Barbara Mikulski

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I come to the floor to speak on the bill that is before us, the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Bill. No matter what side of the aisle you are on, we can all agree that our current system is not working, and it is in need of reboot and reform. I believe that the bipartisan approach taken in this bill gives us an opportunity to address this issue in a thoughtful manner. I thank the drafters of this bill for their hard work and tireless advocacy; I also thank Chairman Leahy and the Majority Leader for the open and transparent process that this bill has undergone. I have three principles on immigration reform: we must protect our borders, protect American jobs, and reward those who play by the rules. And I believe that this carefully drafted and negotiated bill meets all of these metrics. In addition to an accountable path to citizenship for the undocumented population currently in the U.S., the bill also includes new resources to secure our border and puts forth a rational approach to future legal immigration to the U.S. While I do not agree with every part of this bill, I believe that the compromises that were made are fair. In passing this bill, we do what is right for our economy, and we do what is right for our society. This bill makes important reforms across the board, but I want to focus on a few that are of particular importance to Maryland. The seafood industry is the lifeblood of Maryland's Eastern Shore. It is also a traditional industry that is adapting in today's world. They rely on H-2B workers to keep their businesses running when American workers are unavailable. I have consistently fought for an approach to the H-2B program that recognizes that one size does not fit all, protects the wages and jobs of all workers, and provides the certainty that small businesses need to survive. This bill includes important, tailored provisions that ensure the availability of the H-2B program. The inclusion of the returning worker exemption, a provision that I sponsored for many years, simply allows workers who entered during this fiscal year not to be counted toward the H-2B cap through 2018. This is a fix that aids the small, seasonal businesses that rely on these workers year after year, such as the crab-pickers on Maryland's Hooper's Island. The bill also includes language that protects the wages of American workers while striking a balance with the needs of employers. It adds crucial worker protections by providing for transportation costs for H-2B workers, mandating that employers are responsible for fees, and requiring that American workers not be displaced. The H-2B program is far from perfect--and it could benefit from improvements--but its availability is vital to many businesses. It is our job to make sure that it works for all. Tourism is vital to Maryland's economy, and programs like the Visa Waiver Program ensure our friends and allies around the world are able to visit our State. Each year, the Visa Waiver Program allows 16 million tourists to visit the United States and spend more than $51 billion, while supporting half a million jobs. This bill includes important provisions to expand the Visa Waiver Program that I have long fought for. These provisions give discretion to the Secretary of Homeland Security to include countries that meet strict security requirements, while also protecting our borders and creating jobs in the tourism industry. New national security requirements mean stronger passport controls, border security, and cooperation with American law enforcement. The current system punishes our allies--and that is what is happening with our close friend Poland. Poland has been a longtime friend to the U.S. and has stood with us in Iraq and Afghanistan, fighting and dying alongside Americans. But Polish citizens cannot visit the U.S. without a visa. Expanding the Visa Waiver Program to Poland alone could mean $181 million in new spending and could support 1,500 new jobs. The expansion of the Visa Waiver Program is good for national security and economic development and helps our most trusted allies. Now is the time for comprehensive immigration reform. Immigrants are part of the fabric of our country, and we all benefit from an approach that recognizes these contributions while ensuring that our laws are followed and respected. This bill does that, and I look forward to supporting its passage here in the Senate.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, I come to the floor today to recognize an important anniversary. Fifty years ago Congress passed the Equal Pay Act, a law that was to ensure pay equity for women in the workplace. This landmark legislation was signed into law by President Kennedy on June 10, 1963, and prohibited discrimination on the basis of sex in the payment of wages by employers. The goals of the legislation were groundbreaking. It was the first time Congress acted on this issue, addressing a real and growing problem as more women entered the workforce. Congress stepped up to the plate and took the first attempt at fixing outright discrimination that was bound to have an impact on working families across America. Today we find ourselves in a similar place, in need of a solution because the Equal Pay Act is in need of fixing. It recently made big headlines when a Pew research study was released saying that women are the primary earner in 4 of 10 households today, many of these women being the sole earners. But what was missed in this discussion is the impact that the pay gap is continuing to have on these households who are dependent on the salaries of women. The pay gap results in $4,000 less per year for working families and $434,000 less over a lifetime. Think of what these families could accomplish if they got simply what they were owed. With rising costs for childcare, medical care, and filling up the family car, these families are held down by unfair and unjust pay policies. While these are the day to day impacts, there are also real consequences to the pay gap over a lifetime. The pay gap affects your income, affects your pension, and affects your Social Security. Women's Social Security benefits are 71 percent of men's benefits. The average income from private pension based on women's earnings was only 48 percent of men's earnings. The consequences of our inaction on pay equity are following women out of the workplace, further impacting their lives down the line. For years I have fought a solution to this. Under the Paycheck Fairness Act, no longer will employers be able to retaliate against workers for