Barbara Mikulski

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. The Senator from Oregon is absolutely correct. This would be funding that would begin October 1. Given no cute tricks around shutdown and slam-down politics as we go into the fall--that we could actually move our appropriations--this would provide money starting October 1 with these additional resources to help the FBI be more effective than what it is, and also to help our Justice Department be even more effective than what it is in fighting hate crimes. I will be discussing my amendment in even more detail, but I know there are other colleagues on the floor, and I now yield the floor.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize the historic events taking place in Crete, Greece. Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople has called the first Holy and Great Council of the various Christian Orthodox churches around the world since 787 CE. The Holy and Great Council is the first meeting of its kind in over a millennium. The 14 Orthodox Christian Churches together have over 300 million followers around the world, including over a million Americans. These churches are self-governing but united by common dogma, faith, liturgy, and moral conviction, with the Ecumenical Patriarch serving as the ``first among equals.'' This meeting began on Sunday, June 19 and will continue through June 26. Three hundred and fifty leaders are attending this meeting where they will promote unity among the world's Orthodox believers. They will discuss key issues facing Orthodox Christians, including the church's mission in today's world, the Orthodox diaspora, and the relationship of Christian Orthodoxy with the rest of the Christian world. The Patriarch has a record of reaching out and working for peace and reconciliation among all faiths and has fostered dialogue among Christians, Jews, and Muslims. His All-Holiness has received awards from the United Nations, the United States, and other nations for providing moral leadership throughout modern history's greatest tests. His efforts to convene this Holy and Great Council is a testament to his continued leadership at a time when it is greatly needed. After the September 11, 2001, attacks, the Patriarch organized a gathering of religious leaders, including Muslim imams, to condemn the attacks as an anti-religious act. He was also the first Ecumenical Patriarch to attend the inauguration of a pope. With so much suffering taking place around the world, we need people to come together, like they are in this historic meeting, to work together to advance our shared values. I commend and thank Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew for convening this Holy and Great Council of the Orthodox Christian Churches in Crete, Greece.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I wish to recognize a great American who has honorably served our country as president of the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, USU, in Bethesda, MD, on the campus of the Walter Reed National Military Medical Center. Dr. Rice began his service at USU in 2005. During the past 11 years as president of the University, he also served for 6 months as Acting Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs, March to August 2010. During his tenure, Dr. Rice has worked to improve the USU's curriculum, research portfolio, external relationships, board, and physical plant. The results of these efforts are exhibited by the recent full accreditation of the School of Medicine and the Graduate School of Nursing. Dr. Rice recognizes the institution's unique military and public health care missions and has worked to ensure that lessons learned in a decade of conflict were incorporated into the curriculum and the fabric of the institution, along with the Department's fundamental humanitarian mission. These important lessons include advances in trauma care, developing strong leadership skills among Military Health System officers, and increasing diversity in the medical corps of the three military services. Dr. Rice has collaborated closely with the leadership of the Walter Reed National Military Medical Center and the leadership throughout the Military Health System. He has reached out to provide more support to the national network of Military Treatment Facilities to forge a ``unity of effort.'' Dr. Rice has also worked with the National Institutes of Health and other Federal agencies to advance education, research, and health care for our Nation's military beneficiaries and civilian communities. As president, Dr. Rice founded the Post Graduate Dental College and created several new graduate degree programs, including public health educational activities. Through these efforts, Dr. Rice has helped USU to become a multidimensional health sciences university dedicated to advancing the mission of the Military Health System. Prior to USU, Dr. Rice had a distinguished career in academic medicine and public service. He served as vice chancellor for Health Affairs and vice dean of the College of Medicine, University of Illinois at Chicago. Previously, he was professor and chairman of surgery at University of Texas Southwestern. Dr. Rice also was a Robert Woods Johnson Fellow for former majority leader Senator Tom Daschle from 1991 to 1992. Dr. Rice was professor and vice chairman, University of Washington Department of Surgery. Before that, he was director of the intensive care unit at Michael Reese Hospital and Medical Center in Chicago. Prior to Michael Reese Hospital, Dr. Rice was assistant professor of surgery at the Pritzker School of Medicine, University of Chicago. Dr. Rice has had extensive training with the U.S. Navy Medical Corps in Bethesda and in San Diego. Dr. Rice has deep experience with the Nation's civilian academic health community and the Military Health System. He has brought this knowledge to benefit the USU, and he leaves it a better place. I wish to commend Dr. Rice for his service to the Uniformed Services University and to the Nation.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, we are now debating the Commerce- Justice-Science appropriations bill. I am the vice chair of that subcommittee and just wanted to make people aware that the pending bill funds the Department of Commerce--which hopefully works to create jobs in our country--the Justice Department, the National Science Foundation, the space agency, all related to how we build a strong economy and how we protect our people. It is a bill that I have worked on not only all year long, but I have worked on this bill for close to 30 years. When this subcommittee bill moves, it will be the final subcommittee in which I will have been in a major chairmanship, vice-chairmanship role. So people would think: Gee, Senator Barb wants to move this major bill along. I sure do. I have worked hands-on with my colleague, the Senator from Alabama, Mr. Shelby. We have a good bill. We have a bill for which I will continue to advocate. But people say: Well then, Barb, why would you support a filibuster? I will tell you why I supported a filibuster: guns, guns, guns, guns. And on the anniversary of the assassination of those people at the Charleston church, we had yet another mass murder scene occur in Orlando, FL. We organized the filibuster so that we could get a vote to stop the terrorist suspects from getting guns and also to extend background checks for all gun sales and to extend those background checks to the Internet and gun shows so that we could curb violence. I actually wanted to go further. I wanted to bring back the ban on assault weapons that expired because an assault weapon is no more than a weapon of war to be used by the military or those in defense of our country who have to kill a lot of people in a short amount of time with as few trigger pulls as possible. But, no, we couldn't get that, so we went to these two bills--one to close the terrorist loophole and the other to extend background checks. I supported the men of Newtown. I see one Senator on the floor now, the distinguished Senator from Connecticut, a former attorney general who was in the Senate when Newtown happened, along with his junior colleague, Senator Chris Murphy also of Connecticut, and Senator Booker of New Jersey. They led this fight. I am proud of what they did because--what did they filibuster for? Only to get a vote. We had to have a filibuster to get a vote on offering ideas on how we could curb gun violence in our country and protect our own people. One is against terrorists getting guns, and the other is extending background checks to the Internet sales and to gun show sales. I come from a State with a proud heritage of hunting. In many parts of our State, it is part of our way of life. We respect that, and this will in no way impede anybody from being able to do that. Yet we had to filibuster to get a vote--not even a filibuster on the bill. In just a matter of 2 hours from now, we will be voting on those two amendments. I hope those amendments pass. The other side of the aisle also has alternatives to those. That is the American way. We presented an idea, and they think they have an idea. But let's vote on who has the best idea to curb violence and protect us against terrorism. This isn't the first time someone filled with hate and armed with a high-powered weapon has killed his fellow citizens. Time and again, innocent Americans have died--in a church in Charleston, in schools such as Newtown, in a movie theater, or at work. The list goes on. Also, the availability of guns occurs in our cities--in places such as Baltimore where we have a high homicide rate due to the drug trade. We would like to be able to address that today, but instead we have focused on these two specific things. As I said, I would like to have done more, but this is a fantastic start. I salute those colleagues who led the filibuster. America wants us to take action. Let's go to closing the terrorist loophole. When I get on an airplane, I go through a metal detector, I take my shoes off, and I take my jacket off. There was a time when they even looked at what I had in my tube of lipstick so that it would not be a lethal weapon. I support that. I don't want to be blown up in the sky, and I don't want anybody else on that plane to be either. But why is it we would go through such incredible scrutiny to board an airplane to protect us against terrorists, yet we have no scrutiny of the people on a terrorist watch list to be able to buy a gun. You can be on a terrorist watch list, but one of the ways you are going to commit terror is to kill people--one through mass murder like the horrific 9/11 event that still sears our memory and breaks our heart every time we think about it. But, my gosh, if I am going to get on an airplane and they are going to want to know what is in my tube of lipstick when I go through--that it is not a lethal weapon--certainly, why don't we try to curb lethal weapons? That is why I support the Feinstein amendment. You could walk into a gun store now, and in 3 days or less you can walk out with a high- powered rifle, a high-capacity magazine, unless you have committed a crime. You cannot get on an airplane, but you can buy an AR-15. This is unbelievable, and this is what Senator Feinstein's amendment would fix. I am proud to be a cosponsor of her amendment. I am pleased the Senate will vote on it, and I hope we can pass it. The distinguished Senator from Texas, Mr. Cornyn, has an alternative. Let him explain it and defend it. I think the Feinstein amendment is superior. I also hope we pass the Murphy amendment to close the gun show loophole. Today 40 percent of gun sales are unlicensed. They are sold online or at gun shows. It means that 40 percent of the gun sales have no background check, giving felons, domestic-violence abusers, or terrorists easy access to guns. This amendment will help with two things: It will get all of the names of all people prohibited from buying guns into the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, which is the Federal background check system run by the FBI, and it will require background checks for the sale or transfer of all firearms by private sellers. Background checks do work. In 18 States where background checks are required for all handgun sales, 46 percent fewer women are killed by domestic partners and 48 percent fewer law enforcement officers are killed with handguns. So if you want to protect law enforcement, if you want to protect us from domestic violence abusers, you want to close this gun show loophole. It will not only deal with terrorists, but it will deal with people who are deeply, deeply troubled. I urge my colleagues to pass the Murphy-Blumenthal amendment. Before I leave the floor, I wish to say something to the Senator from Connecticut. After Newtown, I really thought we would do something. After the massacre of 20 children and 6 educators who literally put themselves in harm's way to save the children--6 educators, 20 children, killed by an assault weapon--I thought we would do something. If we didn't do it after Newtown, I didn't know when we would do it. Then there was Aurora, there was Charleston, and now there is Orlando. But we didn't do it after Newtown. I really hope this is a new day. I thank the Senator for standing up for those families and for all in this country. I am honored and pleased to stand with him. I yield the floor.