Barbara Mikulski

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, I join with my colleagues you have already heard from--Senator Cantwell of Washington State, Senator Stabenow of Michigan--and today I know other Senators will be coming to the floor to say: We want to finish the job. We want to finish the job that started 50 years ago when Lyndon Johnson introduced the first of three civil rights bills that were designed to change America. In the mid-1960s, there was turmoil. Change was in the air. People wanted equality. They were marching on the streets, they were pounding on the tables, and they were organizing in civil disobedience. Dr. King marched on Washington and Lyndon Johnson was laying the groundwork for the famous Civil Rights Act that would open the doors for minorities. But the very first bill he introduced was to guarantee equal pay for equal work for women. He did that as the first bill because he thought that would be one of the easiest to pass. Well, 50 years later we are still being redlined, sidelined, pink- slipped because we fight for equal pay for equal work. Every time we make an advance, they bring in the lawyers--the corporate lawyers--who then hide behind small business exemptions, and they fret on how it will wreck the economy of the United States. Well, I know what wrecked the economy of the United States, and it wasn't women wanting equal pay for equal work. That is not what brought us fraud, scams, and greed in the mortgage market. That did not cause the great collapse of the banks. We didn't cause that. Their hubris and greed did. But when they bring in the lawyers, we have to pass legislation. Four years ago, the first bill that we passed during the Obama administration was the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. It repaired the right of women to address pay inequality in the courts. What it did was correct a misinterpretation by the court on what is the statute of limitations when women seek redress. But let me tell you that the fight continues. The fight continues now. The reason we need the Paycheck Fairness Act is the fact that women continue to be discriminated against and economically harassed and punished if they even ask: How much do the guys get paid? So if you are standing at the water cooler or if you go to your human resources and say: What do I get--if Georgette asks: What do I get, and she wants to know what George gets, she could be punished. She could be fired. She could be penalized. She could be isolated for being too aggressive. Haven't we heard that? Too uppity--my God, daring to ask what George gets paid. Well, the Lillies, the Georgettes, and everybody who gets up every day and takes pride in their work, does the job they were hired to do, they want to get the pay they have every right to. So our legislation will keep employers from retaliating against employees who share information about pay. Remember how Lilly Ledbetter's bill got triggered? Lilly was working at Goodyear, doing a good job, even promoted. But guess what, finally some men, some great guys--and there are great guys--came and said: Guess what, Lilly. We get a better deal than you do. That is how Lilly Ledbetter found out, and when she went to ask, she was punished. So our Paycheck Fairness Act would keep employers from retaliating against employees who share information. It will also close a loophole in the current law that allows employers to use just about any reason for paying a woman less than a man by requiring that the reason be unrelated to sex and it has to be job related. The fact is that they will say: Well, we pay George more because you really should be 5-foot-8 to do the job, and most women might only be 5-foot-6. Well, have you seen those title IX gals lately? Anyway, they always invent the reasons. That is where, instead of solving the problem, they bring in the lawyers. They always bring in the lawyers. Now we are bringing in the votes, and what we want to say is that we want to close that loophole. We also want to improve the remedies available for victims of discrimination by simply putting the Equal Pay Act on par with other laws to combat equal treatment. Everyone wants to say what this bill is about. They all have opinions. It is not about politics; it is about a pay gap. It is not about only gender; it is about an agenda. What is our country? Are we going to be fair with each other in the marketplace? This bill is about our families, it is about our economy, it is about bread-and-butter decisions. So what are the consequences of paying equal pay for equal work? No. 1, it will put more money in the family checkbook. More money in the family checkbook means more spending in the economy. It is actually good economic policy in the real economy. Now, it might result in lower executive compensation, but it will result in fair compensation to the women who work. As we know, women now are really a significant part of the workforce, and we should be paid equal pay for equal work and not harassed when we want to ask questions, and close the loopholes to make sure they don't make up phony excuses. This is very, very important. When we look at it, 50 years--50 years--after Lyndon Johnson introduced his legislation, we are still at 77 cents for every dollar a man makes. For women of color, it is even less, and for Hispanic women, it is only 60 percent. That is not enough. So we want to change the lawbooks so we can put more money in the family checkbook and more money in our economy and make sure that the dream of 50 years ago that was started by Lyndon Johnson we rectify in the passage of this legislation, which I hope we do expeditiously between now and Mother's Day. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I am pleased to stand here today to support President Obama's nomination of my esteemed colleague, Senator John Kerry, to serve as our Nation's next Secretary of State. Senator Kerry has had a long career of service to the American people. We have served together in the Senate for 26 years and I look forward to continuing our relationship. As a Senator he has always approached his work with seriousness and dedication. Nowhere can this be seen more than in his work as a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, where he has shown a mastery of the challenges that face our global community. As the Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee he has played a prominent role in the establishment of U.S. foreign policy. He has traveled the globe and built relationships and coalitions with international leaders. Most importantly, he has demonstrated an ability to balance our Nation's long history of diplomacy with our changing national security needs. The unanimous support given to him by the Foreign Relations Committee exhibits the respect and confidence he has earned from this body. The Department of State faces evolving challenges that reflect our increasingly interconnected world and require a modern approach to diplomacy. Senator Kerry will lead a team that must confront global security challenges and ensure the security of our diplomatic corps and their families. I am confident that Senator Kerry will meet these challenges, and I will work with him to ensure that the State Department and its employees have the resources they need to serve their mission. While I am sorry to see Secretary Clinton leave her post after 4 successful and productive years, I am pleased to know that Senator Kerry will take on the role with the same dedication. I call on my colleagues to join me in approving his nomination to Secretary of State.