sharing information about wages. Right now, if you ask someone what they get paid you can get fired. For years, Lilly Ledbetter was humiliated and harassed because she tried to find out what she was making. No longer will women be able to seek only back pay when they are discriminated against. Under this pay they can seek punitive damages. No longer will employers be able to use almost any reason to justify paying a woman less than a man. Excuses such as ``oh, they do harder jobs,'' ``oh, they do dangerous jobs,'' or ``oh, they have a better education than you'' will no longer be tolerated. Women do hard and dangerous jobs. Ask anyone who runs a daycare center or is a firefighter. No longer will women be on their own in fighting for equal pay for equal work or education and training. In this country, they say work hard, play by the rules, and you will get ahead. We work hard every day, but we find the rules are different for women and men. In 1963 women made 59 cents for every dollar made by men. Almost 49 years later we have made an 18-cent gain. Women now make 77 cents for every dollar earned by men. Forty-nine years and 18 cents. That is not rewarding hard work, and it is certainly not playing by the rules. In March, during the Budget debate, the Senate agreed with us and unanimously voted that it was time to do something about the pay gap. Well, now it is time to step up to the plate on this 50th anniversary. Let's end pay inequity and end the policies that keep women uneducated and unequipped to fight for their fair share. It is not just for our pocketbooks. It is about the family checkbooks and getting it right in the law books. And it is also about the generations of women to come. Let's not make it another 50 years without giving the Equal Pay Act the tools it needs to finally fulfill its promise.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Child Care and Development Block Grant Act of 2013, along with Senators Burr, Harkin, and Alexander. For the past year, our offices have worked on a bipartisan basis to draft a comprehensive reauthorization of the Child Care Development Block Grant, CCDBG, a program that helps low- and moderate-income working families access and afford child care. This program helps working parents keep working, it helps parents who are in school stay in school, and it is supposed to ensure that children are in safe environments that support their physical, emotional, and cognitive development. It is a vital program and its reauthorization is of the utmost importance. We did not draft this reauthorization in a vacuum. We held three public hearings in the Subcommittee on Children and Families, and we worked closely with all members, Democrat and Republican, of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee. We also asked for input and recommendations from folks on the ground since we know that parents, child care providers, and early learning and developmental experts, know best how this program works and how it can be improved. It is my hope that the bill we're introducing today represents all of the good ideas that have been brought to us throughout this process. It is noteworthy that the CCDBG program has not been reauthorized since 1996. The last time we reauthorized CCDBG was during welfare reform. At that time, the program was envisioned solely as a workforce aid--something to help moms and dads get back to work or school. This was, and remains, an important goal, but we have learned a lot since 1996. We know that child care can, and should, be constructed in such a way that benefits both the parent and the child: it should allow parents to go to work or school, but it should also give kids the building blocks to be successful in their lives. What we know today, that we didn't 17 years ago, is that the most rapid period of development for the brain happens in the first 5 years of life. That is why it is so imperative that we ensure our children are in high-quality child care programs. While important, it is not enough to simply ensure that kids have someplace to go. We must also ensure that they go someplace that is safe, that nurtures their development, that challenges their mind, and that prepares them for school. The current program is outdated. It does not go far enough in promoting and supporting high-quality child care programs. It does not do enough to safeguard the health and safety of children. It does not always ensure that children have continuity of care, nor does it provide sufficient protections for working families when their employment situations change. It does not focus enough on infant and toddler care. It does not require mandatory background checks for child care providers in this program. So, today we are introducing a bill that makes needed changes to address shortcomings in current law. Our bill requires States to devote more of their funding to quality initiatives, such as: training, professional development, and professional advancement of the child care workforce, supporting early learning guidelines, developing and implementing quality rating systems for providers, and improving the supply and quality of child care programs and services for infants and toddlers. Our bill says that CCDBG providers must meet certain health and safety requirements related to prevention and control of infectious diseases, first aid and CPR, child abuse prevention, administration of medication, prevention of and response to emergencies due to food allergies, prevention of sudden infant death syndrome and shaken baby syndrome, building and physical premises safety, and emergency response planning. Our bill gives families more stability in the CCDBG program. It ensures that children in the program can get care for at least a year, even if their parent sees a change in their working status or income. Our bill works to improve early childhood care by requiring States to spend a certain portion of their funding on infant and toddler quality initiatives. The bill requires States to develop and implement plans to increase the supply and quality of care for infants and toddlers, as well as children with disabilities and children receiving care during non-traditional work hours. And our bill requires mandatory background checks for child care providers in the CCDBG program. At the outset, I would like to say that most child care providers I have met and spoken with are wonderful, caring people committed to ensuring that the children in their care are safe and happy. This proposal is not meant to insinuate anything negative about our child care workforce. Instead, it is simply meant to ensure that we are