Barbara Mikulski

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. The Senator from Maryland may proceed.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Replying to the Senator from Oklahoma, for those amendments we know we have cleared on both sides of the aisle that we can do by voice votes or by consent, we are going to get those done this evening. Does the Senator have an objection to that?

Ms. MIKULSKI. Senator Cardin's amendment No. 3393 will be voted on tomorrow.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise in support of amendment No. 3350 proposed by Senator Tester. These funds are needed because the agency predicts it will spend more to fight these fires in fiscal year 2013, causing severe hardship on the agency.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Yes. I wish to thank the Senator from Oklahoma for being willing to debate these amendments this evening. I know he has a pressing engagement, and he may proceed in whatever order he so chooses.

Ms. MIKULSKI. I say to the Senator, we have been advised that we will not be voice voting amendments tonight. But I want to just comment that we support the Landrieu amendment No. 3415, which clarifies the intent of section 609(e) of the pending amendment to provide FEMA reimbursements for the first responders. This amendment clarifies the intent that first responders can be reimbursed for wages during a disaster response. But it does not change the conditions of reimbursement that already aid an effective disaster response. We do want to reinforce that both the International Association of Fire Fighters and the International Association of Fire Chiefs support this amendment. At such time a vote is taken, I will urge a ``yes'' vote.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Again, I wish to thank the Senator from Oklahoma for offering all those amendments. I would like to comment on Coburn 3370, division 1 on the tax cheats. I certainly want to compliment him on that amendment. Every single Senator wants to prevent tax cheaters from receiving any funding in this bill. I am for all of those prohibitions on tax cheats. I carry a similar provision in my usual customary Commerce-Justice bill. The Senator from Oklahoma also was very tentative about modifying it, but he still covers the tax cheats, and also dead people can't get Federal funds. The Senator modified it to cover funeral expenses. But we are also being told that this--by the Finance Committee--that this amendment is not a blue slip issue. I support the Senator's amendment, and if it is agreeable with the Senator from Oklahoma, on this side, we would like to take his amendment tonight.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Now on the fisheries part, we don't take the fisheries part.

Ms. MIKULSKI. I oppose the division 2, the fisheries amendment. I understand the Senator's intention, but his point is that he tries to say that fishery disaster funding should be for communities affected primarily by Stafford Act requirements. The Stafford Act covers FEMA- certified disasters. So in order to get help from FEMA, which is governed by the Stafford Act, it has to be certified by the President. Fisheries are different because fisheries are covered under an agency called NOAA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency. It is under the Department of Commerce. So if you think you have a fisheries disaster, you take that to the Secretary of Commerce, who has an explicit criteria in order to qualify. You just can't say: Well, I don't have the fish I used to. Oh, my lobster pots are a little rusty. No. You have to have real criteria that you have been hit. Therefore, you cannot get fisheries assistance unless a fishery disaster has been declared by the Secretary of Commerce. Fishery disasters are necessary and urgent. Coastal fisheries, our coastal communities--our fisheries are part of their identity, and they are certainly part of our economy. They certainly are in my State. And those are the disasters that are covered here. So I hope the amendment of the Senator from Oklahoma is defeated. His other amendments, I could comment upon, but I didn't know if the gentlelady from Louisiana, who chairs the Subcommittee on Homeland Security, of which FEMA is a member--I presume she would want to comment on the Senator's amendment.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Did I inadvertently interrupt you?

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, this amendment simply provides authority to the State Department to transfer up to approximately $1 billion in Overseas Contingency Operations funds appropriated in Fiscal Year 2012 for operations. in Iraq, which are no longer needed in Iraq due to reduced operations there, and to use these funds for increased security at U.S. embassies and other overseas posts identified in the Department's security review after the Benghazi attack. Making additional funds available for these purposes is one of the recommendations of the Accountability Review Board chaired by Ambassador Pickering and Admiral Mullen. The amendment permits the transfer of funds between the Diplomatic and Consular Programs and Embassy Security Construction and Maintenance accounts, which would otherwise be precluded due to percentage limitations on such transfers. According to CBO the amendment has no outlay scoring impact. We all want to do what we can to prevent another tragedy like what occurred in Benghazi. The State Department has done a review, and these funds will be used to expedite construction of Marine security guard posts at overseas posts, and to build secure embassies in Beirut, Lebanon and Harare, Zimbabwe. There is nothing controversial about this amendment. These are existing funds. There is no new appropriation. The amendment has no scoring impact. It is simply a matter of allowing unobligated, prior year funds to be used for a different purpose of higher priority-- protecting our diplomats stationed in dangerous places around the world. That amendment will be voted on tomorrow. Amendment No. 3426 to Amendment No. 3395

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I have an amendment on behalf of Senator Harkin. I call up amendment No. 3426.

