race, faith or gender can live in a country that never promised anything less than their undeniable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Robert S. Mueller, III, and to thank him for his 12 years of service as the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, FBI. Director Mueller had just settled into his office just a week before the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. These attacks on the Nation affected us all, including in my home State of Maryland. In the terrible aftermath of the events of that day, we grieved together. On 9/11, we were caught unprepared, searching for answers and scrambling to find a way to prevent future attacks. After 9/11, the FBI was charged with a heavy responsibility: disrupt terrorist plots before they happen by identifying, tracking, and dismantling terrorists on U.S. soil. During his term, Director Mueller has provided steadfast leadership, guiding the FBI as it transformed from a traditional domestic law enforcement agency into a global counterterrorism and crime-fighting force. His guidance has helped keep Americans safe from terrorist attacks here at home and abroad. But such leadership is nothing new to Director Mueller. Before he led the FBI, he served our Nation as a decorated marine in Vietnam, and as a Federal prosecutor who tackled cases ranging from the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 to the prosecution of Panamanian dictator Manuel Noriega. Director Mueller has shown unwavering commitment to the FBI and its mission. He is the only Director to serve a full 10-year term, and then serve another 2 years. From day one, he has fought to make sure the hard-working men and women at the FBI have the tools they need to carry out their extraordinary responsibilities. As chairwoman of the Senate Appropriations subcommittee that funds the FBI and as a member of the Intelligence Committee, I am proud to call Director Mueller my steadfast partner in that fight. Together, we have worked to provide the FBI with the capabilities to stop terrorists before they attack us here at home, go after schemers and scammers who prey on hard-working American families, prevent cyber terrorists from devastating our technology infrastructure, and catch sexual predators who seek to harm our children. Lastly, Director Mueller has strong integrity. He speaks truth to power, even when the truth is unpopular or inconvenient. He is a straight talker--when he tells me that the FBI needs more tools to carry out its national security and crime-fighting duties, I find a way to help him get those tools because I trust his judgment, and I trust his leadership. He answered the call to service when President Bush asked him to serve as FBI Director in 2001. And he answered the call of President Obama when asked to serve 2 more years. We live in extraordinarily critical times, and face threats from both within and outside our Nation. But over the past 12 years we knew that having Director Mueller at the FBI meant that one of the tested ``nighthawks'' was guarding our Nation's national security. I speak for all Americans when I say that we have been privileged to have such a committed and dedicated public servant leading the FBI. I will miss my steadfast partner and friend and, above all, wish to send him a heartfelt thank you.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise today in strong opposition to the Toomey motion to recommit. This motion to recommit would send the transportation-housing bill back to the committee with a new allocation of $45.5 billion, a cut of $8.5 billion from the Senate bill's current level of $54 billion. The THUD subcommittee would then have to rewrite its bill to the new, lower allocation. This motion is simply a backdoor approach to make sequester the new normal by slashing the THUD bill. This is a cut of the magnitude proposed in the Ryan budget. I remind my colleagues the Ryan budget puts a moat around defense spending, and cuts $91 billion from domestic programs. I will not accept sequester, I will not accept the Ryan budget, as the new normal. The allocation for the THUD bill is based on a topline of $1.058 trillion. This is the presequester topline contained in the American Taxpayer Relief Act, a law that passed the Senate by a vote of 89 to 8 in January. The allocation for THUD proposed by the Toomey amendment is based on a topline of $967 billion, the postsequester level. Those who support $967 billion want to make sequester the ``new normal.'' They say: We must follow the law, and sequester is the law. First of all, the House is not following the law. The House ignores the law by taking all $91 billion of cuts out of domestic discretionary programs. This committee's spending allocations assert that sequester will be replaced with a balanced solution to the deficit problem that will be decided in a conference on the budget resolution. But guess what. Six Senators have objected to a conference on the budget resolution. And now this motion to recommit is further sand in the gears of the appropriations process. But I am determined that this committee will not be undermined by this obstructionism. While we wait for the Budget Committee to be able to do its job, we will continue to do our job. Colleagues, this isn't a disagreement about whether we should have across-the-board cuts. Nobody thinks across-the-board cuts are smart. This is a disagreement about how much we will invest in America, in our infrastructure, our people, and our national security. The Toomey motion to recommit would require huge cuts--in this case, $8.5 billion in cuts--but it provides no specifics. The THUD bill keeps America moving on land, at sea, and in the air. This motion to recommit stops America in its tracks. If this motion passes, roads will not be resurfaced, bridges will not be replaced or repaired, air traffic controllers will not be hired, and airports will not be upgraded. And all these cuts mean one thing--fewer jobs--fewer good American jobs. The FAA modernization program will be delayed--again. This delay will cause more congestion at our airports and leave America further behind in the global economy. And these cuts mean safety will be put at risk, with fewer resources for the agencies charged with keeping us safe on the roads and in the air. These cuts today have consequences for years to come. This is true for our physical infrastructure, and it is true for our human infrastructure. This motion is irresponsible and should be rejected. It demands $8.5 billion in unspecified cuts, which would have terrible impacts on America's infrastructure, and on our efforts to create good jobs right here at home. I believe our government should meet compelling human needs. It should provide for the national defense. And our government should make smart investments today so our Nation will grow stronger tomorrow. This motion to recommit puts all of these essential functions at risk and would have terrible near-term and long-term impacts. I strongly oppose the Toomey motion to recommit.