doing our due diligence to ensure that the adults entrusted with our children's day- to-day care are not murderers, child molesters, kidnappers, arsonists, drug dealers, or rapists. Background checks are required for many jobs and I believe they should be required for child care providers. Every working parent with children, no matter their income level, worries about child care. What's affordable? What's accessible? Will my child be safe? Where can I get the very best care for my kid? The CCDBG program is supposed to give parents peace of mind. And for many families over many years, it has. But we can and should be doing more to improve child care for children, parents, and providers alike. It is long past time to revitalize, refresh, and reform this vitally important program. Again, I would like to thank Senator Burr, Chairman Harkin, Ranking Member Alexander, and all members of the Senate HELP Committee for their hard work on this bipartisan proposal. It is my hope that we can move swiftly to get this bill passed out of House and Senate and onto the President's desk.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Child Care and Development Block Grant Act of 2013, along with Senators Burr, Harkin, and Alexander. For the past year, our offices have worked on a bipartisan basis to draft a comprehensive reauthorization of the Child Care Development Block Grant, CCDBG, a program that helps low- and moderate-income working families access and afford child care. This program helps working parents keep working, it helps parents who are in school stay in school, and it is supposed to ensure that children are in safe environments that support their physical, emotional, and cognitive development. It is a vital program and its reauthorization is of the utmost importance. We did not draft this reauthorization in a vacuum. We held three public hearings in the Subcommittee on Children and Families, and we worked closely with all members, Democrat and Republican, of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee. We also asked for input and recommendations from folks on the ground since we know that parents, child care providers, and early learning and developmental experts, know best how this program works and how it can be improved. It is my hope that the bill we're introducing today represents all of the good ideas that have been brought to us throughout this process. It is noteworthy that the CCDBG program has not been reauthorized since 1996. The last time we reauthorized CCDBG was during welfare reform. At that time, the program was envisioned solely as a workforce aid--something to help moms and dads get back to work or school. This was, and remains, an important goal, but we have learned a lot since 1996. We know that child care can, and should, be constructed in such a way that benefits both the parent and the child: it should allow parents to go to work or school, but it should also give kids the building blocks to be successful in their lives. What we know today, that we didn't 17 years ago, is that the most rapid period of development for the brain happens in the first 5 years of life. That is why it is so imperative that we ensure our children are in high-quality child care programs. While important, it is not enough to simply ensure that kids have someplace to go. We must also ensure that they go someplace that is safe, that nurtures their development, that challenges their mind, and that prepares them for school. The current program is outdated. It does not go far enough in promoting and supporting high-quality child care programs. It does not do enough to safeguard the health and safety of children. It does not always ensure that children have continuity of care, nor does it provide sufficient protections for working families when their employment situations change. It does not focus enough on infant and toddler care. It does not require mandatory background checks for child care providers in this program. So, today we are introducing a bill that makes needed changes to address shortcomings in current law. Our bill requires States to devote more of their funding to quality initiatives, such as: training, professional development, and professional advancement of the child care workforce, supporting early learning guidelines, developing and implementing quality rating systems for providers, and improving the supply and quality of child care programs and services for infants and toddlers. Our bill says that CCDBG providers must meet certain health and safety requirements related to prevention and control of infectious diseases, first aid and CPR, child abuse prevention, administration of medication, prevention of and response to emergencies due to food allergies, prevention of sudden infant death syndrome and shaken baby syndrome, building and physical premises safety, and emergency response planning. Our bill gives families more stability in the CCDBG program. It ensures that children in the program can get care for at least a year, even if their parent sees a change in their working status or income. Our bill works to improve early childhood care by requiring States to spend a certain portion of their funding on infant and toddler quality initiatives. The bill requires States to develop and implement plans to increase the supply and quality of care for infants and toddlers, as well as children with disabilities and children receiving care during non-traditional work hours. And our bill requires mandatory background checks for child care providers in the CCDBG program. At the outset, I would like to say that most child care providers I have met and spoken with are wonderful, caring people committed to ensuring that the children in their care are safe and happy. This proposal is not meant to insinuate anything negative about our child care workforce. Instead, it is simply meant to ensure that we are doing our due diligence to ensure that the adults entrusted with our children's day- to-day care are not murderers, child molesters, kidnappers, arsonists, drug dealers, or rapists. Background checks are required for many jobs and I believe they should be required for child care providers. Every working parent with children, no matter their income level, worries about child care. What's affordable? What's accessible? Will my child be safe? Where can I get the very best care for my kid? The CCDBG program is supposed to give parents peace of mind. And for many families over many years, it has. But we can and should be doing more to improve child care for children, parents, and providers alike. It is long past time to revitalize, refresh, and reform this vitally important program. Again, I would like to thank Senator Burr, Chairman Harkin, Ranking Member Alexander, and all members of the Senate HELP Committee for their hard work on this bipartisan proposal. It is my hope that we can move swiftly to get this bill passed out of House and Senate and onto the President's desk.