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I, too, rise in support of the Commerce- Justice-Science appropriations bill. As my colleague, the chair of the subcommittee, the Senator from Alabama, Mr. Shelby, said, the CJS bill does provide $56.3 billion to fund the Department of Commerce and its many agencies, the Justice Department, the National Science Foundation, and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. It meets the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015. Every account is pretty much at the level we funded last year. It is a bipartisan bill, it is free from poison pill riders, and it was reported 30 to 0 from the committee. I support the underlying bill and look forward to moving it through the Senate. What a difference a few days make. When I left the Senate on Thursday to return to Maryland to be with my constituents, I was so excited about joining with Senator Shelby to bring the Commerce-Justice-Science appropriations bill to the floor. I was excited about it for several reasons--not only about the legislation, but what the legislation and what we brought here actually meant. First of all, we actually were going to bring a bill that was bipartisan, and I was going to join with my colleague of so many years, Senator Shelby of Alabama, where we have worked together, where we have tried to come up with how we meet the needs of the United States of America to protect our citizens, to make sure that we are the country of innovation and discovery, and that we do this in a way that is also fiscally responsible. In order to have bipartisanship, you must start with friendship. Senator Shelby and I have developed that over the years based on mutual respect, candor, civility, and consultation. I was looking forward to bringing the bill based on context. This will be the last subcommittee bill that I will bring to the Senate. With my retirement at the end of this session, I will be leaving. But this subcommittee is one that I have chaired for a number of years, and I have worked with such wonderful colleagues on the other side of the aisle. So there was a whole sense of excitement in bringing the bill to the floor. People were working together to bring something before our colleagues in a spirit of, No. 1, meeting America's needs, being fiscally responsible, and showing that with mutual respect we can get a mutual job done. But that excitement ended. It ended Sunday morning when I woke up and, to my horror and shock, saw what had happened in Orlando. Orlando, I saw, was bleeding. The LGBT community was bleeding. The Latino community was bleeding. America was bleeding. It was a terrible act of terrorism and hate, killing 49 innocent people, with a death toll possibly on the rise, at a nightclub in Orlando. This was just terrible. I knew it wasn't the first time a terrorist with hate in his heart and a gun in his hand had mowed down his fellow citizens with a high-powered weapon. It seemed too hard to believe, yet I noted that last Friday it was 1 year since the murder at Charleston. Innocent Americans going about their lives have been murdered in churches, schools, movie theaters, at work. They have names like Newtown, Aurora, and San Bernardino. America wants to know: What are we doing to keep America safe? I want to say to America, first of all, that in the underlying bill we really worked hard to make America safe. The Senate CJS bill includes $3.7 billion to protect Americans from terrorism and to respond to growing threats and incidents. With Senator Shelby leading the way and working with me, we worked to help the FBI transform from fighting bank robbers to fighting ISIL and lone wolves. The bulk of the Department of Justice, or DOJ, counterterrorism funding is for the FBI--$3.5 billion to uncover and disrupt plots against America. For example, we fund the Joint Terrorism Task Force, where all the agencies work together in 104 cities. We make sure we have a watch list through the Terrorist Screening Center of individual investigations resulting in arrests for those who seek to join ISIL in Syria. This legislation, this appropriations bill before us, also funds something called the National Security Division--$95 million to make sure we have the prosecutors, law enforcement, and coordinated intelligence communities to make the case against terrorism. We fund the Office of the U.S. Attorneys at $51 million, and we also make sure that when we catch the bad guys they go to Federal prison. Also, we help local law enforcement to train and respond to the active shooter incidents. In the last decade, we have had to respond to 160 incidents in which there was an active shooter trying to commit mass murder. Overall, the bill contains a 1-percent increase for Federal law enforcement. It is what we could do with our budget allocation, but that is not enough. Our tight allocation means we can't afford the resources to respond to the threats of America and stay within the budget caps. The FBI needs the right tools, the right technology, and the right training to stop terrorists before they act to uncover these lone-wolf and organized operations. That is why later on in the bill, I will offer an amendment for emergency funding for the FBI to add $170 million to fight terrorism, whether it originates overseas or here in the United States. We have helped with emergency supplemental funding for the FBI before, every year between 2001 and 2008, but the threat is growing with emergencies now. But Sunday's attack was also a hate crime. No hate crime should be tolerated against any community or any group, ever. America's strength lies in its diversity. We also have to stay together, and we have to stand strong in denouncing prejudice and violence directed at any group. We must speak out against hate in any form. I, too, want to express my condolences to those people who died in Orlando. I also want to express my condolences to their family members, to the injured, and to all who will bear the permanent impact of this. This bill is also a way of showing that we are serious about hate crimes. The bill that Senator Shelby and I brought here maintains funding for the Civil Rights Division of $148 million to enforce anti- discrimination laws. We worked with Assistant Attorney General Gupta and her colleagues to keep schools, workplaces, and companies safe and free from intolerance and discrimination. But again, there, we need more help, and I hope to add $30 million to that agency to fight discrimination. Hearing the strong cries across the country, I know there will be those who will be calling for action on gun control. Senator Feinstein and others will speak later on today on that. In terms of what just happened--it happened in Orlando, but it happened in Newtown and so on--I think we have a good response in the bill, and I think there are good pending amendments. But I also want to speak to the other part of the bill. One of my big issues is jobs--jobs today and jobs tomorrow. In this legislation, working again with my colleague, we put money into this for jobs and innovation. Why is innovation so important? For the companies in the S&P 500, about 80 percent of their value comes from intangible assets--patents and trademarks and research software--not bricks and mortar and inventory. That means that through innovation, companies need new knowledge to invent new products and to have new jobs. We want to win not only the Nobel Prizes, but we want to win the markets, and we have to start with research. That is why we fund the National Science Foundation at $7.5 billion, supporting more than 11,000 research grants, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology at $974 million to make sure that it sets our standards for products to be sold everywhere in the world. Those are American standards, not Chinese standards. We are not buying Chinese mammogram equipment. We are not buying Chinese equipment to make our cars lighter and safer. Also, we are doing important work there on cyber security. Also, we have the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. I am very proud of the work they do in terms of fisheries and our oceans and certainly their work in the Chesapeake Bay. But we also have the very important weather prediction, where, again, working with the other side of the aisle, we made sure they had the right computational capacity to be able to do the weather forecasting that we need. Hurricane season is upon us. We need to pinpoint when a hurricane is coming to be able to save lives and be able to save property. Every mile of evacuation costs $1 million. The more accurate we can be, the earlier we can be, the more lives we will be able to save and also protect property. That is what they do. Then, of course, there is NASA. My colleague from Alabama, Senator Shelby, and I have worked a number of years on the national space agency. We have worked so hard for a balanced space program--human space flight, reliable space transportation, aeronautical and space science. We have inspired new discovery. We have helped promote innovation. We have looked at new stars from the Hubble. We have looked at new planets using Pluto. We have spawned a new satellite servicing industry. We have also looked out for the planet. Whether it is in Huntsville, AL, or at the Goddard Space Flight Center, we have really moved this work. We need our science agencies to invent and to be able to sell their products, but we also want to protect ideas and innovation. That is why we fund the Patent and Trademark Office. Senator Shelby and I believe that private property needs to be protected. But intellectual property is private property, and we want to make sure that our Patent and Trademark Office really is able to be not a bottleneck but a pathway to protecting this. We also promote the International Trade Administration and the Economic Development Administration. I look forward to a robust amendment process to address the issues related to safety and security and other aspects of the bill. I hope our colleagues will come forth to debate--there are no restrictions here--and then to offer amendments. Now is the time to seize the moment. I look forward to working with my colleague Senator Shelby and all of our colleagues to move this bill. I think at the end of the day, we can be very proud of what we are doing to protect America on many different levels. I yield the floor.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Will the Senator from Minnesota yield for a question?

Ms. MIKULSKI. First, joining you as a social worker, my question is, Is the Senator from Minnesota, with her vast experience as an attorney general as well as her advocacy here in the Senate----

Ms. MIKULSKI. To the Senator from Connecticut, most of the victims of guns in domestic violence are law enforcement officials responding to aid a domestic violence victim. In my own State there have been wonderful men in blue who came to a home to rescue someone who was being held or something by their spouse--often off their meds. When the police officer responded because it was domestic violence--not responding as if it were an active scene--he was also killed. Has that been the Senator's observation?

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, how much time does our side have?