Ms. MIKULSKI

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

Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, as the chair of the full Committee on Appropriations, I rise today to comment on this bill, but also to thank and acknowledge the really important role that Senators Murray and Collins have played. Really, it has been the way the Senate should operate. They have held extensive hearings in the subcommittee on America's needs in transportation--an ever-piling up backlog that we need to address. It would accomplish several good, agreed-upon public policy goals. No. 1, safety. Because when we are talking about roads, bridges, and the other infrastructure areas in this bill, safety is our No. 1 priority. No. 2, when you are building or repairing a bridge in Maryland, Maine, Washington State, or North Dakota, those people are working in the United States of America, and, hopefully, the supply chain involved--whether it is asphalt to steel--is made in the good old USA. So what we would do is improve the safety rates and lower the unemployment rate and at the end of the day have something to show for it. So many of the American people are frustrated with us when it comes to spending because they think if they give us $1, we will spend $2 and not have spit to show for it. But yet in this bill, at this time, we have a legislative framework, and a restrained fiscal framework, to be able to move on important transportation infrastructure needs and on housing. The appropriate role for the Federal Government to be involved in is housing: those things that are involved in, No. 1, promoting economic development in blighted areas, regardless of whether you are in an urban State or a rural State. The needs of North Dakota are different than the needs of Maryland. Even in my very dear State of Maryland, we have different needs in different parts of the State. The robust Baltimore corridor, which is more urban, requires one framework for the community development block grant money. If you go to Garrett County, in the western part of my State, that was hit by a blizzard during Hurricane Sandy or you go down to the Eastern Shore, Somerset County, that was hit by a hurricane, literally flooding to dangerous proportions--those two counties have as high a poverty rate as Baltimore City. So when we talk about the great things in this bill, what I like about it is it is local--it is money that will come for local needs. The needs of Garrett County and Somerset County are different than the needs of Baltimore City. But what we do know is that we need jobs and we need to be able to address the needs of the people who want to be middle class and are looking for an opportunity to get there and also for the compelling needs particularly of the elderly and disabled. Again, we in the Senate know because we are urban and rural and suburban. You meet different needs according to the locale. In Baltimore City, it is a high concentration of elderly in certain areas. We can meet those needs through a combined effort of housing, Meals On Wheels, helping people be able to receive coordinated services to keep them independent and healthy. When you get to the rural parts, that is even harder. So what I like about this bill is it is, first of all, focused on rebuilding America. I so salute our troops. We have been in a 10-year war. The consequences of that war will be felt by the men and women who served and the taxpayers who have to pay it for many years to come. But as we look at this, what they fought for is for America. Now we have to think about rebuilding America. I am glad we gave it a try in Iraq. OK. We gave it a try in Afghanistan. But come home, America. As the troops come home, and hopefully the money comes back home, we begin to show results there. If we rebuild our infrastructure, focus on compelling human needs, I think we will not only serve the Nation well but people will begin to have trust in us that through smart approaches, restrained spending, we can get there. I am proud of what this bill does in Maryland. It does create jobs. It helps with infrastructure. This bill is absolutely crucial to Maryland. First, the THUD bill provides $40 billion for highways and nearly $9 billion for mass transit. We need that. This means Maryland will receive in fiscal year 2014 $700 million. We are not waiting only for the Federal Government. The Maryland General Assembly recently increased the gas tax--very controversial-- because of our compelling needs. Governor O'Malley and our general assembly wanted to rise to the occasion, but they want us to rise to the occasion as well. As we look at some of these projects, they affect not only the State of Maryland but they affect the region and the Nation. The Presiding Officer was not here when we had a horrific accident in 2009 on the Metro. The Metro suffered a terrible crash: brakes failed, safety systems failed, a lot failed--nine people lost their lives. We said we were going to create a safety culture and turn to our National Transportation Safety Board to be able to do it. I made two promises to families: that I would do everything I could to see what were appropriate Federal safety standards and to put money