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Dorothy I. Height and Whitney M. Young, Jr. Social Work Reinvestment Act. As a social worker, I understand the critical role social workers have in the overall care of our population. Social workers can be found in every facet of community life--in hospitals, mental health clinics, senior centers, schools, and private agencies that serve individuals and families in need. They play a crucial role combating the social problems facing our nation and are essential providers in our health care system. Yet, there are not enough social workers to meet these needs. The Dorothy I. Height and Whitney M. Young, Jr. Social Work Reinvestment Act provides research grants to social workers to train the next generation of social workers; creates a Social Work Reinvestment Commission; authorizes workplace improvement grants to identify workplace safety issues and workforce shortage challenges that need to be addressed to improve the services social workers provide in our communities; and makes grants available to community based programs of excellence to identify, test, and replicate effective social work interventions. I am honored to introduce this bill named after two social visionaries, Dorothy I. Height and Whitney M. Young. Dorothy Height was a pioneer of the civil rights movement. Like me, she began her career as a case worker and continued to fight for social justice. Whitney Young, another trailblazer of the civil rights movement, also began his career transforming our social landscape as a social worker. He helped create President Johnson's War on Poverty and served as President of the National Association of Social Workers. I believe that social work is full of great opportunities, both to serve and to lead. Social work is about puffing our values into action. Social workers are among our best and brightest, our most committed and compassionate. They are at the frontlines of providing care, often putting themselves in dangerous and violent situations. Social workers have the ability to provide psychological, emotional, and social support. Quite simply, the ability to change lives. As a social worker, I have been on the frontlines of helping people cope with issues in their everyday lives. I started off fighting for abused children, making sure they were placed in safe homes. I will continue to fight every day for our children, seniors, military personnel, and families on the floor of the United States Senate. The Dorothy I. Height and Whitney M. Young, Jr. Social Work Reinvestment Act is supported by the National Association of Social Workers. I thank Senators Stabenow and Cardin for co-sponsoring this bill.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Dorothy I. Height and Whitney M. Young, Jr. Social Work Reinvestment Act. As a social worker, I understand the critical role social workers have in the overall care of our population. Social workers can be found in every facet of community life--in hospitals, mental health clinics, senior centers, schools, and private agencies that serve individuals and families in need. They play a crucial role combating the social problems facing our nation and are essential providers in our health care system. Yet, there are not enough social workers to meet these needs. The Dorothy I. Height and Whitney M. Young, Jr. Social Work Reinvestment Act provides research grants to social workers to train the next generation of social workers; creates a Social Work Reinvestment Commission; authorizes workplace improvement grants to identify workplace safety issues and workforce shortage challenges that need to be addressed to improve the services social workers provide in our communities; and makes grants available to community based programs of excellence to identify, test, and replicate effective social work interventions. I am honored to introduce this bill named after two social visionaries, Dorothy I. Height and Whitney M. Young. Dorothy Height was a pioneer of the civil rights movement. Like me, she began her career as a case worker and continued to fight for social justice. Whitney Young, another trailblazer of the civil rights movement, also began his career transforming our social landscape as a social worker. He helped create President Johnson's War on Poverty and served as President of the National Association of Social Workers. I believe that social work is full of great opportunities, both to serve and to lead. Social work is about puffing our values into action. Social workers are among our best and brightest, our most committed and compassionate. They are at the frontlines of providing care, often putting themselves in dangerous and violent situations. Social workers have the ability to provide psychological, emotional, and social support. Quite simply, the ability to change lives. As a social worker, I have been on the frontlines of helping people cope with issues in their everyday lives. I started off fighting for abused children, making sure they were placed in safe homes. I will continue to fight every day for our children, seniors, military personnel, and families on the floor of the United States Senate. The Dorothy I. Height and Whitney M. Young, Jr. Social Work Reinvestment Act is supported by the National Association of Social Workers. I thank Senators Stabenow and Cardin for co-sponsoring this bill.