Ms. MIKULSKI

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

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, I rise to urge my colleagues to immediately pass this urgent supplemental bill without further delay. I remind my colleagues and those who are watching us on global C-SPAN, this is the bill that will pay for disaster relief to help our citizens, both as individuals, businesses, and communities, rebuild their lives after the devastating, horrific impact of Hurricane Sandy. Particularly, it will impact the residents of New York and New Jersey. My own State was affected also. In my own State, we had two things happen: a hurricane in the old-fashioned definition of that word, where it hit the Eastern Shore; and up in western Maryland, right up in our Appalachian part; we had a blizzard, and it took the National Guard to be able to go into the streets. We had people being rescued on Swift Boats and on snowmobiles. It was something. At the same time, I think all America watched what was going on up the coast but particularly in New Jersey and New York. Many other States were also impacted by this storm. Homes and businesses were damaged and destroyed, and they have been waiting for 90 days for help from their government to help them rebuild their lives and rebuild their livelihoods. I, therefore, tonight ask immediate, urgent action to move this bill. It is not perfect, but it is a very sound bill. The bill that was passed by the Senate in December was a superior bill. The House bill, which is before us, eliminates many important provisions that the Senate passed. I will go into that, but I urge my colleagues, let's not make the perfect the enemy of the good. We have to get started. We have to help our communities. They have been waiting, waiting, waiting. Governor Cuomo, Governor Christie, Governor O'Malley have all said move it. We need help to move it. We need to. I say there are things that came back from the House on the Senate- passed bill that I am not too excited about. They reduced the cost- share requirements for Army Corps projects. In other words, the government, the local government, will have to pay more. They reduced funding for fisheries, for flexibility to help our State Department. In a perfect world, I would seek to amend this bill and ask for a conference with the House so we could work out these differences. But even though this House bill is not perfect, it does give critical relief to the people who need it; therefore, passing this bill is my top priority. This bill totals $50.5 billion for Hurricane Sandy recovery efforts. When combined with the $9.7 billion of flood insurance we passed earlier this month, along with assistance for Hurricane Sandy related to recovery, this bill meets the current needs of the recovery efforts and should be approved without delay. Let me take a few minutes to discuss some of the important issues. There is $16 billion in there for community development block grant funding to restore infrastructure and housing to help people rebuild their lives. There is $11.5 billion in the FEMA disaster fund for ongoing disaster response. There is $10 billion for public transportation--particularly crucial in the New York and New Jersey area--and $5.3 billion for the Army Corps of Engineers to help protect communities along our shorelines, as well as $500 million for the social services block grants to help meet compelling human needs such as childcare, mental health services, and also for programs that will help with very damaged facilities that meet a compelling need. As I said, Governors Cuomo and Christie have identified needs totaling billions of dollars more than this legislation provides, and that doesn't even include other States such as my own State of Maryland. The funding in this bill is urgently needed. Every dollar has been examined. Hurricane Sandy was one of the most destructive storms to have hit the United States. Hundreds of thousands of families have seen their lives turned upside down. They have waited far too long for this legislation to reach the President. I strongly urge the support of this legislation. This is the very first bill that, as the full chair of the Appropriations Committee, I am moving. I would like to acknowledge the role of the subcommittee chairmen because in that committee, the subcommittees really carry the bulk of the work. Senator Landrieu of the Subcommittee on Homeland Security has FEMA in her jurisdiction, and she has done an outstanding job of making sure we meet compelling human need at the same time we get value for our dollar. Senator Patty Murray chairs the subcommittee that funds housing and transportation, again making sure we are rebuilding homes and livelihoods. Senator Feinstein, whose subcommittee oversees the Army Corps of Engineers, which has been doing a heroic job keeping the Mississippi River open, wants to make sure the shorelines of New York and New Jersey and Maryland are open for business as well. I could name all of them, but those three have done an outstanding job. I particularly wish to acknowledge the help of my colleagues from New York and New Jersey. Senator Schumer led the way, particularly when there was this difficult time with Senator Inouye's illness, to move this bill, but Senators Gillibrand, Menendez, and Lautenberg have really been outstanding. This is about colleagues, and I thank my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who helped us. I would now like to yield the floor to Senator Landrieu, who has done such a great job through her subcommittee, and ask her to elaborate particularly on the aspects of the disaster response and recovery.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to Senator Schumer.