in the Federal checkbook to improve that safety. I demanded reforms at Metro management to a culture of safety. So where are we now? Guess what. We have put money in the Federal checkbook, $150 million to continue to buy the important crash- resistant cars that will be able to help them. The money will be used for signal improvement, rail car maintenance to make sure we are improving this. Safety is the No. 1 obsession with me. In addition to working on Metro, I know this bill deals with FAA's contract tower program, a subject of much debate during last year's continuing funding resolution. I remember real debate with Senator Moran on how we could keep those airports open. They are the first to be hit by the sequester. I have five of them. They are in communities called Easton--by the way, Secretary Rumsfeld is down there. Cheney would come by as well--the Frederick Municipal Airport that the President uses periodically for coming to Camp David, Hagerstown, Martin, Salisbury, and Ocean City. Those towers are important for two reasons: national security and economic security. So we are looking at how we can make sure we keep these towers open so airplanes can come and land safely and take off safely and aid the commerce to our communities. You have heard me also speak about housing and community development. When I got started in Congress, we had something called revenue sharing that was started by President Nixon so the local communities would get formula-based funding to help them rebuild their communities or strengthen them in the area of economic development. That changed. That ended. That ended during the Gingrich era. But we came up with community development block grant money. Again, that money comes locally to meet local needs. The criteria are: eliminate blight, improve employment opportunities, and be able to create a sustainable infrastructure that will not need government subsidies so the community can be able to sustain itself and build on that to create jobs. We are very impressed with this. Again, this legislation meets needs for seniors and housing. I could go on about it. But this bill is a very important accomplishment for the State of Maryland. When I talk about safety, I note the Portman amendment. I note Senator Cardin has an amendment on a report on the highway deck. I wish to say something else. We had some tough things happen in my State over the last couple of days on the Bay Bridge. Many of the people in this Senate travel the Bay Bridge, some to go to their State. We are a next-door neighbor with our pals from Delaware, Senators Carper and Coons, who represent the Delmarva Peninsula, a wonderful place. We hope the Presiding Officer comes over sometime and actually sees real water, oceans and rivers and crabs and so on, the Senator from North Dakota. But this bridge, we now have two of them because of the volume, and then, second, the way people travel on it, the velocity has increased. Last Friday, we had a terrible situation where a truck tailgated a passenger vehicle and pushed it off the bridge--off the bridge. The car fell 40 feet. Thank God the passenger survived, a young lady who--the impact was so hard, the windshield broke, so she was able to get out. She is a fitness instructor. So she had the robust and physical vigor to be able to swim to safety. We thank God for her survival. But we are now scared on the Bay Bridge. Yesterday, we had another head-on collision on the bridge. The AAA, the American Automobile Association, has called upon the National Transportation Safety Board to review the conditions on our bridge. Are the barriers high enough? Should we be using two-way traffic now to alleviate the traffic jams because transportation is changing? In other words, these are very important questions related to safety. Do we need another bridge? An analysis needs to happen. If we build another bridge, should it be there or further south? Controversy. But again we need analysis. I cite that example because as I review the facts of this case and consult with the State, I too am considering joining with the American Automobile Association to ask for the NTSB to review the accidents on the bridge and give us recommendations in terms of what we need so it does not happen again. You cannot fall 40 feet. It could have been someone elderly. There could have been babies in that car. It does not matter. You cannot fall 40 feet off the bridge being rear-ended by a trick and think it is OK. You cannot have a head-on collision and think it is OK. I do not think it is OK what is happening on the Bay Bridge. I now want to work with my Governor and consider what are the best steps forward. But as of today, I am very strongly recommending a review by the National Transportation Safety Board to look at it. It is not only what is happening in Maryland. It is what is happening all over America. I see on the floor the Senator from Oklahoma. I am going to yield the floor so others can speak. But before I do, I wish to compliment Senators Murray and Collins and the way they have been moving this bill. I think it is important. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Wait a moment, I suggested the absence of a quorum.