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise in strong opposition to Senator Coburn's amendment on beach renourishment. The Water Resources Development Act extends Federal funding for beach renourishment projects from 50 to 65 years. Senator Coburn's amendment would strike the new 15-year extension. In my state of Maryland, we have a very successful beach renourishment project along the Atlantic coast in Ocean City. Ocean City is the beach destination for many in the Mid-Atlantic region. The purpose of this Army Corps of Engineers project is not to protect a recreational beach but to provide hurricane protection for citizens and for the billions of dollars in public and private infrastructure. Following severe storms in the late 1980s and early 1990s, Ocean City's beach was severally eroded, threatening the homes and private businesses along the coastline and on the mainland. This is when the State of Maryland and the Army Corps of Engineers constructed the Atlantic Coast of Maryland Hurricane Shoreline Protection Project to provide an essential buffer that saves lives and protects communities. The Army Corps of Engineers built a steel sheet pile bulkhead along the boardwalk. They placed sand along the coastline to widen and raise the beach and constructed a vegetated sand dune. Every 4 years, the Army Corps of Engineers must reinforce the beach barrier by replenishing sand. Since its completion, the project has repeatedly demonstrated its value by preventing more than $240 million in damages. Most recently, this project successfully protected the residents of Ocean City and Worcester County from Superstorm Sandy. The project protected billions of dollars in public and private infrastructure and jobs. Approximately $48 million of Federal funding has gone toward this project. This is a small investment considering the billions it would take to rebuild Ocean City's homes, businesses, and hotels along the Atlantic Ocean. I urge my colleagues to oppose Senator Coburn's amendment.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, today I rise to honor the career of an outstanding individual, Chief Judge Robert Bell. Judge Bell is a trailblazer, a stellar legal mind, and a mentor to so many. We are truly blessed to have had him at the helm of our State judiciary here in Maryland for 17 years. We honor him today for his unwavering commitment to justice and for his service to the people of Maryland. I often speak on the importance of our judges understanding and being connected to the public they serve and the communities in which they serve. Judge Bell reached the highest levels of the judiciary, yet he never forgot where he came from. He was raised in Baltimore and attended Dunbar High School, where he served as student body president and ran on a ticket with Reginald Lewis. He attended college at Morgan State University and then went on to Harvard Law. Judge Bell has left an enduring legacy that has been shaped by his life events. When he was 16 years old, he was arrested at Hooper's Restaurant in Baltimore because he refused to give up his seat. Judge Bell became the plaintiff in a landmark civil rights case that helped lead to the end of segregation in public accommodations in Maryland. Judge Bell learned firsthand the power of our judicial system to achieve justice and has committed his career to the improvement of the justice system. Judge Bell has served on Maryland's bench for over 37 years and has served at each level of our State's judicial system--the only judge to have done so for 4 years at each level. Judge Bell started his legal career in 1975 as a judge of the district court for Baltimore City. In 1980 he moved on to the circuit court and was appointed to the court of special appeals in 1984. In 1991 he was appointed to the court of appeals, and in 1996 he was designated by then-Governor Glendening as chief judge of the court--the first African American to hold the position. As chief judge, Judge Bell has been committed to the education and continued development of our State's bench and bar. He has made it his priority to make sure that Maryland's legal professionals are prepared to tackle an ever-evolving criminal justice system and are suited to better serve the public. Having personally worked with him for years on the Advanced Science and Technology Adjudication Resource, ASTAR, Program a program established by the Maryland judiciary under Judge Bell's leadership to help adequately prepare judges presiding over cases involving advanced science and medical issues I can personally attest to his commitment in ensuring the continued education and proper training of Maryland's judges. This is just one example of many like it that illustrate Judge Bell's commitment to the improvement from the Maryland judicial system. From spearheading initiatives to increase pro bono work in the State to implementing programs to help aid struggling homeowners, Judge Bell has truly been an indispensable leader in not only the legal community but also in the entire State of Maryland. Judge Bell's life and resume are a display of civic engagement, and his experience and service are unparalleled in the legal community and beyond. I am honored to recognize the extraordinary life and remarkable achievements of Judge Bell today.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, today I honor the legacy of Mildred Manning, the last surviving American female WWII POW, who died March 8 at age 98. Mrs. Manning's heroics in Bataan and Corregidor are an enduring example of the bravery of American servicemembers and of nurses' dedication to caring for patients. I wish to share her amazing story. Mrs. Manning, born in 1914 on a poor Georgia farm, aspired to escape the poverty which surrounded her. She attended nursing school during the Depression, and in 1939 she joined the Army Nurse Corps. Wishing to see the world, she requested assignment in the Philippines. Weeks after Mrs. Manning arrived in Manila, Japanese forces attacked Pearl Harbor in Hawaii and a U.S. air base near Manila. During the months-long Battle of the Philippines which forced an American retreat to the peninsula of Bataan and the island of Corregidor, Mrs. Manning was one of a handful of Army and Navy nurses who braved the relentless attacks to treat wounded and dying soldiers. When Americans surrendered in May, 1942, Mrs. Manning was one of 77 Army and Navy nurses who were captured and spent the rest of the war in harrowing imprisonment. The prison, built on the grounds of Manila's Santo Tomas University, held nearly 4,000 people in squalid conditions. There were no showers, beds, or kitchens. Hundreds of people were forced to share a single toilet. Food was so scarce prisoners suffered severely from malnutrition. Despite these trials, Lieutenant Manning and her fellow nurses remained fiercely dedicated to providing medical care to those around them. For 2\1/2\ years, they maintained strict order, wore uniforms, and cared for their fellow prisoners. For their efforts, she and her fellow nurses earned the moniker, ``Angels of the Pacific.'' Upon their return to the U.S. in 1945, Mrs. Manning and her fellow nurses were honored by President Roosevelt with the Bronze Star Medal and a Presidential Unit Citation. We are all so grateful for Mildred Manning's service. Her legacy will live on in our Nation's history, reminding us of the horrors of war and of the bravery of the special people who persevere by helping others. Mrs. Manning's unwavering dedication to serving our Nation in the midst of hardship continues to inspire me, and I am honored to commemorate her today.