Ms. MIKULSKI. I appreciate the Senators from New York and New Jersey raising this issue. The language in the bill we currently have before us directs the Army Corps to conduct their study in coordination with other Federal agencies, and State, local and Tribal officials. It is the intent of Congress for the Army Corps of Engineers to adopt a multiagency approach and work in close collaboration with other relevant agencies in studying and planning for the reconstruction of the coastal areas destroyed by Superstorm Sandy. In making its supplemental funding request to Congress, the Administration specifically requested funding for an ``inter-agency planning process in conjunction with State, local, and Tribal officials, and to develop plans to address long-standing challenges and ensure the health and prosperity of the areas affected by Sandy . . . for innovative approaches to reduce the future flood risk, in ways that will promote the long-term sustainability of the coastal ecosystem and communities.'' It is our expectation that the administration would adopt that approach with the funding provided in this legislation.

Ms. MIKULSKI. The storm was one of the most devastating in our Nation's history, and the assistance that is so needed to address the widespread damage is long past due.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Yes. The funding is for necessary expenses related to the consequences of Hurricane Sandy, and since Great Lakes Federal navigation projects were damaged as a result of that storm, they would indeed be eligible.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, we are just moments from voting on both the Lee amendment and on final passage. I rise to oppose the Lee amendment, the amendment of the junior Senator from Utah. His amendment would cut $6.3 billion from fiscal year 2013. That is $6 billion that is in addition to the $3.4 billion we already have as an offset in the bill that is charged against the Corps of Engineers, plus he wants to reduce spending by another $44 billion over an 8-year period by lowering the discretionary budget caps that were agreed to in the to 2011 Budget Control Act. Overall, he pays for $50.5 billion in emergency aid with $51.2 billion in cuts. That is $700 million more in cuts than the disaster rate in this bill. I think that is going too far. I think when we cut more than we are going to spend, that is going too far. The $6.3 billion is an unspecified cut in discretionary programs in the middle of fiscal year 2013. It will cut national defense, it will cut law enforcement, housing assistance, agricultural assistance, and, guess what. The way it is written, it will even cut veterans' benefits, which are ordinarily viewed as mandatory spending. This $44.9 billion is a reduction to the caps set by the Budget Control Act of 2011. For my colleagues who don't seem to remember, we actually did pass a Budget Control Act. It says we in the Appropriations Committee will cut $1 trillion over the next 9 years. So the cap is already on us on what we could spend, and that is $100 billion a year. The Lee amendment would add even more to that. They cannot tell us to pass a budget the way they did in the House bill on the debt limit and then say: Pass the budget. We did pass the Budget Control Act, and now the Lee amendment will shred that agreement. It will just shred it. Every time something comes up--while we are working to pass a budget--are they going to shred it? I would like to follow what Senator Coats has talked about: Let's get back to regular order. Let's not be kind of doing cuts de jour, cuts on the fly, and who can outcut whom. Senator Coats has many good ideas in his presentation. As an appropriator and a gentleman on my committee, I look forward to working with him.