Ms. MIKULSKI. Well, I will be quick in my remarks. First, I just want to comment about real leadership and how blessed we are to have what we have. I compliment both the chairman and the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee. The chairman, Senator McCain, is a graduate of the Naval Academy and is a well-known and well-respected war hero who for his entire life has stood for defending America. Our ranking member, Senator Jack Reed of Rhode Island, is a West Point graduate and a paratrooper, so he knows what it is like to make big leaps for the defense of the country. They have done their best to do a bill. They find that their budget allocation is very tight, and we understand that. What we seek here is parity in what the gentleman from Arizona, Senator McCain, is offering as his amendment, and he has spoken thoroughly and eloquently about it. Senator Reed has spoken eloquently about how not all national security is in the Department of Defense, and we need more money for the State Department, Homeland Security. There are others in our part of the bill, the nondefense discretionary part, related to research and development and also investments in health and education. There are those who would say: Well, Senator Mikulski, you know what Senator McCain wants to do. Yes. You know what Senator Reed wants to do. Not all defense is in DOD. Yes. But aren't you being squishy? No, I am not being squishy at all when we talk about the needed nondefense discretionary for research and others. Very quickly, when we won World War II, Roosevelt made it clear that it was our arsenal of democracy that enabled one of the greatest fighting machines ever assembled to be successful. We need to continue to have an arsenal of democracy. That arsenal of democracy will always be cutting edge and maintain its qualitative edge because of what we will do with research and development, often in civilian agencies, whether it is the Department of Energy that will produce more trucks, whether it is the National Science Foundation working with others to make us even more advanced in computational capacity so that we have the best computers to defend us, not only in cyber security but in others. There is a new kind of arsenal of democracy, and we need to have a strong economy and we need to have continued research and development to maintain our qualitative edge. Let's go to the wonderful men and women who serve our military. Only 2 percent of the population signs up, but when they sign up, boy, are we proud of them. We share that on both sides of the aisle. But what GEN Martin Dempsey, the former head of the Joint Chiefs--himself a decorated hero--said to me was this: Senator Mikulski, out of every four people who want to enlist in our military, only one is taken because only one will be fit for duty. One category can't pass because they can't pass the physical fitness. They have too many physical problems. Well, why is that? Then the other won't be taken by the military because they fail the literacy and the math--a failure of education. Third, there is another category because of issues with either addiction or emotional problems. So we need to look at our total population. We need a totally strong America to have a strong defense. I know some people say what I want to do and some of my colleagues want to do--we not only want to maintain parity in the Budget Act consistent with our votes and our principles, but look at that. Also, when we vote, know why we are doing this. We want to maintain our arsenal of democracy. We want to maintain our cutting edge and our qualitative edge. We also want our young men and women to be fit for duty, whether it is for military service or other service to the Nation. I know the gentleman from Arizona is waiting. I have now completed my remarks, and I yield the floor.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, today I will vote against Senator McCain's amendment No. 4229, the $18 billion of additional spending for the Department of Defense. I support the troops and their mission, especially Maryland's nine military bases. While there are many items I would like to see more money for, I believe we can meet the needs of our national defense within the budget caps. For fiscal year 2017, the Department of Defense appropriations bill reported unanimously by the Appropriations Committee last week did that. The Defense appropriations bill accomplishes many objectives without a budget gimmick. It uses base funding to provide $600 million to meet Israel's missile defense, an increase of $455 million above the request. The McCain amendment offers only $465 million. Appropriations will add $600 million to Israeli defense. Let's look at new, modern ships. The McCain amendment authorizes $90 million less for the littoral ships than what we do. We put in $475 million. The McCain amendment adds nothing to an account for the National Guard and Reserve. The Defense appropriations bill adds $900 million for the Guard and Reserve equipment account so they can recapitalize themselves, so they can be part of our fighting military for our Commander in Chief. Also, we can look at something like the Arctic. There is a threat to the Arctic. Senator Murkowski from Alaska has spoken eloquently about it. We have money in here for polar icebreakers. The Russians have 6, and we have 1 in Antarctica. This helps the shipbuilding industry and so on. We can do this in Defense appropriations. I urge the rejection of the McCain amendment. We can meet our national defense without a budget gimmick.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. We need to talk on the bill. Ms. KLOBUCHAR addressed the Chair.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Reed-Mikulski amendment to respond to threats to our Nation by raising the caps for both defense and nondefense spending. All agree that we must defend the security of the United States. So many argue that we need more money for DOD, even though DOD already consumes 50 percent of all discretionary spending. Here is a quick tutorial on the Federal budget. Discretionary spending is $1 trillion. The other two big expenditures are interest on the debt and trust funds, particularly for earned benefits like Social Security and Medicare. But on discretionary spending--what we can decide to spend of that $1 trillion--about $500 billion goes to defense. We all know we are under some pretty big threats. We have fought a 15-year war. Our men and women deserve the best training, the best technology, and support for themselves and their families. I don't argue that. But I want people who like to say I am a numbers guy--let them know what the numbers are. I take the position that we need to make sure our national security is what it should be, but I argue that not all of national security is in the Department of Defense. There are clear and present dangers to the people of the United States that are met by other agencies. When we passed the Bipartisan Budget Act last October, we agreed on parity. What we said was that there would be parity between defense and nondefense. What does that mean? That means defense gets about $500 billion and nondefense, which is all of the other programs for the United States of America, gets the other roughly $500 billion. That means everything from Pell grants and the National Institutes of Health to Homeland Security, the FBI--I could go on and on. I am willing to support the need to defend America by allowing more spending on defense, but I take the position that America faces other threats as well, and we need to maintain the parity. The amendment being offered by Senator Jack Reed and me, as an original cosponsor, says yes to the $18 billion for defense needs and yes to $18 billion for nondefense needs so we can make the Nation safe and more secure. The Reed-Mikulski amendment does two things: It amends the 2015 Bipartisan Budget Act to allow $18 billion of relief from sequestration for defense spending--the same amount in exactly the same way as described by my senior colleague from Arizona, the American war hero John McCain. But there is another $18 billion in the Reed-Mikulski amendment for nondefense spending because there are threats to the United States of America in addition to the ones the DOD confronts. So what does the Reed-Mikulski amendment fund? It funds those agencies that we think provide national security in addition to the Department of Defense. We are talking about more money for the State Department so they can do their diplomacy, so they can provide their Embassy security, and so we can meet the humanitarian need, where we are winning the hearts and minds of people and also making sure we help other people around the world. It will also give more to Homeland Security so that they can defend our coast and defend our borders, and it gives more money to the Department of Justice so they can track terrorists or keep an eye on things to make sure we don't have terrorist attacks here. There are also other threats to the United States of America, one of which is in the area of cyber security. That occurs in order to have the protection of dot-military and dot-gov to maintain our continuity of government, and dot-com, which is essentially the functioning of our whole country that is not government or military. My gosh, everybody has been hacked. OPM was hacked. Look at all that we lost. There are over 1 million hacks a week going on against government agencies by people who want to steal our trade secrets from the Patent Office and NASA and NIH and FDA. Why invent a cure for cancer when you can steal it? Then, of course, there is this threat to Zika. Make no mistake--these aren't cute little bugs coming from the Southern Hemisphere; these are bugs that when they infect people, particularly pregnant women, the results are horrific birth defects. Zika is a threat to the public health of the United States of America. There is the danger of heroin, and there is a danger in terms of other kinds of environmental dangers, such as what Flint, MI, is facing. We are also running significant deficits in research infrastructure and human infrastructure. I am going to elaborate on that in a minute. Why do we need the Reed-Mikulski amendment? Current spending caps are $20 billion below the fiscal 2010 level. Let's make no mistake--we appropriators aren't exactly these wild big spenders. Neither is the Budget Act. The Budget Act we are working under is at the level of 2010. This amendment authorizes funding to meet real problems. Other Members will come to discuss that, but I want to make clear that if you want to keep our troops safe, the best way is to give peace a chance. It is not a song from another era. If we want to try to prevent war, to contain war, or to end war, we need diplomacy. That is what the State Department does around the world--quelling conflict, stopping proliferation, supporting treasured allies. We need to protect our people who work abroad, both our military and those who work at our Embassies. We need Embassy security. We need foreign aid to respond to real human needs while avoiding creating new enemies or new problems abroad. We need the State Department, but we also need Homeland Security. We need to protect our borders. We need the U.S. Coast Guard out there protecting us against drug dealers, terrorists, and helping to provide port security. We need Customs and Border Protection to secure borders. There are those who want to build a wall. I want to make sure we have the men, women, and technology to secure the borders. We need law enforcement to fight terrorism abroad and also to fight the drug dealers, human traffickers, cartel people, and organized crime. That is why we need the FBI's help and help from the Drug Enforcement Agency and the U.S. Marshals Service. This would authorize $1.4 billion for the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Justice to make sure we have enough people and the right technology to protect us, in addition to the spartan situation we find in the Appropriations Committee. We need to be able to do that. When we look at cyber security, this is all hands on deck, all government on deck, all of us on deck. We do need DOD to help with threats to our military. We are increasingly relying on digital technology. I am so proud of what we do at the National Security Agency, the mother ship of talent focused on protecting the Nation. I am proud of the cyber command, but I am also proud of what we do through our cyber security in terms of what we do with the Department of Homeland Security, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, and others, coming up with new information for security technology. There are a lot of numbers and data, but I will skip over that. Then there is the legacy of war. The legacy of war is what we owe our veterans. We just celebrated Memorial Day, honoring those who made the ultimate sacrifice, but we also extended our support for veterans everywhere. Did the Presiding Officer know that 60 percent of Veterans Health Administration facilities are over 50 years old? The facilities are aging in place. The VA itself has cataloged $10 billion worth of maintenance deficiencies and code violations at hospitals and clinics. We are not talking about new construction. We are talking about deficiencies in maintenance and actual code violations. The VA tells us about leaking roofs, mold growing, and other serious problems. I could go on. We all remember Walter Reed and how the years of neglected maintenance led to horrible conditions for our injured veterans and their families. They deserve better. They deserve facilities that are as fit for duty as they are. Then there is this other issue that I am very concerned about, which is in the area of research and development. Some