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I thank Senator Coons. I probably will not take 10 minutes, but what I will speak about is really compelling. Amendment No. 431 Later on during the vote-arama we will be considering my amendment that will create a reserve fund that should we pass the Paycheck Fairness Act, it will in no way negate the spending within our budget. It is essentially the functional equivalent of a sense-of-the-Senate resolution that the Senate should pass the Paycheck Fairness Act. We talk a lot about growing the economy. The economy will grow when people work. The people who are entering the workforce who have been one of the driving forces for the last 30 years are women. Although we are in the workforce full force, we are still not being paid equal pay for equal work. It is outrageous. If you want to grow the economy, pass paycheck fairness so we are not harassed for simply trying to find out what our pay is and how we can get equal pay for the same job. Women across America are worried about staying in the middle class if they are already there or getting to the middle class if they are not there. Nearly 50 years after passage of the Equal Pay Act, women still get paid less than men. This budget is a reflection of our values and priorities, and eliminating the wage gap should be one. For years I and other colleagues have fought for paycheck fairness. Under that act, no longer would employers be able to retaliate against workers for sharing information about wages. Right now, if you ask someone what they get paid, you can get fired. This bill follows on from the famous Lilly Ledbetter Act. Lilly herself was humiliated and harassed because she tried to find out what she was making. No longer will women be able to seek only backpay when they are discriminated against. Under this bill they could also seek punitive damages. No longer would employers be able to use almost any reason for paying a woman less: Oh, the men do harder jobs. Oh, they have a better education than you. In fact, the reverse is happening. Women entering the workforce are often better educated, with more academic and trade certifications than men who are doing it. Women are also doing hard and dangerous jobs. We can look at what they do in the military. We can look at them as firefighters, police officers, and prison guards. Under the legislation I am proposing, no longer will women be on their own in fighting for equal pay for equal work. In this country we say: If you work hard and play by the rules, you will get ahead. We work hard every day, but we find that the rules are different for women than for men. Actually, the rules in many workplaces are rigged against us. So I would hope that we would adopt my amendment today that would allow us to be able to go forward later on in the year and pass paycheck fairness. It is important to the women in the workplace, and it is important to our economy. Much is being said about being progrowth. Who is not progrowth? Of course we want to grow our economy. If we look at the tax structure, I believe we should reward--right now, the tax structure is tilted and the tax breaks that we give are to reward people who make money off of money, not people who make money off of products or the sweat of their own brow. So I think we need to take a look at the Tax Code. My State is an entrepreneurial-driven State. We are an innovation economy in biotech, cyber tech, space tech. At the same time, we have people who work hard every single day in agriculture, in poultry, in mining, in trying to earn a living by very hard work. I believe we should have a Tax Code that rewards it. I yield the floor.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I want to thank the Senator from Tennessee first for consulting with Senator Shelby and me. You are exactly right, he has identified a problem. We are concerned. I promise the Senator we will definitely work with him. I appreciate the Senator withdrawing the amendment. I am going to say publicly in front of my colleagues, we will definitely work with the Senator. Amendment No. 232

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Michigan for her kind words and also her leadership. She is part of our Democratic leadership team and has been a real champion for jobs that pay a living wage, jobs that lead to the middle class. She is an advocate for making sure we have an economy that builds from the middle class out. Also, as the chair of the full Committee on Agriculture, she has fashioned bipartisan solutions to help our American farmers, particularly the family farm, and to feed the hungry here and around the world. I salute her for her leadership. Mr. President, I come here today to support the budget put forth by the Democrats in their resolution, led by the very able chair, Senator Patty Murray. We are showing that we can govern. Yesterday we passed the continuing funding resolution in the Senate. It passed 73 to 26. It showed a bipartisan resolution, a resolve to make sure there is no government shutdown, slowdown, slamdown. We now have to look ahead to fiscal year 2014. I salute Senator Murray for what she has done through her committee. First of all, she is dealing with sequester, that Draconian approach that is going to shred government but most of all shred opportunity and place our fragile economy in jeopardy. She has done it in a balanced way. At the same time, she has protected seniors, veterans, and our most vulnerable by making sure she has looked out for Medicare and Medicaid. Contrasting the Ryan budget, she also showed that she, in our budget, is not going to throw women and children under the bus. I think she has done an outstanding job, and I want to support her. As we look at what we need to do here in the budget, I was appalled, first of all, to see what the Ryan budget did. Women across America have to balance their family budgets. They know America also has to get its fiscal act together. But the entire Ryan budget places the whole burden of drawing down our public debt on discretionary spending. It preserves tax breaks and tax earmarks and further squeezes those fiscal priorities that impact women and children, impact education, impact empowerment. I think what we have to offer here offers a far greater vision. One of the things I am deeply concerned about is its impact on women's health care. The Senator from Michigan has spoken about it. We worked on making sure that--when we were working on the Affordable Care Act, we acknowledged the special needs of women. We were appalled in hearings that I had