Ms. MIKULSKI. I think it will be in very serious danger of passing because the impact of the cuts is significant, severe, even Armageddon, and it would send it back to the House for further negotiation. The House is out this week, and then they kind of come back. I think this bill very likely will die in a conference, and that cannot happen as it will affect the economy and lives of the people in our States. I know the gentlelady has had a history of looking at how to have a more frugal and sensible government. We funded two wars on a credit card, and that is part of the reason we are in this mess. We have plenty of money to rebuild Iraq, and now we are debating and nickel- and-diming over rebuilding New York, New Jersey, parts of Connecticut, and little, poor rural parts of Maryland. So, yes, I think it will have a terrible effect.

Ms. MIKULSKI. If I could just finish my remarks, and I will turn to the gentlelady from Louisiana. Also, this amendment is terrible in terms of process. If we pass the Lee amendment, not only will it shred the Budget Control Act of 2011-- just shred it--it will then send this bill, which meets compelling human need, back to the House. The House has already shrunk this bill. It will further embroil this process, and very likely this bill may die due to some of the extreme elements in the House. To me, the answer is obvious: Let's defeat the Lee amendment and pass this bill. There are people who are suffering in New York, New Jersey, Maryland, and Connecticut. Let's acknowledge the validity of the arguments that have been raised by many Members on the other side about how we look at disaster assistance, and I am more than open to it on our committee. I hope we can defeat the Lee amendment and pass the urgent supplemental that is pending before us even though it already has an additional $3.4 billion offset, which is essentially a cut of fiscal year 2013--cutting the Army Corps of Engineers--which, by the way, has only $5 billion. If they are going to cut, learn math and learn how to read the bills and the chart. Math is good. I like math. We are going to follow math. With that, I ask that we pass the bill. Let's not cut more than is in the bill. Let's do the math and know we are already cutting. Let's do the job the American people want. This concludes my remarks. But before I yield the floor to the gentlelady from Louisiana, there are two sunshine issues I am going to mention. First, I see the return of Senator Mark Kirk. I cannot share with my colleagues the pleasure I have in seeing him. He is a member of the Appropriations Committee. We have worked together on many issues. We have disagreed, we have duked it out, and we have had some good times. It is just a pleasure to see him back on the Senate floor and ready to vote. Also, I note that now joining us as the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee is Senator Shelby of Alabama. I have worked with the Senator from Alabama over the years. I think we can pledge-- though we will differ on policy or matters--there will be more on which we can agree in this Appropriations Committee. There will be an effort for bipartisanship, civility, intellectual rigger, robust debate, and transparency. We look forward to working together and with our colleagues. With that, I yield for the gentlelady from Louisiana.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, the Senator from Louisiana was asking me a question while I was getting a copy of my speech. What was the question?