of my colleagues might say: What the heck does that have to do with being in the military? We need research and development to be able to come up with the new ideas and new technologies to protect our Nation. Look at what the Department of Energy did. They are helping to develop big trucks that sip gas like a Honda Civic. What does that mean? It not only means our military can be more efficient, but we can also be more energy independent. The National Science Foundation has done so much in the way of basic research that it has enabled us to come up with whole new fields like nanotechnology or miniaturization that enables our people not only to have the smart weapons of war but the smart weapons against disease. My gosh, look at what we are developing just in terms of new technology. I don't know if the Presiding Officer is aware, but a lot of the work that was done at NASA, particularly in the area of space telescopes and rockets, helped us come up with the new digital mammography. Can you believe that? Because we studied space out there, we learned to protect our people right here, and it also helps others. I also want to talk about the fact that we do help some domestic programs here in the area of children and human infrastructure. People say: What does that have to do with defense? I will tell you what General Dempsey told me. General Dempsey told me this, and he told others. So it wasn't like a little thing with General Dempsey. GEN Martin Dempsey, former head of the Joint Chiefs and decorated war hero said: Senator Mikulski, did you know that for every four people who want to enlist in our military, only one is found fit to serve? Either people are physically unfit, can't read, or have had a problem with mental illness or addiction. We need to invest in our children. If for nothing else, we need to make sure all Americans are fit for duty, and that is why we need to do this. We have spoken eloquently as to why we need more money for Zika, the need to fight the addiction some have with opioid drugs, and the situation in Flint. Mr. President, as I said, I rise in support of the Reed-Mikulski amendment to respond to threats to our Nation by raising the caps for both defense and nondefense spending. All agree that we must defend the security of the United States. So many argue we need more money for the Department of Defense, DOD, even though DOD consumes 50 percent of discretionary spending. But I argue not all of national security is in Department of Defense. There are clear and present dangers to Americans met by other agencies, such as the Departments of Homeland Security, DHS, State, and Veterans Affairs, VA. The Bipartisan Budget Act, which passed with 64 votes in the Senate last October, was based on parity--equal relief from the consequences of sequestration--because there have been significant consequences of sequester for the American people. We are willing to support the need to defend America by allowing more spending on defense. But America faces threats at home as well, and we need parity in responding to those threats. That is why we are offering this amendment to say yes to $18 billion for defense needs and yes to $18 billion for nondefense needs, so we can make the Nation safer and more secure. The Reed-Mikulski amendment does two things. It amends 2015 Bipartisan Budget Agreement to allow both: $18 billion of relief from sequestration for defense spending, the same amount authorized by the McCain Amendment, and $18 billion of relief from sequestration for nondefense spending, because there are threats that DOD can't address. What does the amendment fund? There are five categories: 1, national security spending, in addition to DOD, for DHS to defend our coasts and borders, Department of Justice to track down drug cartels and terrorists and State Department diplomacy, foreign aid, and embassy security; 2, funding to address urgent threats to America, including heroin, failing water infrastructure as exposed in Flint, the Zika virus, and cyber security; 3, physical infrastructure, including funding for roads, bridges, transit, and VA hospitals; 4, research infrastructure investments, creating jobs through new products and cures; and 5, human infrastructure, providing more resources to underfunded, but overwhelmingly passed, authorizations for education and college affordability, workforce training, and food safety. This amendment meets threats to America with new funding not available in our appropriations bills due to austerity imposed by budget caps. Current spending caps are $20 billion below the fiscal year 2010 level, 7 years ago. These cuts have consequences. This amendment authorizes funding to meet real problems. Other members of the Appropriations Committee will come to the floor to discuss needs in their subcommittees, but first I want to talk about some of the dangers we are addressing with this amendment. The best way to keep our troops safe is peace. But we live in turbulent times, which means we need diplomacy. The State Department works around the world to quell conflict and help displaced and threatened refugees, stop weapons proliferation, and support treasured allies, especially those absorbing refugees from Syria. We need embassy security so we can bring our diplomats home safely. We need foreign aid to respond to real human needs while avoiding creating new enemies abroad. We need the State Department to help keep America safe. That is why the Reed-Mikulski amendment includes $1.9 billion to continue the key security mission of the State Department. Communities in the U.S. face lone-wolf terrorists, drug traffickers, and smugglers. The Department of Defense doesn't fight domestic crime and terrorism. We need the Department of Homeland Security's Coast Guard protecting our coasts; Transportation Security Administration, TSA, keeping air travel safe; and Customs and Border Protection, CBP, securing the border. We also need the Department of Justice's Federal Bureau of Investigation, FBI, Drug Enforcement Administration, and U.S. Marshals. This amendment authorizes $1.4 billion for DHS and the Department of Justice, so they can improve outrageous wait times at airports, meeting growing passenger volume, which is up 7.4 percent from 2015, without compromising safety; hire 2,000 officers on the borders; hire FBI, local police, and other Federal law enforcement to capture and prosecute criminals here in America--violent crime rose nearly 2 percent last year after falling in 2 prior years. The Department of Defense can't do those things. I now want to turn to a threat that requires all hands on deck: cyber security. We need DOD to help threats to our military, which is increasingly reliant on digital technology, and threats from nation states. I am so proud of Cyber Command, Fort Meade, and the National Security Agency, NSA, the mothership of talent, focused on protecting the Nation. But we have not done enough to protect ourselves at home. More than 22 million Americans are at risk of identity theft because our own Office of Personnel Management couldn't keep their records safe. We need the FBI finding the criminals behind the keyboards, DHS advising Federal agencies, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology setting standards. And every agency needs to secure itself. Last year, Federal agencies reported 77,000 cyber incidents--up 10 percent from fiscal year 2014. The Food and Drug Administration and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office need to protect trade secrets, and the Social Security Administration needs to protect our personal information. That is why our amendment includes $2 billion for cyber security, so our nondefense agencies can join DOD in the fight. The Reed-Mikulski amendment helps America be more secure, but also safer. Americans are threatened daily with our roads and bridges failing, our waterways and ports needing modernization, and our transit systems clogged and crumbling. Demand for flexible transportation investments is overwhelming. Since 2010, the Federal Aviation Administration's backlog has grown by $1 billion to a total of $5 billion, risking breakdowns in air traffic control. Amtrak carries 30 million passengers each year, but can't stop deadly derailments. Here in the National Capital Region, while ``safe track'' repairs clog highways and side streets, the Department of Transportation tells us there is an $86 billion maintenance backlog for bus and rail systems nationwide. It is not just our transportation infrastructure that fails us; 60 percent of Veterans Health Administration facilities are over 50 years old and facilities are beginning to show their age. VA has catalogued almost $10 billion worth of maintenance deficiencies and code violations at existing hospitals and clinics. VA even classifies these deficiencies as Ds and Fs, from leaking roofs to air handling systems in need of replacement. These deficiencies can cause serious problems. For example, old air handling units risk microbial contamination. If uncorrected, it could directly impact patient care because old ventilation systems would pump contaminated air into inpatient and outpatient areas. We all remember Walter Reed, where years of neglected maintenance led to horrible conditions for injured veterans and their families. Our veterans deserve better. That is why the Reed-Mikulski amendment includes $3.2 billion to meet the physical infrastructure needs of the U.S. It is not just our physical infrastructure. America's research infrastructure has failed to keep pace with inflation. The National Institutes of Health, NIH, has lost more than 20 percent of its purchasing power since 2003. The history of economic growth shows we need civilian research to create new ideas and new jobs. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration built a methane detector for its Mars rover that is helping find dangerous gas leaks on Earth. The National Science Foundation funded two Stanford graduate students' effort to build a search engine that formed the basis for Google. The Department of Energy is helping big trucks sip gas like a Civic. Our NIH researchers are on the cusp of finding cures for Alzheimer's, diabetes, and cancer. That is why the Reed-Mikulski amendment includes $3.5 billion for research and development to create jobs and find cures. We can't cure cancer without investing in NIH. Now, we are looking at a new health crisis and a new threat to America: Zika. Americans-- particularly women and children--are in danger. The President has said $1.9 billion is needed to fight Zika and stopping it from doing any more harm. That funding is included in our amendment. As of June 6, there were more than 1,732 confirmed Zika cases, including 341 pregnant women, in the U.S. and its territories. The mosquitos that carry Zika are already in at least three of our States, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that soon they will be in 30 States. There is still a lot we don't know, but what we do know for sure is that Zika has terrible consequences for women and babies. Scientists have confirmed the link between the Zika infection in pregnancy and serious birth defects in babies. The details about what Zika does to the brains of unborn children are truly horrific. Zika is a threat we can stop if we have the will and the funding to do so. Another emergency we can stop is the heroin epidemic. Every Senator and Governor has heard about the resurgence of heroin, which knows no boundaries--geographic or socioeconomic. Since 1999, the rate of heroin and opioid deaths quadrupled to an average of 78 deaths each day. The Senate passed the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act, CARA, on March 10 with a vote of 94-1. Authorization is nice, but we need the money to fund law enforcement, treatment and recovery and better pain management so people don't get hooked on opioids in the first place. That is why the Reed-Mikulski amendment includes $1.1 billion for heroin response and treatment. Every community is dealing with addiction, but every State also worries about its water. The amendment also includes $1.9 billion to upgrade water systems throughout the U.S. Today, nearly 100,000 residents of Flint don't have clean and safe drinking water. Up to 9,000 children may have lead poisoning; some are already exhibiting signs in school. Flint's water is still contaminated because its pipes are permanently damaged. This is a national crisis. Flint is ground zero. Contaminated drinking water is happening in cities and rural communities across America. This is about the infrastructure and our failure to replace it. But it is about more than just replacing pipes. It is about the human infrastructure. This is about the lives of our children. What happened in Flint, MI is a failure of a State's government to protect its own people. The threat from our aging water systems is real, and it can't be solved by DOD. From our water infrastructure to our human infrastructure which includes the very troops who make up the DOD, we must do more to ensure readiness. Shockingly, General Dempsey tells us only one of every four recruits qualifies for duty. One can't read, one can't meet physical requirements, and one is disqualified due to legal or mental problems. They wanted to serve, but did we serve them? We have overwhelmingly passed authorizations to help. The Every Student Succeeds Act, which passed the Senate 85-12, aims to give kids a better K-12 education so they are ready for college, careers, or military service. But implementation is underfunded in the fiscal year 2017 Labor-HHS-Education bill by more than $1 billion. We can't say we want to solve problems with great policies, but then fail to fund the solutions. That's why the Reed-Mikulski amendment