that women were paying more for their health insurance than men of comparable age and health status. We were paying a gender tax. Now, the Affordable Care Act--disparagingly mentioned on the other side as ObamaCare; affectionately mentioned here as ObamaCare because the President does--our legislation that we passed in the Affordable Care Act eliminated gender discrimination in the insurance industry, that you do not penalize someone because they are a woman. Then we got right rid of the punitive practices in insurance companies, one of which was to deny families with children with preexisting conditions health care. That meant that if you had a child with autism, if you had a child with cerebral palsy, you could not get health insurance for the rest of your family--punitive, harsh. We got rid of that. Then there was the way they treated the women. Simply being a woman, as others have said, was a preexisting condition. We were appalled in our investigation that showed that in eight States you were denied health insurance if you were a victim of domestic violence. So you were battered in your own home, and you were battered by your insurance company. Again, we got rid of those punitive practices. But the Ryan budget gets rid of the Affordable Care Act. So all of those reforms--increasing universal access to the working poor, getting rid of the punitive practices of insurance companies, ending gender discrimination--will be vitiated. It will be canceled like it did not happen. During their campaigns, they said they wanted to repeal and replace. Well, Paul Ryan repeals, but he does not replace. And do you know what. We do not need to have it replaced. We need to keep the Affordable Care Act in place, moving America in the right direction and helping health care be affordable both to families and to businesses. We cannot allow the Ryan budget to stand. But just being against an idea is not good enough. This is why we support the Murray budget, because she preserves the Affordable Care Act, and she continues to emphasize those reforms we made in quality and prevention and integrative services. We know how, through those quality initiatives, we can save money and save lives. Others will also speak about Medicare. I cannot believe that we are going to replace Medicare with a voucher--a voucher and a promise. So let's get rid of, not deal with, the health care needs of the elderly. Let's get rid of the financial needs of the Federal Government. So we would rather protect billionaires than protect senior citizens. I think we have our priorities wrong. Others will speak to Medicare. I am going to go to Medicaid. I want to speak to Medicaid because of our knowledge about who is on Medicaid. Mr. President, 1.8 million seniors are in nursing homes. What is Medicaid? Medicaid is the only safety net the middle class has when, through the ravages of Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, or other chronic, debilitating disease, you must turn to a long-term care facility, that you have a safety net to help pay the bill. In order to qualify, you have to spend down. I was a leader here, 25 years ago, in trying to reform the spend-down policy. Twenty-five years later, we have made no reforms. We have had plenty of attacks but no reform. We cannot turn Medicaid into a block grant. It is going to endanger really the ability of sound nursing homes--either by the private sector or faith-based--in my own State to look at how are they going to fund this. All we are doing is funding our problems with public debt onto the States. Many people here talk about, oh, we need to go to the Governors. All we are sending to the Governors is more unfunded Federal mandates. We cannot do this to Medicaid, and we cannot do this to the middle class. Instead, we should be investing in research. I say this because my father died of the ravages of Alzheimer's. We had to spend down the family savings he earned from working over 60 or 70 hours a week in a little grocery store. This is not only our story, it is the story of over 1 million people. What could we do? I felt so sad for my father. I felt worse because even though I was a Senator, even though I could get Nobel Prize winners on the phone, even though I was an appropriator, there wasn't the cure, the cognitive stretchout for him. We need to invest in the research. We are on the brink of incredible breakthroughs in neurological science which could either help fund the cure for Alzheimer's or do the cognitive stretchout. We need to spend money to save money. Let's put the money into research and deal with Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, and Lou Gehrig's disease, debilitating things which break the family's budget and family's heart but also contribute to the public debt. We can get there if we make wise and prudent choices. Most of the people in nursing homes are primarily women over the age of 80. What are we going to do? Are we going to abandon them? This budget is unkind to women, but it is also unkind to children in terms of the opportunity structure. The Ryan budget caps and freezes Pell grants at $5,645. It requires families who make less than $20,000 to qualify for a Pell grant. This means many people who seek Pell grants are single mothers. There is recent data showing many of our families, 63 percent, are in single- parent households. It could be a single mother or a single dad, someone who started out life with hopes and dreams and now has many responsibilities. Many wish to return to higher education, particularly the community colleges which offer gateways to better jobs in the new economy. In my own State, this could be an associate degree in nursing, in pharmacy tech or in lab tech. This can help keep people in the middle class in affordable living. An affordable education will be the gateway into community colleges. We should be expanding the Pell grants, not shrinking them. It is a new economy, and it is a new family profile. I could go over this line item by line item. I know others will be talking. When we look at women who need health care for themselves, for their children and their aging parents, the so-called sandwich generation, the Ryan budget vitiates it, but the Murray budget has a way to deal with this. For education and opportunity, for our children, workforce, and community colleges, the Ryan budget shrinks opportunity and shrinks the ability of people rising to the middle class or staying in the middle class. I think the Ryan budget is a bad prescription for America. The way I want to deal with the Ryan budget is replace it with a sensible, balanced approach which looks for the