Ms. MIKULSKI. I object.

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

Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, my colleague from Oklahoma was waiting to offer amendments, but filling in for Senator Murray, I was trying to get a sense what that meant. The reason I wanted the quorum to go on was so I could have a chance to talk to the Senator from Oklahoma. Wherever he is, I want him to know that if he thinks I was trying to stifle him or not allow him to have his rights on the Senate floor, I apologize. What I was trying to do was create an orderly process so we could keep this excellent momentum going. I invite Senator Coburn to please return to the floor. If in any way he felt I was being negative toward him, I do not mean that. In fact, what I meant was let's get it clear so he could go forward. The Senator from Oklahoma and I have an excellent relationship. We have agreed on many things, and we have duked it out on others. We did promise an open amendment process, and we intend to keep it. Again, I apologize. I invite him to come back to the floor. Let's have a discussion and let's keep it going. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, I wish to add some further comments on the bill while we are waiting for Senators to return to the floor to offer amendments. I note the gentlelady from Maine is returning. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Well said.

Ms. MIKULSKI. I thank the Senator, and I wish to respond to the ranking member of THUD to say this: No. 1, yes, that is our understanding. As we move ahead on this bill, remember that this is the first appropriations bill on the floor in 2 years and the first time THUD has been on the floor in 4 years. The Senator from Maine and Senator Murray are to be commended. The old-school way--old school, with respect--was an open amendment process with alternating amendments back and forth. Old school was never to bring up 12 or 15 amendments at one time; it was usually 1 amendment. So the understanding is that it is to go back and consider one amendment at a time, alternating sides, with the understanding that the Senator from Oklahoma wishes to speak on a variety of amendments and offer them. Again, I think we have cleared the air, and I am so happy about that. So I do concur with the Senator from Maine. We also understand, in addition to his amendments, alternating among the ranking member, the chair, and the chairman of the subcommittee, there might also be other intervening amendments; is that correct?

Ms. MIKULSKI. I yield the floor.