Ms. MIKULSKI. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize Rosalind ``Roz'' Gray, who is retiring from government service this month after 32 years at the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, MD. Ms. Gray, originally from Richmond, VA, began her career as a laboratory manager with Hoffman-LaRoche Pharmaceuticals in New Jersey. After a few years in the pharmaceutical industry, she moved to Maryland and joined the National Institutes of Health in the Office of Legislation, Policy, and Analysis. For over 30 years, Ms. Gray has been an outstanding representative of the NIH to the public, to congressional staff, and to patients in need of help. Many of us here in Congress have met Roz when she accompanied the NIH leadership to briefings or hearings on the Hill. She has expertly staffed the past five NIH Directors, including current Director Dr. Francis Collins, former NIH Director and current NCI Director Dr. Harold Varmus, and former NIH Director Dr. Bernadine Healy, the first woman appointed to that role. Ms. Gray and her husband Charles have a daughter, Tracy, a son, Phillip, and two grandchildren. In her retirement, Ms. Gray plans to work with her church and community to help families in crisis and to improve childhood literacy. She is also looking forward to traveling, including taking her first trip to Europe, and spending more time with her children and grandchildren. Mr. President, Roz Gray has been a dedicated public servant for 32 years and has inspired her colleagues at the NIH with her integrity, professionalism, and kindness. It is appropriate that we honor her today for her many contributions to advancing the mission of the NIH.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise to speak as to what is going on here today as the new chair of the Senate full Committee on Appropriations. That means we are the committee that actually puts money in the Federal checkbook. I would like to talk about that because, you see, today here we are on New Year's Eve doing what we should have done right after Labor Day. We are behind the clock, and actually we are behind the thinking of the American people. They want us to come together and have sensible fiscal policies that promote growth and at the same time balance it with a new sense of frugality. The fact that we have come to this point with this culture of delay in this institution I think is really unacceptable. But I don't want to go into the culture of the institution, I want to go into actual discussions of something called sequester and spending. The words of Washington are a foreign language. We use words that nobody understands, and we use numbers that nobody believes. I am telling you that with me, there is going to be a new day and a new way--plain talk, straight talk about what we are doing here. So let's talk about the word ``sequester.'' Sequester literally means that you are going to--sequester stands for an arcane government word that means you are going to have automatic, across-the-board government spending cuts. These are supposed to be triggered if we don't resolve the issues today and will happen on January 2. What is being proposed is that we would cut $110 billion in 2013--$55 billion in defense and $55 billion in nondefense. This means every single program--not programs that are dated, not programs that are bloated, not programs that might be for another era or only benefited a small group of people in a distant past, it means every single program. Yes, there will be certain exemptions to that in terms of Social Security benefits, veterans' benefits, and certain things related to the military. Since we are already 3 months into the fiscal year, the impact of these cuts will even be worse. So when you hear that we are cutting deals on the sequester, we are actually talking about government spending. Now let's talk about cuts. This is not the first time either party has talked about cuts, nor is it the first time either party has started to talk about a sense of frugality. One party, however, wants to also understand that we need to be able to meet the compelling needs that are in the mission of our government, and we have already given at the office. So let's talk about, oh, this could be new spending, and I don't want this. The fact is that since 2010, not 2001--let's get our zeroes straight for a change--since 2010 we have already cut domestic spending by $43 billion. We have already cut $43 billion. That is nearly 10 percent of domestic spending in just 3 years. That $43 billion was in nondefense programs. Then there is talk about, oh, why don't we have a budget? On August 2, 2011, we passed something called the Budget Control Act. That was deemed to be the budget of the United States of America. In that Budget Control Act, they instructed those of us on the Appropriations Committee to cut discretionary spending $1 trillion over the next 10 years. The Appropriations Committee will honor the instructions of the Budget Committee, as approved by the Congress of the United States. We are on the program. We are on the same page. We are on the same glidepath. We don't have to have showdowns here. So we have already cut actual dollars--an actual checkbook--of $43 billion. That is a lot of money. Also, in the Budget Control Act, we are to cut $1 trillion over the next 10 years. That would meet what was being discussed in Simpson-Bowles and so on, so we need to understand that. Now