hopes and dreams of the American people and is not protecting lavish subsidies and lavish tax breaks to subsidize corporate jets and other such items. I salute the Senator from Washington State for the great job she accomplished. I look forward to further debate. Yesterday, we were able to move the continuing resolution for funding. I could not have done it without the great staff I have. Retirement of Charlie Houy Mr. President, in a few days the U.S. government will say congratulations and happy retirement to one of our finest public servants, Charlie Houy. After more than three decades of federal service Charlie will retire from the Senate Appropriations Committee. He has served on the Appropriations Committee for more than 30 years, always following the dictum of his first supervisor, Senator Ted Stevens, that staff, like children, should be seen and not heard. Charlie began his Federal service in 1981 working for the Naval Sea Systems Command as a Presidential Management Intern. He was detailed to the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee in 1983 and worked as a majority professional staff member for Chairmen Ted Stevens, John Stennis, and Daniel Inouye. Charlie was appointed Democratic clerk of the subcommittee in 1995 by Chairman Inouye and remained in that position through 2010. In 2009, Charlie became the 23rd staff director of the full Appropriations Committee under Chairman Inouye's leadership and did an outstanding job keeping the trains running to get the committee's work done and maneuvering the committee through numerous budget minefields. During the transition following Chairman Inouye's sudden passing, Charlie expertly brought me up to speed on the short term and long term issues I would be facing as the new chairwoman. Just one day after becoming chairwoman, I found myself managing the Sandy Supplemental on the Senate floor. Charlie was on my side, and at my side. His advice and during this period were invaluable. It more than made up for the fact that he is an avid San Francisco 49ers fan. His spirit of bipartisanship has earned him praise from members on both sides of the aisle and both sides of the Dome. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid described Charlie as a person ``who has a fantastic knowledge of what goes on in this country as it relates to money.'' The late Senator Ted Stevens had this to say about Charlie: ``He is a consummate expert on defense issues and is well respected by those at the Department of Defense and his colleagues on the Hill . . . I am proud to say he is my friend.'' The late Chairman Daniel Inouye described Charlie as ``one of the finest staff members in the whole Senate . . .'' His accomplishments and expertise earned him a coveted spot on Roll Call's Fabulous 50 staffers for his mastery of policy and procedure and his ability to influence agendas and legislation. President Harry Truman once said, ``It's amazing what you can accomplish if you don't care who gets the credit.'' This personifies Charlie. In a town where most people are clamoring over each other for the spotlight, Charlie has used a quiet humility and a tireless work ethic to accomplish great things for our country. I would also like to recognize and thank Charlie's wife Sharon and his daughter Cassie. Working in the Senate for more than 30 years, there were many late nights and weekends that required Charlie to miss out on family events, crew regattas, and vacations. Thank you for lending us your husband and father during those times. Mr. President, I stand here today to express my deepest appreciation to Charlie Houy for serving the Senate Appropriations Committee, the Senate, and the American people with integrity and intelligence. His tireless contributions to our nation have been outstanding. I wish him well as he leaves the U.S. Senate for new adventures. I yield the floor.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, in a few seconds I will be propounding a unanimous consent request. We were originally scheduled to have a series of votes at 11:15. We think we have a way of working out some of our concerns if we just take a little bit of a breather and do the kind of negotiation based on the civility and common sense that we have been using during this deliberation. Therefore, Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding the previous order, all postcloture time be considered expired at 2 p.m., with the time until 2 p.m. to be equally divided between the two leaders or their designees, with all other provisions of the previous order remaining in effect.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, just to give everybody the lay of the land, it means we are working through our legislative issues, and at 2 o'clock we will then proceed to a series of votes which will be announced in plenty of time for people to know what is happening. I ask unanimous consent that the quorum calls be equally divided, and I thank the able floor staff for giving me advice. There are days when I think it is an opera and they are calling out the arias we need to sing. But we are moving, and I thank Senator Shelby for consulting with his side of the aisle. At 2 o'clock we are going to have a series of amendments, and I think the Senate will feel very solid about the direction in which we are going. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, what is the next regular order? Amendment No. 65 to Amendment No. 26

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, we have some good news. The good news is that the Senator and I have reached an agreement. There is an acceptable modification. I didn't know if the Senator wanted to speak on this amendment. May I continue. This amendment ensures that the NSF funding for political science research is widely used focusing on national security and economic interests. I, therefore, believe we can agree to this amendment with a voice vote. I ask unanimous consent that the 60-vote threshold be waived for this amendment.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I request a voice vote.

Ms. MIKULSKI. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 70, as Modified, to Amendment No. 26

Ms. MIKULSKI. I believe we can agree to this amendment with a voice vote, so I ask unanimous consent that the 60-vote threshold be waived for the amendment.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 72, as Modified, to Amendment No. 26

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 98, as Modified, to Amendment No. 26

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I now call up the Mikulski-Shelby amendment No. 98, as modified.