Ms. MIKULSKI

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

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise as the chair of the full Appropriations Committee in support of the fiscal year 2014 Transportation, Housing and Urban Development appropriations bill. At noon we will be voting on the motion to proceed. I am here in the strongest, most affirmative way to urge my colleagues to please vote yes so we can get on with this very important bill that was fashioned with bipartisan participation to literally get America moving again. The Transportation-HUD appropriations bill for 2014, under the leadership of Senator Murray and the ranking member Senator Collins, is an outstanding effort. It shows what bipartisan consensus is and focuses on two things: America's infrastructure and transportation and meeting compelling human needs in housing and urban development, both of which contribute to creating jobs in the United States of America. This is not a bill where jobs will be on a slow boat to China or a fast track to Mexico. It puts America on the right track to meet these needs in transportation. There is a very good reason we need this bill. The American Society of Civil Engineers says the need for physical infrastructure in our country is piling up. Steel rusts, asphalt wears out, and buildings need to be repaired, to be maintained. It is not politics; it is physics. We have to make investments today so our Nation can grow. We still have an unemployment rate of over 7 percent. So how do we get America moving? Public investment that creates private sector jobs. That is what we like about transportation. This bill, under the leadership of Senators Murray and Collins, includes Federal aviation-- that is a word for airports--the Federal Highway Administration, in which we need to build and repair, Amtrak, and also the National Transportation Safety Board. When there is an accident, they are on the job find out what the problems are. This bill keeps America moving on land, sea, and in the air. But, most of all, it is about bread-and-butter issues. It meets real needs in real time in our communities, building roads and building community. This is also why I am a strong supporter of the housing and urban development aspects in this bill. The Presiding Officer knows of my social work background; I know of his as a county executive--working hand in hand on the needs of the people in the Delmarva Peninsula. We know there is prosperity and pockets of poverty. This bill, through the community development block grants, helps meet these compelling needs-- again, local needs decided by local leaders in real time. It also meets needs for the elderly and for the disabled. The Senate bill provides an allocation, under my leadership, of $54 billion in discretionary spending. This is in sharp contrast to the House bill, which provides $10 billion less than the Senate. The House allocation fails to provide those resources in transportation. Senators Murray and Collins will go into that in more detail. But what I want to be able to say is, under my leadership as the full committee chair, my subcommittees have marked up--with the budget bill passed under Senator Murray's leadership chairing the Budget Committee--a top line of $1.058 trillion. Oh, my God, $1 trillion. Well, remember, $600 billion goes to defense, and $400 billion comes to domestic needs. If ever there were domestic needs, it is in our physical infrastructure in meeting the tattered, worn aspects of our communities. There is a much greater debate going on in our country now because of the Trayvon Martin-George Zimmerman situation. A debate has begun, really under our President's encouragement, on race, ethnicity, and other aspects. Well, what we need to do is be able to take stock of ourselves--take stock of ourselves: how we treat one another, how we view one another. Do we view one another as enemies consistently, do we view them on street corners or in communities, or do we begin to look at how we build community in our neighborhoods, starting with housing for the elderly, making sure the disabled are taken care of, having respect for one another, passing an education bill dealing with the student loans. This bill will put Americans to work and also meet our compelling needs, and we can do it in a way that shows we can do smart spending to accomplish national goals. I too want to reduce the public debt of the United States, but I am going to lower our unemployment rate. I am going to lower the rate of danger in our physical infrastructure. I also really want the motion to proceed to pass. I yield the floor.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, I rise in support of one of Maryland's favorite sons, Mr. Tom Perez, the President's nominee to lead the Department of Labor. Mr. Perez has been the Assistant Attorney General for the United States and has also been Maryland's Secretary of Labor and Licensing and also was a member of the Montgomery County Council. All three of these jobs show his expertise and his ability to navigate some very complex situations. I believe he is the right man for the job. I support his nomination, not only because he is one of Maryland's favorite sons, but because I believe he brings integrity, competency, and commitment to the mission of the Department of Labor. His resume is outstanding. A Harvard Law School graduate. He has served in public service at the Federal, State, and county levels and he has a commitment to the mission of each agency. In terms of personal background, it is really the story of America. His father came to this country under very difficult circumstances. His grandfather was one of the leaders of the voices of freedom in the Dominican Republic--punished for that and declared a persona non grata. But his father was able to stay in this country as a legal immigrant, go on to military service, and become a