includes $900 million for underfunded authorizations of education and college affordability, job training, and food safety policy. I talked at the beginning about how the State Department makes America safe with diplomacy and foreign aid. But I want to end with how foreign aid can help make us safer by helping the lost generation of children across the globe that is on the move and on the march. Nearly 60 million people worldwide are forced from their homes due to conflict and persecution. Refugees account for 20 million of those people, half of which are children. This is not an isolated problem. Millions of refugees are from Syria and Iraq, Yemen, South Sudan, Burundi, and other conflict zones. What do they have in common? They are desperately in need of life-saving assistance, including food, water, medical care, and shelter. Many will not be able to return home for years--if ever. These refugees cannot survive indefinitely on relief aid. The children need to attend school. The adults need jobs. These refugees are scared and ready to face the unknown, rather than endure the brutality at home. They are only asking for one thing: help. All of us remember a time when, as a child, we needed help or our parents needed help. We also remember the names and faces of those who helped and those who refused. What do we think they are doing? Do we want these children to remember the United States as the people who helped, or as the people who refused? If we don't help, what are we creating? A generation of people who hate and distrust us because of our refusal when they were in need. We need the Reed-Mikulski amendment so our frugality doesn't create a generation that hates America. We all want to protect America. I support the troops. I support the Department of Defense. I support the men and women at Maryland's nine military bases. The Chairman of the Armed Services says they need $18 billion more to meet the threats around the world. I support that effort, but only if there is parity. That is why we are proposing $18 billion to meet threats to America not funded by the Department of Defense. I urge my colleagues to support the Reed-Mikulski amendment to raise the caps for both defense and nondefense items that defend America. I note that the distinguished majority leader is on the floor. If we are going to spend more money on defense, even though we already spend roughly $500 billion--about 50 percent of all discretionary spending--let's also spend money on other agencies that enable us to have a strong national security. Let's also put money into the other threats to the United States. Right now there is a public health crisis with Zika. There is a public health crisis with opioid and heroin addiction and a crisis in Flint, MI. Others are facing environmental problems. Let's make these other investments to make sure we keep America strong. I yield the floor by saying: Let's please vote for the Reed-Mikulski second-degree amendment.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Jessica Armstrong, a legislative fellow from the Department of Defense and my military legislative assistant, be allowed floor privileges during the consideration of S. 2943, the Defense authorization bill.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to offer a bipartisan Inhofe-Mikulski amendment to the National Defense Act. What does our amendment do? It stops the privatization of commissaries, which are an earned benefit for our military and their families. Every year when the Senate debates this bill, we talk about how we love our troops and how we always want to support our military families. But if we really love our troops, we need to make sure our troops have the support they need. One of the earned benefits that does that is the commissaries. And if we love our troops, why would we want to proceed in this direction of privatization? Our troops don't view commissaries as a subsidy; they view them, as do I, as an earned benefit. I am fighting here to preserve this piece of the earned benefit compensation package. What are the commissaries? Since 1826, military families have been able to shop at a network of stores that provide modestly priced groceries. The commissary system is simple: If you are an Active-Duty, Reserve, National Guard, retired member, or a military family member, you have access to more than 246 commissaries worldwide. They give military members and their families affordability and accessibility to health foods. Senator Inhofe spoke earlier about where these commissaries are. Some are located in our country, and some in remote areas, and over 40 percent are either in remote areas or overseas. Last year Senator Inhofe and I stood up for military family benefits to stop privatization. Congress adopted our amendment, but in doing so required a DOD study assessing privatization, which would affect commissaries. We needed to understand how privatization would affect levels of savings, quality of goods, and impact on families. DOD finally gave us the report on June 6, 2016. So they dropped the report on D-day. And guess what. It reaffirms what Senator Inhofe and I have been saying: We should not privatize commissaries without additional study. The report is simple and straightforward: We should not proceed with the privatization or a pilot on privatization until further study. First, DOD has demonstrated that privatization cannot replicate the savings the current commissary system provides. Second, privatization significantly reduces the benefits available to commissary patrons. And privatization would dramatically reduce the workforce, which is where so many military families work. The DOD cannot move forward with privatization with a large number of unknowns. We must honor the DOD request and fully evaluate the implications of privatization before we make drastic changes that hurt our military families. That is why everyone should support the Inhofe-Mikulski amendment. Our amendment is straightforward. It strikes bill language authorizing a pilot program privatizing commissaries. It is supported by 41 organizations--the American Logistics, the National Guard Association, the National Military Family Association. Privatizing commissaries is penny wise and pound foolish. If we care about the health of our troops, we must reject this. I have been to the commissaries in Maryland. Go to the one at Fort Meade. Fort Meade is a tremendous place. We might not deploy troops the way Fort Bragg or Camp LeJeune does, but what we do there is phenomenal. There are 58,000 people who work at Fort Meade. We are in the heart of Maryland, which has such a strong military presence, both Army and Navy. If you came to the commissary with me, you would see it as a nutritional settlement house. You would really like it because you see people there, first of all, of all ranks and ages mingling together. You might see a young woman who is married to an enlisted member of the military, and she is learning a lot about food and nutrition. She is getting advice, and she is getting direction, in addition to saving money. Also, if you go there, you would see oldtimers, who--although they are counting their pennies, they are counting their blessings that they have this commissary to be able to go to. When I say a settlement house, it is a gathering to learn about food, about nutrition, about a lot of things. It often offers healthier food at cheaper prices. When I talked with our garrison commander about something he and I worked on together called the Healthy Base Initiative, he said that what we were doing there was so phenomenal. We worked to bring in things like salad bars and some of the more modern kinds of things. This was just phenomenal. So, first, we need commissaries. Second, if we are looking at how to make the budget neutral, and I don't argue with that point, the DOD study itself says we need to explore two things: other ways of achieving budget neutrality--and they had some suggestions--and also explore with the private sector who would be interested in privatization whether it would result in cost savings without costing the benefits, meaning what is really sold there in nutrition. There are a lot of new and wonderful ideas. My father ran a small grocery store. He would be amazed at what grocery stores are now. But things like going to private labeling, better management--the DOD has some other toolkits to do before we go off on this approach to privatizing without analyzing. So I am for analyzing and then looking at the next step. The report this year just arrived. I know the authorizing committee didn't have the benefit of it. So I hope we will stick with Senator Inhofe and me, reject this amendment, look out for our troops, and let's explore other ways to achieve budget neutrality, but let's not just arbitrarily single out this earned benefit for cost savings. Mr. President, the chair of the Armed Services Committee looks like he is eager to speak, but I also want to say that I support the Durbin amendment we will be voting on later on this afternoon. I am a strong supporter of DOD's Congressionally Directed Medical Research Program. I was very concerned about the bill language. I understand the need for regulation but not strangulation. What is proposed in this bill would be so onerous, I am worried it would stop this research altogether. We can't let that happen, and Senator Durbin's amendment would ensure that this program is allowed to continue its lifesaving discoveries. This congressionally mandated research has done so much good in so many areas, and we have large numbers of groups--from the Breast Cancer Coalition to the disabled veterans themselves--who support the Durbin amendment. I have been supporting this program for more than 25 years. It all started in 1992 when the breast cancer community was looking to create a new research program. And by the way, the breast cancer advocates were just as organized, mobilized, and galvanized back then as they are today. The advocates knew that DOD ran the largest health system in the country and envisioned a new research program that was peer-reviewed and included input from not just scientists but also advocates. This was a new concept at the time that the needs of a community affected by disease would be considered when determining research priorities. So we started with breast cancer in 1992 and quickly expanded to look at other illnesses and conditions. Since 1992, Congress has provided more than $11.7 billion to fund more than 13,000 research grants. Today DOD's medical research program studies prostate cancer, ALS, traumatic brain injury, multiple sclerosis, lung cancer, ovarian cancer, autism, amputation research, and many others. And I am so proud that research is conducted at Fort Detrick in Maryland, Johns Hopkins, and the University of Maryland. Almost immediately, Congress's investment in DOD's medical research program paid off--and with dividends. Breast cancer research led to the development of Herceptin, a standard care for the treatment of breast cancer. Lung cancer research led to creation of the first lung cancer bio-specimen repository with clinical and outcome data available to all researchers studying lung cancer. Traumatic brain injury research led to the development of two FDA-cleared devices to screen for and identify TBI in military members. Amputee care research led to the development of amputee trauma trainer, a device which replicates blast injuries from IEDs in war zones. It trains physicians to better respond to war injuries. Some of the DOD's regenerative medical breakthroughs are so astonishing you would think you were reading science fiction. The Department's medical program supported the first ever double hand transplantation on a combat-wounded warrior. Wow--so proud that this ground-breaking procedure was developed and performed at Johns Hopkins. This is just a snapshot. The list of successes are as long as they are inspiring. For years, opponents of DOD's medical research program have argued against this program. They say, ``Oh, this research is duplicative. Oh, this research should only benefit active military.'' Well, I say ``no'' to both arguments. First, DOD's research is complementary to NIH's research but is not duplicative or redundant. In fact, the Department's research grants are peer-reviewed by doctors, scientists, advocates, and Federal agencies to ensure there is not duplication in efforts. The Institute of Medicine has reviewed DOD's program and found it to be efficient and effective. Second, we know the diseases studied by DOD affect both active military and their families. Imagine if we refused to allow DOD to study breast cancer in 1992 simply because there were fewer woman serving? We wouldn't have the advances that we do today saving lives and improving lives. Taking care of military families is an essential part of our promise to our men and women in uniform. We have an opportunity to block this misguided language in the underlying bill that would have terrible consequences for medical research. The discoveries and treatments speak for themselves. I urge my colleagues to support Senator Durbin's amendment. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, despite what was just said, I am not in the pocket of something called grocery brokers. I am not here showing for something called grocery brokers. I am here to stand up for military and military families. I want the record to show that. I don't even know what grocery brokers are. I know what a grocery store is because my father ran one, I worked in one and learned a lot from the kind of values my father ran his business on. Let's talk about the DOD-mandated report that we did last year when we discussed this. The report acknowledges that privatization would not be able to replicate the range of benefits, the level of savings, and the geographic reach provided by the commissaries while achieving budget neutrality. DOD is continuing its due diligence on privatization. It is still assessing the privatization of all or portions of the commissary system. What I worry about is cherry-picking. ``Oh, we are going to privatize.'' They are going to do it in the lucrative markets, in the Baltimore-Washington corridor, but right now our commissaries, owned by the United States of America for the troops defending the United States of America, are required to operate where the servicemembers are, even when it would not be economically beneficial from a commercial standpoint. Go ahead with this privatization myth, fantasy, or delusion that they are not going to cherry-pick. More than two-thirds of the commissaries serve military populations living in locations that are not profitable for private sector grocers. These commissaries are made possible by the appropriated funds subsidy and by operating efficiencies and volumes of the large statewide stores. It is not only taxpayers they are subsidizing. Over 40 percent of commissaries' appropriated budget provide commissary services overseas and in remote locations. Do you think they are going to be part of privatization? They are going take what they want, where they can make money, and then these others are going to be defunded because, yes, you might talk about what the taxpayers subsidize, but at large, more profitable commissaries are also a cross-subsidy to those that are in the more remote areas or overseas. Commissaries provide a benefit to servicemembers in the form of savings, proximity, and consistency that in some ways the commercial grocery sector, which must operate for profit, might find difficult to sustain. Business is business. We know how the defense contractor game works. We know how the contractors are. They go where they can make money. That doesn't necessarily mean they go where they serve the Nation. I have great respect for our defense contractors. Many of them are either headquartered in Maryland or serve Maryland, but let's face it, their business is to make money, not necessarily to serve the troops. If they can make money serving the troops, they will make money and want to have stores where they can make money. That doesn't deal with the remote area. Let's hear it from our Alaskan people, let's hear it from the overseas people, and so on. All I am saying is, while we continue on the path to explore either complete budget neutrality or to achieve budget neutrality, the Department of Defense says it needs more analysis on what it can do with itself and what the private sector is talking about. There are three major private sector companies that have expressed interest. I would want to know, are they going to cherry-pick or are they going to be like Little Jack Horner waiting to get their hands on a plum? I am for the whole fruit stand, and I want it at the commissaries. This has been a good exchange, and I respect my colleague from Arizona in the way he has stood up for defense. I know he wants to serve the troops as well. So let's see where the votes go, and we look forward to advancing the cause of the national security for our Nation. I yield the floor.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to join my distinguished colleague from Washington State, a longstanding advocate for women and children and, really, fundamental fairness. Today I join her in urging that the U.S. Soccer Federation end the gender gap and stop kicking women around. Women across our country are still paid less than men, just 79 cents for every $1 a man makes. This wage gap is felt by all women, even champions playing for the U.S. women's soccer team. These champions won the World Cup last year. They brought in $20 million more in revenue than the men's team, but they are paid four times less. When do we reward victory? When do we reward being a champion? How about equal pay for equal work? They belong on the same types of playing fields. Those women are taking action by going to the EEOC Commission, and it is time to score one for equality. Equal pay for all must be our goal. We want equal pay for equal work, whether we are U.S. Senators, nurses, executive assistants, or whether we are professional athletes. I stand with the women's soccer team and women across the United States in their fight for equal wages. They kick the ball around, but we are getting tired of being kicked around. Give us equal pay for equal work. Let's change the lawbook--the Federal lawbook--so that they can change their checkbook. Why should our women go to the Olympics and go for the gold when they aren't paid the gold. Let's pass this resolution. Let's show our support for the U.S. women's soccer team. Let's set an example for young girls, soccer athletes, daughters, nieces, and granddaughters. Let's pass the Paycheck Fairness Act, but today let's start with passing this resolution. This is a real-world solution in support of them, but it really highlights the fact that we not only adopt resolutions, but we want to adopt solutions to finish the job that we started with equal pay. I compliment the Senator from Washington State for bringing this resolution to the floor.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I wish to voice my full support for the fiscal year 2017 Transportation, and Housing and Urban Development, and related agencies appropriations bill which includes the fiscal year 2017 Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and related agencies appropriations bill. Each of these bills was passed out of the Senate Appropriations Committee by a vote of 30-0 last month. I urge all my colleagues to support this bipartisan package of bills. I commend Senators Collins and Reed for their hard work on the T-HUD bill and their collegiality on the floor this week managing this bill. T-HUD is our annual jobs bill making investments at the State and local level, delivering on America's physical infrastructure needs and America's compelling human needs. The bill before us will keep our roads and transportation systems safe and in good repair while preserving housing assistance for our Nation's most in need. I am especially proud of Senators Collins and Reed for making renewed investments in lead paint poison prevention. As the Maryland Senator from Baltimore, this is an issue I know all too well. Senator Kit Bond and I worked together on the VA-HUD bill to first bring attention to this crippling public health problem. April 19 marked the anniversary of Freddie Gray's death, a young man who grew up in Baltimore's low- income housing. Before Freddie's second birthday, his blood lead levels were seven times the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's suggested level, leaving Freddie severely and permanently brain damaged. Today there are still half a million children under the age of 6 with lead poisoning. This bill increases lead prevention funding in three programs. First, the Office of Lead Hazard Control and Healthy Homes is funded at $135 million, an increase of $25 million to support lead-based paint hazard reductions in 1,750 additional units. This program provides safer homes for more than 6,200 people. Second, the Mikulski-Bond Lead Hazard Reduction Demo Program is funded at $55 million, an increase of $10 million. This program provides competitive funds to State and local governments to implement lead hazardous reduction programs in privately owned and owner-occupied housing. Third, the Public Housing Capital Fund is funded at $1.9 billion, an increase of $25 million. This will remediate 1,500 public housing units. This bill also includes a number of reforms to HUD's lead programs. Among these is the requirement for HUD to update its blood level standard to the stronger Centers for Disease Control and Prevention standard. HUD's standard hasn't been updated since 1999. In addition, the bill makes studio and efficiency apartments eligible for remediation grants for the first time. It is estimated that 34,000 zero-bedroom dwellings house children under 6 years old. The transportation portion of this bill makes significant investments in Maryland's highways, byways, and transit systems. It cuts the first check under the FAST Act passed last December. This means more formula funding for every State. For Maryland, that is an increase of $62 million. For transit, this bill provides increased funding for the Federal Transit Administration totaling $575 million. It includes the Job Corridor- Purple Line project in the Washington suburbs of Maryland. A total of $125 million is provided for the construction of this light rail project. For the DC Metro system, this bill provides the eighth installment of $150 million in Federal dedicated funding. This is the fully authorized level and will be matched dollar for dollar by the three jurisdictions. Fighting for this annual appropriation was the promise I made and have kept since the deadly Fort Totten crash in June 2009. This funding must be used on capital improvements relating to safety including buying new rail cars, track improvements, and signal upgrades. I included bill language requiring the U.S. Department of Transportation Secretary to do three things before this funding money can be spent. First, the Secretary must approve each expenditure. Second, the Secretary must certify Metro is making progress implementing FTA's safety and financial management corrective actions. Third, the Secretary must determine that Metro is using this money for top safety priorities. In addition to this dedicated funding, I am proud of the safety amendment I introduced with Senators Shelby, Cardin, Warner, Kaine, and Brown that was passed earlier in the week. This amendment provides additional funding to FTA to expand its safety oversight workforce for a total increase of $5.25 million over the current year funding level. It will enable FTA to hire six full-time employees for Metro's Rail Operations Control Center, four more investigators, seven additional inspectors, and six more contractors. This additional funding means FTA will now have more inspectors to watch as Metro crews work to complete SafeTrack, the yearlong plan to accelerate repairs on the system. Inspectors will be there to make sure the track work is fixed the right way for good. FTA also will have safety staff at the Rail Operations Control Center 24 hours a day and 7 days a week making sure emergency procedures are followed to prevent future incidents. FTA staff will help Metro implement the National Transportation Safety Board's recent recommendations to overhaul the center's emergency operations and training. FTA staff will make sure these reforms remain in place and are followed. Finally, more investigators will help FTA tackle approximately 100 Metro investigations conducted each year. I also want to say a few words about the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs appropriations bill. This is another bipartisan bill funding vital programs for the health and well-being of our Nation's veterans, troops, and their families developed by Senators Kirk and Tester. Overall, this bill provides $83 billion in discretionary funding which is an increase of $3.2 billion above the current year funding level. This bill fully funds VA Medical Services at the President's request of $52.8 billion. This is $1 billion over what we advanced last year to address increased demand for VA medical care both within and outside the VA health care system. The bill provides additional funding for disability claims processing. Significant progress has been made to eliminate the backlog in processing initial claims, but unfortunately, the backlog in appeals is rapidly building. This bill includes $2.9 billion for claims processing, $30 million above the request, to hire 300 new claims processors and 240 additional employees for the Board of Veterans Appeals. Also included is an increase of $46 million for the Board of Veterans Appeals, bringing their total funding to $156 million. This will provide for hiring an additional 240 new employees focused on appeals processing. For our women veterans, this bill makes significant strides bring parity between male and female veterans. This bill mandates that the VA research and acquire prosthetic devices specifically designed for women. It includes $5.3 billion overall to treat more than 500,000 female veterans who get care through the VA. This bill targets $535 million for gender-specific health care which is $20 million over the request and nearly $70 million over the current funding level. This includes gynecology, reproductive health, and mental health care for women. I also was proud to support Senator Murray's amendment in committee, allowing the VA to cover the cost of reproductive services for veterans who suffered service-related injuries that prevent them from starting families. The military construction part of this bill fully funds all seven Maryland projects included in the President's budget request. This means a total of $340 million for construction jobs at Fort Meade, Pax River, Joint Base Andrews, and Bethesda Medical Center. Finally, the bill includes $1.1 billion in emergency spending to combat the urgent Zika crisis. CDC, NIH, and USAID need this funding on the ground today. $1.1 billion is a bottom line, not a starting point for negotiation. I am committed to sending a Zika supplemental to the President as soon as possible. I urge all of my colleagues to support this package of bills. It meets many compelling human needs and physical infrastructure needs of our nation and does not include poison pill riders. It is an example of how, working together, we can solve problems and put America to work.