let's go to this across-the-board cut. I see on the Senate floor the distinguished Senator from Arizona, a well-known advocate for our national security, well versed over the years in the compelling needs our military must have to protect the Nation. I am sure he will speak to those needs, and I will also. But I also want to speak about another dynamic, which is the impact of $55 billion across the board in discretionary spending. What I want to say is that if, in fact, we go ahead with this, we are going to cut defense, there is no doubt about it, $55 billion, and it is going to be a meat ax. That is not the way to go, that is not the way to treat our military, and that is not the way to focus on our national security. Secretary Panetta, along with the generals, General Dempsey, the head of the Joint Chiefs, has gone through his own budget. He has recommendations where, out of the $66 billion of defense, how we could begin to have a prudent way where we could begin to have modest reductions in the DOD account without jeopardizing national security. I serve on the Intelligence Committee. I served with the Senator from Arizona and other distinguished people. We are going to make sure we can do this in our own way, but sequestration could really affect a variety of things related to operations and maintenance. Let me tell you what else there is. There are many other people who defend the United States of America, and I am proud of them all. These are things such as our Federal law enforcement. With our Federal law enforcement, if we go into this meat ax approach, over 7,500 positions--because it will come out of personnel--will be affected. This could affect as many as 3,000 Federal agents--3,000 Federal agents of the FBI, DEA, and ATF. They might not be laid off, but they are going to be furloughed. They are going to have short-term furloughs. This is going to have a direct impact on morale, a direct impact on mission, and it will have a direct impact on protecting the American people, whether it is from cyber threats, border control threats--all these things they do. The Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Drug Enforcement Agency are absolutely important. Then the other area is in homeland security. We could reduce the mission hours at the Coast Guard by as much as 50 percent. Now, the Coast Guard is absolutely crucial when it comes to drug interdiction and also protecting our borders from our waterways. You know, a lot of people love the Weather Channel. I love the Weather Channel too. If you watch what they do in Alaska, down in Florida, wherever they are, they are doing search and rescue and making sure drug dealers aren't using our waterways and byways to bring drugs into the country and just standing sentry and protecting the United States of America. Again, we could talk about the border control, but then there is this whole issue of the center for health and human services. Whatever you feel about ObamaCare, that doesn't affect what goes on at the Centers for Disease Control. Right now, the Centers for Disease Control and the FDA are trying to make sure we have food safety and drug safety and are watching out to make sure there are no big outbreaks that spread. All of us were horrified at the meningitis outbreak. We had a situation with a medical technician who went State to State--he was kind of a technician by hire--who spread terrible meningitis by injecting dirty needles into people who needed steroid injections because of their back. So we need the FDA. We need the Centers for Disease Control. They are out there working to protect our American people. Remember, they are the ones who discovered Legionnaires' disease. Mr. President, how much time have I consumed?

Ms. MIKULSKI. I have a commitment to the gentleman from Arizona, and I will honor that commitment both in speaking here and in dealing with these issues. Mr. President, the point I am making is this across-the-board meat axe approach has very serious consequences. Let's use prudence and delay them, I would hope, for at least 1 year or 2 years and not a matter of weeks. But I am saying, and I promise, we do have methods for getting our spending under serious discipline. I yield the floor, and I look forward to working with my colleagues.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, our side yields back all time.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask for a voice vote.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I understand we will now be going to the Reid substitute; is that correct?

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Frank Lautenberg be added as a cosponsor to the Reid substitute.

Ms. MIKULSKI. The substitute amendment has been amended, and now, as I understand the order, we will move to final passage.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. To the Senator from Oklahoma, I apologize. I am sorry for the delay. We will move forward to further debate on the second amendment.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, it is my understanding that we will be able to adopt a number of amendments by voice vote. In order to do that, I will call up a few more amendments now en bloc before a voice vote on the amendments. I ask unanimous consent to call up the following amendments en bloc: Grassley No. 3348 and Feinstein No. 3421, as amended.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading be dispensed with.