physician. And to show his gratitude to this country, he worked only for the Veterans Administration serving the country that saved him and his family. Tom grew up with public service in his DNA. His father died when he was a young boy and he will tell that compelling narrative, but through the dint of hard work, a loving mother, and a nation that offered opportunity--he was able to work his way through school, get the scholarships, worked even as a trash collector during summer break to be able to advance himself. He knows what the American dream is, but he also knows what hard work is, and he knows what an opportunity ladder we need to have in this country. But in addition to that, he brings a great deal of skill--we know Tom at the Montgomery County Council level where government is closest to the people had to really govern best. And it is a complex, growing county where you had to work with public-private partnerships. I admire Tom so much for his work as head of the Maryland Department of Labor. They now have a letter in the Record recommending Tom to be the Secretary of Labor. Why? Because he listens, he learns, and he brings everybody to the table for a pragmatic, fair, and collaborative work. That is how he earned support from worker advocates and many of the Maryland's largest employers, the Maryland University System, the Maryland Association of Community Colleges, the Maryland Minority Contractors Association, and the Greater Baltimore Committee. I am confident Tom Perez will be an excellent Secretary of Labor. I know he will be a strong voice for the working class and for keeping the government on the side of the people who need it. I urge my colleagues to support his nomination.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, I am proud to rise today to support the Keep Student Loans Affordable Act. This bill would extend the current interest rate of 3.4 percent for subsidized Stafford loans for the next school year. This interest rate reflects a record low for interest rates on Federal student loans, and these loans can only go to students and families that demonstrate a need for them; 60 percent of dependent subsidized loan borrowers come from families with incomes of less than $60,000. Subsidized Stafford loans help more than 7 million college students without worrying that the interest on their loans will begin accruing while they're in school. It helps more than 105,000 students in Maryland. Middle class families are feeling stretched and stressed and if we fail to act, students could be facing an additional $1,000 in debt over the life of their loans. I would also like to announce my support for the Bank on Student Loans Fairness Act, introduced by Senator Elizabeth Warren. This legislation would lower the current interest rate of 3.4 percent to 0.75 percent for subsidized Stafford loans for the next school year, which is the same interest rate that banks pay. Banks have arbitrarily raised interest rates on consumers, and applied higher interest rates retroactively. They charged fees without any legitimate purpose--and then charged interest on top those unfair fees. And they marketed their products to college students who they knew could not afford the credit they were providing. The banks are not looking out for the best interest of students; they are looking after themselves to make a profit. The Federal Government has worked hard to keep student loan interest rates as low as possible to ensure that access to higher education remains a viable option for students and their families. That is why it is important that we work together to keep the interest of students at heart and not create additional burdens on them. So why not let students pay the same interest rates as banks? I have said this often, but we in this country enjoy many freedoms-- the freedom of speech, the freedom of the press, the freedom of religion. But there is an implicit freedom our Constitution does not lay out in writing, but its promise has excited the passions, hopes, and dreams of people in this country since its founding. The freedom to take whatever talents God has given you, to fulfill whatever passion is in your heart, to learn so you can earn and make a contribution--the freedom to achieve. When I was a young girl at a Catholic all-girls school, my mom and dad made it clear they wanted me to go to college. But, right around graduation, my family was going through a rough time because my dad's grocery store had suffered a terrible fire. I offered to put off college and work at the grocery store until the business got back on its feet. My dad said: Barb, you have to go. Your mother and I will find a way, because no matter what happens to you, no one can ever take that degree away from you. The best way I can protect you is to make sure you can earn a living all of your life. My father gave me the freedom to achieve. And this legislation will give millions of Americans that same freedom without adding a dime to the deficit. Students will bless us if we are successful in keeping their student loan interest rates as low as possible. Getting a college education is the core of the American dream and I am going to be sure that every student has access to that dream and make sure that when they graduate their first mortgage is not their student debt. Senator Reed's legislation should be passed in a swift, expeditious, uncluttered way. It gives our students access to the American dream. It gives our young people access to the freedom to achieve, to be able to follow their talents, and to be able to achieve higher education in whatever field they will be able to serve this country. While our work is not done when it comes to ensuring access to affordable higher education, this bill helps us get there. While these bills will fix the problem today, I will continue to work with my colleagues to figure out a longer-term solution. I yield the floor.