Ms. MIKULSKI

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

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, it has been 3 months since the administration sent Congress the emergency funding request for Zika, and Congress hasn't acted on it. But today we have an opportunity to do so, and I hope we do. We will have pending before the Congress three different options on how to fund this public health emergency, but we must realize it is an emergency, and we need to have a sense of urgency to protect the American people and to help those south of the border to be able to cope with it. What are we waiting for? The mosquitoes are here. The mosquitoes have not only come, they have already come. I have said in the past that we can't build a wall to keep them out-- the mosquitoes will not pay for it--but it is no laughing matter. The President has said we need $1.9 billion to fight Zika to stop it from doing any more harm. That is what I am fighting for. We know we need to get the job done. It is not just Senator Barb talking. The World Health Organization has declared Zika a public health emergency. The President declared it as such. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, through Dr. Freiden, has said this is a national and international emergency. And Dr. Fauci, head of the Institute of Infectious Diseases and Neurology at NIH, whom we have turned to on so many occasions, has also said it. So every public health entity has validated that this is a serious public health crisis. We can prevent its dire consequences. Through action, particularly related to mosquito control and working with pregnant women and women of childbearing age, we can deal with this. This is not some unknown disease that would suddenly be arriving on our shores for which we would have no knowledge and no tools. These are basic public health tools related to mosquito control and helping women of childbearing age. If we refuse to act, this will be a self-inflicted wound on our own people, and the consequences are dire. For those who care about children--I am sure we have already seen what has happened south of the border with little children being born with microencephalitis. My gosh, it is heartbreaking. It is heartbreaking for the little child with a limited life expectancy and limited life opportunities, the responsibility that will come to the family--usually to the mother--and to the society that will have to care for that child. Today we are talking about money, but we have to think about the human concerns. Both Dr. Freiden and Dr. Fauci have conveyed to me and other Members of this body, particularly those on the Appropriations Committee and on the Health and Education Committee, that there are other unknown health issues related to those over the age of 65 or those with compromised immune situations now. If you have a chronic condition like diabetes, you could be subject to really negative consequences from being bitten. We have heard about Guillain-Barre. There are other diseases that are a consequence of Zika that give arthritic symptoms that can last for over 10 years. Why don't we do something about it? We know that mosquitoes carry Zika. We already know they are in several States. We know Puerto Rico is already being hard hit. Sports events and other events have been canceled. We know it is down in Florida. Look at the way Senators Nelson and Rubio are working together. We need to act, and we need to act now because we do know these horrible and devastating impacts. We have heard eloquent and poignant and even wrenching descriptions of what happens to children. I know a topic in our Congress and in the Senate has often been the unborn. Well, we really want to protect the unborn, and this is the way to do it. We have to stop the mosquitoes through mosquito control. This is basic public health. We also have to work with those women who are pregnant or of childbearing age to know about the consequences and what actions they can take to be able to do that. We need to be able to do this at the Federal level. Congress needs to act. They are already acting at a local level, but they are spending local money to be able to do it. My own Governor, a Republican, Larry Hogan, is acting. He convened a task force. He pulled his public health people together. He ordered his own health department to coordinate education and awareness with local health departments in Maryland. I salute Governor Hogan in taking that action. He has already authorized the distribution of thousands of prevention kits for pregnant women across the entire State. Those kits cost about $130,000 to put together and to distribute. Maryland is doing this on its own dime. Well, mosquitoes are a national consequence and even an international one. The counties in Maryland are doing their job--again, not Democrat or Republican. Again, my Governor is a staunch fiscal conservative, but he knows public health saves money, along with helping people with their lives. Anne Arundel County, the home of the State capital, headed by a Republican county executive, is acting. This local county is already distributing its own prevention kits. It is not only the State capital, it is the home of the Naval Academy. Everybody is acting on their own. In Baltimore City, our mayor is acting, working with the Bloomberg School of Public Health. We are spending local money on mosquito control. They need help. They need help from their own government to deal with the issue south of the border as they come up here, and they need help in their own communities to be able to fund the basic public health measures that we know are tried and that we know are true to be able to do that. I really encourage us to be able to do this and not to do it by raiding our programs. I absolutely oppose taking money from the Prevention and Public Health Fund to pay for Zika. The prevention fund provides resources to States against other public health problems. We can't prepare for and protect against Zika by taking funds from other public health activities. We don't know what the summer and the winter hold. States could lose as much as 40 percent of their surveillance dollars to track other infectious diseases. We have been asked for a very straightforward set of options. There is the Nelson-Rubio amendment asking for $1.9 billion. That is what I support. It would fully fund our measures, both nationally and internationally, and particularly help deal with the spread of this disease and helping local communities. I reject another amendment that will be coming, offered by the Senator from Texas, Mr. Cornyn, who is well intentioned, and I appreciate his sincere interest in this. But he is robbing the prevention fund. We need an urgent supplemental. This was an unexpected event, which means that it is temporary, it is unexpected, and we need to deal with it. I really want to congratulate--I know Senator Blunt and Senator Murray have been working on another option if the other two fail. Whatever it is, at the end of the day we need to take action. This is a public health emergency. We need to deal with it in the most expeditious way. I know every Senator here is concerned about it. The mosquitoes have already come to Maryland. What we don't want is to be stung by its consequences. So let's get on with the business of the day. I thank my colleagues for dealing with this issue now. I yield the floor.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Thank you very much, Mr. President. I rise this evening in support of the nomination of Paula Xinis to serve on the District Court of Maryland. I know Senator Cardin will be coming to the floor shortly to also comment on Ms. Xinis's nomination. Senator Cardin and I recommended Ms. Xinis to President Obama with the utmost confidence in her abilities, talent, and competence for the job. She is a brilliant litigator and a dedicated public servant. The Judiciary Committee agreed with us, because they also voted her out of the committee unanimously. I thank Senator McConnell, the majority leader, for scheduling this vote; Senator Grassley for moving this nomination; and I also thank my very good and dear friend Senator Leahy, the vice chairman of the committee, who has been a strong advocate not only for this nomination but for moving all nominations forward, as voted out by the committee in a prompt way. As I talk about Ms. Xinis, I want the Presiding Officer to know that I have recommended several judicial nominees for district and appellate courts, and I take my advise and consent responsibility very seriously. When I recommend to the President a position on the district court, I have four criteria: absolute integrity, judicial competence and temperament, a commitment to core constitutional principles, and a history of civic engagement in Maryland. Ms. Xinis exceeds these expectations over and beyond. She has dedicated her career to the rule of law, achieving equal justice under the law and also being an advocate for the underdog. She is truly an outstanding nominee with a long history of public service--14 years as a Federal public defender, handling everything from the most simple misdemeanors to very complex white-collar crimes. She has also taken on extra duties, training staff and being an attorney supervisor of research and writing, proving time and time again how committed and dedicated she is. She worked as a clerk for the distinguished and esteemed Judge Diana Gribbon Motz, a well-respected judge on the Fourth Circuit. She also has been a member of the private sector as a senior trial partner in a private law firm in Baltimore, taking on complex civil litigation and protecting those who have been harmed by lead paint or carbon monoxide poisoning. Judge Motz, in recommending Ms. Xinis to me, said she is so intelligent and generous in terms of working very hard, in terms of knowing the law and practicing the law, but she also commented on her work ethic, praising her skill in the courtroom and her service to the community. She has mentored children, provided legal advice to at-need communities in Baltimore, and served on numerous bar associations. She has deep appreciation for the law and everything that it means. I do believe she will be an outstanding judge. There have been criticisms raised of Ms. Xinis, and the criticisms have centered around her support within the law enforcement community. Flashing yellow lights were raised by one of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, asking whether she had an impartial attitude toward police officers. I have four letters here from retired police officers in Baltimore City all attesting to that. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have these letters printed in the Record.

Ms. MIKULSKI. One letter is from someone who is a 20-year veteran, working in the Western District. The Western District is where they filmed ``The Wire.'' It is rough, tough, and hardscrabble. This former police sergeant said: In closing, as a 20-year member of the law enforcement community, I know firsthand the need to have judges that are well balanced, fair and great listeners. . . . That is why I proudly recommend Ms. Paula Xinis to the position of U.S. District Judge. I won't go through every letter--the Record will speak for itself-- but when you have retired police officers, those who are not on duty now but who worked with her hands-on and who know the way she works with law enforcement, the way she engages with them when she was a public defender and so on--I think these letters speak for themselves. In closing, let me say this: The job of a U.S. Senator to recommend someone to be a judge is indeed a great honor, but it is an enormous responsibility. I take it very seriously, and I would only recommend somebody who was truly qualified to render impartial justice and bring the competency and the temperament to do that. I believe Ms. Xinis possesses competency, the judicial temperament, and a real commitment to equal justice under the law. I yield the floor.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, today I wish to honor COL Robert F. Norton, USA, Retired, on the occasion of his retirement as deputy director of government relations for the Military Officers Association of America, MOAA. After serving in the Army Reserve for several years while he worked as a schoolteacher, Colonel Norton volunteered for full-time Active Duty with the Army in 1978. He served in various assignments on the Army headquarters staff and the office of the Secretary of the Army, specializing in Reserve manpower and personnel policy matters. He served two tours in the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs, first as a personnel policy officer and then as senior military assistant to the Assistant Secretary. Colonel Norton retired from the Army in 1995. His military awards include the Legion of Merit, Defense Superior Service Medal, Bronze Star, Vietnam Service Medal, and the Armed Forces Reserve Medal. He is a graduate of the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College, the Army War College, and the Kennedy School of Government senior officials in national security course at Harvard University. After his retirement, Colonel Norton continued his service as a defense contractor for 2 years, including time in Bosnia and other locations, but he found his true calling when he joined MOAA's government relations staff in 1997, specializing in National Guard, Reserve, and veterans benefits issues. In his nearly 19 years with MOAA, Colonel Norton testified before Congress more than 30 times and played a major role in a wide array of legislative accomplishments. Foremost among these was the post-9/11 GI Bill, where Colonel Norton's efforts played a pivotal role in ensuring this legislation included provisions for the Guard and Reserve, as well as transferability of benefits to family members. Colonel Norton also played a key role in winning legislation extending military health coverage to members of the Guard and Reserve and their families and authorizing early retirement credit for Guard and Reserve members called up for combat zone service. Colonel Norton's 38 years of service to our country and to those who serve and have served in uniform, as well as their families and survivors, is in keeping with the highest standards of excellence and is worthy of special recognition as he and his spouse, Colleen, embark on the next phase of their lives.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, I rise to take the floor as the vice chair of the Appropriations Committee and urge that we adopt an urgent supplemental request to deal with the Zika threat. This is real. It has been 2 months since the administration sent to Congress an emergency supplemental. We can't wait any longer. The mosquitoes are here. They are actually here. They are here in the United States of America. I have said--first with wit and now with deep concern--that you can't build a wall to keep the mosquitoes out. The mosquitoes aren't going to pay for this. We need to act, and we need to act now. This is a compelling public health crisis, and we can do something about it. We take an oath to defend all Americans against enemies foreign and domestic. This is about to be a self-inflicted wound on our own people because of our failure to act. With no reliable, tested public health interventions on mosquito control--we have to take action to do this. Why? Because as of April 20, there have been close to 900 cases confirmed in the United States of America. We already know they are in three States. The CDC knows it is going to come to at least 30 States in our own country, and it will have incredible consequences, particularly to women. Over the years, I have heard many eloquent, poignant, and even wrenching speeches about protecting the unborn. They have been deeply moving. We have always tried to find common ground on this. But if you are really for defending the unborn, you have to pass this supplemental. There are women all over the United States--particularly in these three vulnerable States--there are women in Puerto Rico who are wondering, if they are already pregnant, what their situation is. There are young women and not-so-young women who are concerned about getting pregnant and at the same time being bitten by a mosquito, and there are sparse resources to do mosquito control. We want to build fences to keep out illegal aliens. OK. We want to bomb the hell out of ISIS and terrorists. We should because we are worried that they are coming at us. But in many of those instances, those are problems that have been difficult to solve. This is not difficult to solve; this is about mosquito control. I am very concerned that we are just sitting around and that when all is said and done, more is getting said than gets done. We are talking about an emergency supplemental. The Appropriations Committee has a very clear set of criteria for what is an emergency. First, it has to be urgent. Well, the mosquito season is here. It has to be unforeseen. This was unforeseen and it is temporary. It is mosquito season. It is a confined season. We can do something about it, and we must do something about it. It will have a disproportionate impact on pregnant women and the unborn. There will be children born with the most horrendous, heartbreaking birth defects. I am of the generation that was the polio generation. My mother wouldn't let my sisters and me go swimming until after June 20 because, somehow or another, in our faith, it was St. John's Day and we thought the water would be warmer. Maybe the saint blessed the water. God bless the saints. God bless people like Dr. Salk, and God bless America that funded the Salk vaccine. I remember children in iron lungs to be kept alive, children in braces who then walked with very difficult canes. Those who survive bear this the rest of their lives. Look at what we are facing here, and we know it. This is not unknown, nor is it unmanageable. It will be a national disgrace if we don't act. In my own home State, I have a Republican Governor, Governor Larry Hogan. Guess what. Governor Hogan is acting. This isn't about Democrats and Republicans. Governor Hogan acted. He declared April 24 to 30 Zika Awareness Week. He ordered his health department to coordinate educational events with local health departments. They also spent $130,000 of State money to develop 10,000 transmission kits to begin to deal with this. My Republican Governor has taken action. Also, in Anne Arundel County--the county that is the home of the State capital, again headed up by a Republican county executive--they received 850 kits. They are going to have townhall meetings to talk with the agricultural officials about prevention and mosquito control. We have a Republican Governor and a Republican county executive who are acting. Then there is Howard County, where the health department is planning to distribute 450 kits to obstetric and gynecological practices to protect pregnant women. Again, a Republican county executive working with his administration is taking action, spending local money when this is a national problem. I am saying this because my own Governor and the county executives are acting. In Baltimore City, which has a Democratic mayor--she listened to the warnings coming from the World Health Organization, the CDC, and the Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore and is taking action. Baltimore is now spraying, taking mosquito control action, and so on. They are spending over $500,000 of local money, of which we don't have a lot. So, hello, Maryland is acting. We need to act. And I say this because we are spending local money to deal with a national and international problem. So please, let's now--whatever differences we have on other bills, please let's take up this urgent supplemental. Madam President, I yield the floor, as I see the majority leader is here.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise as the vice chair of the Appropriations Committee to express my appreciation to the majority leader of the Senate, Senator McConnell, and Senator Cochran, the chair of the Appropriations Committee, for moving the process forward. We have on the floor today the Energy and Water Committee bill. This is the first bill of the Appropriations Committee to come to the floor. It signals that we are ready to do regular order. I so appreciate the leaderships' commitment to do that, so we don't end up with a big omnibus bill at the end. Every bill comes, they can be amended, and everyone can have their day and their say. It is an excellent kickoff to what I hope will be the ability to move all 12 bills and some crucial, urgent supplementals. I also compliment Senators Alexander and Senator Feinstein for the excellent job they have done on this particular subcommittee. They have followed the bipartisan agreement. They have a bill that is free of poison pill riders. When you look at what they have done in terms of energy and water, it is an excellent bill from the standpoint of national security and economic development, whether it is the funding for the Army Corps of Engineers that is so important to those of us who have ports, to science in terms of our fields of energy. We win Nobel prizes, but we need to win the markets. It has an excellent approach in terms of tech transfer. Maryland benefits from this bill. It provides over $100 million for the Port of Baltimore. That is going to support the port's nearly 14,000 jobs and a tax base of over $300 million. The Port of Baltimore has always been the gateway to Ohio and the West. First, supported by the B&O--Baltimore and Ohio--Railroad and now CSX. Funding in this bill dredges the port's 50-foot channel, making it ready for megacontainer ships coming through the expanded Panama Canal and supporting the port's competitive edge over its East Coast competition. The bill also funds construction of Poplar Island, where clean dredge material is rebuilding the natural ecosystem of a former Chesapeake Bay island. This bill exceeds the target level for the harbor maintenance trust fund, providing approximately $1.3 billion. Dredging is the primary activity of the trust fund. This funding is knocking out the nationwide backlog of dredging projects, supporting the U.S. economy and local economies. Across Maryland, this bill makes critical investments, protecting Assateague Island, a national seaside treasure, for future generations, protecting Cumberland from flooding, and protecting this area's water supply at the Jennings Randolph Lake in Garrett County. This bill also supports a unique public-private partnership between the U.S. Department of Energy and commercial truck manufacturers. Together, they are developing the next generation of fuel-efficient heavy-duty trucks. Total funding is $20 million. Volvo has been a partner and is competing again for a portion of this funding. Its Hagerstown, MD plant produces Mack Trucks with 1,600 jobs. Their talented professionals have been leaders on truck engine research and development, discovering technologies to reduce oil consumption and decrease greenhouse gas emissions. For the Appalachian Regional Commission, this bill provides $75 million for the base program, an increase of $5 million. The commission meets both physical and human infrastructure needs. This is a hands- across-the-aisle program that all Appalachia Senators support. There are 13 States in the commission. Maryland has three counties in the commission: Washington, Allegany, and Garrett. Maryland's mountain counties receive nearly $5 million annually, making investments to rebound from lost manufacturing jobs. The recession was another setback. Now, through their community colleges, they are retraining and retooling their residents. The commission's grants, matched with local and other Federal funding, are making a big difference. I recently visited Garrett College where I announced two grants. The first was to establish new allied health programs with a simulation manikin. This was a grant award for $110,000. The second grant was to buy Westernport a new water tank. This grant for $400,000 was matched with $2.4 million in other Federal loans and grants. It means more capacity for Westernport, new service to nearby towns of Luke and Bloomington, and a huge cost savings to Luke Mill. The paper mill has been supplying drinking water to the town of Luke. This grant is protecting the 880 employees at Luke Mill and 3,000 regional jobs in timber and trucking. If this is the way it is going to be to move appropriations, I think it is a good day. It is not only a good bill, but it shows when the Senate practices the ability to work together to bring legislation to the floor, to follow regular order, we can get our job done. It can be open, it can be transparent, and we can have amendments. I so look forward to this being the tone and the tempo of the rest of the appropriations season. I yield the floor.