Ms. MIKULSKI. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, this amendment makes two very technical corrections that are necessary for proper implementing of funding for the Department of Health and Human Services in the supplemental. First, it deletes the term ``response activities for hurricane Sandy'' and replaces it with ``the purposes provided herein.'' That is a small verbal change but ``response activities'' has a limited meaning. This change does clarify that funds may also be used to cover additional recovery and related costs connected to Hurricane Sandy. Second, it adds the phrase ``to make grants'' to clarify that the Department of HHS has specific grant-making authority for renovating, repairing, and rebuilding non-Federal facilities involved in NIH research. For example, an academic center of excellence, well known for its work, particularly in cancer research, will have the opportunity to rebuild. I recommend support of this amendment. Senator Shelby has signed off on it. I believe it is not controversial. CBO says it does not score at all, and I understand the minority staff on the Labor-HHS Appropriations Committee has also signed off on those changes. Mr. President, that amendment, too, will be voted on tomorrow if not accepted. Tonight we are just not accepting amendments and we are not voice voting them. I also want to note we have two Members on the floor whose States were hard hit. One is the Senator from New York about whom Senator Schumer has spoken. I know Senator Gillibrand wishes to speak. The order we will follow is Senator Gillibrand will speak for such time as she may consume to be followed by the Senator from Connecticut and such time as he may consume in speaking on behalf of the bill. Before the Senator speaks, though, a word to the Senator from Connecticut. Connecticut has been hit twice--first by the hurricane and then by what happened at Sandy Hook Elementary. For those of us who join with you, we just want the people of Connecticut to know they are not alone. As the Senator from New Jersey who spoke earlier said, you know we are the United States of America. Where there was a disaster in one State, we all have to respond as if it were a disaster in all States. The attack on one child in Connecticut--we have to protect all children, in Connecticut and in every single State in this Union. I hope, as we find those solutions, we do act as a union, the United States of America. Once again, our sympathy and condolences, and I yield the floor to these very able Senators.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, I move to waive the critical sections of that act, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I understand the Senator from Pennsylvania wishes to speak. I just need to essentially object to his point of order. I do this because although I know he is indeed well intentioned--Mr. President, the Senate is not in order. This is an important precedent that could be set, and I would like Members not to talk.

Ms. MIKULSKI. I want them to more than be quiet. We are talking about a precedent in the Senate, so I would like, please, if Senators could take their conversations either in the back or off the floor.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, the reason I am so insistent is, No. 1, the decorum of the Senate; and No. 2, this is a dangerous precedent. If this point of order is sustained, it will mean $3.4 billion of urgent disaster relief in this supplemental has to be offset in future appropriations bills. This will mean real consequences this year. Now, in a $1 trillion budget and the way we talk about money $3.4 billion might not seem like a lot, but it does mean a lot in disaster assistance, and it does mean a lot to the Appropriations Committee. This is a $3.4 billion unspecified cut that will go to domestic programs for fiscal year 2013. I wish to remind my colleagues we are in a 6-month CR now, so this means right in the middle of a CR, until March, we have to take out an additional $3.4 billion. This will have a terrible impact on domestic programs, and it is a dangerous precedent. We have never offset disaster assistance, and I urge the adoption of my position. I yield to the Senator from New York whose community is suffering, and he has done an able job in helping to manage this bill.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, I move to waive the applicable section of that act, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I know the hour is late and there are Members who want to go home. We have been through an emotional roller coaster here in the Senate, as has the Nation. One week ago we saw this terrible, horrific shooting in Connecticut. While the Nation mourned what happened there, we mourn here in the Senate because of the passing of Senator Inouye. Yet the work of Senator Inouye went on through the urgent supplemental. I would like to thank the Senator from New York for helping with the management of this bill, as well as the Senator from Vermont and Senator Landrieu, the chair of the Homeland Security Subcommittee, who have all done good work. Dan Inouye We Senators know we are only as good as our staff. As the Inouye era goes through its transition, I would like to thank the Inouye staff first of all for everything they have done on this bill. I thank the Inouye staff for all they did in staffing for truly one of the great icons in the Senate. Now, do not think the Inouye staff is going to go away under Barbara Mikulski. I want to publicly thank them on behalf of all of the Senate that they held their own emotions in control so we could move forward with the Senate business. That is what professional staff is. They are the highest and the best of the best. I think the Senate owes them a debt of gratitude. I will lean on them to be back here on Thursday to move this bill in regular order. I want to just end today's proceedings by saying God bless Senator Inouye and all that he meant to America, and God bless the staff, who has helped him be one of the greatest Senators in American history.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Yes.

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

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, what is the pending business before the Senate? The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sanders.) The pending business is H.R. 1.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise and ask unanimous consent to speak for 3 minutes as in morning business.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I just wanted to come to the floor--I know other Senators are speaking--to say to the rest of my colleagues and to many people who have expressed interest, the Democratic caucus has just confirmed me to be the full chair of the U.S. Senate Appropriations Committee. I take the floor today to announce that with great humility. I am filling the footsteps of Senator Danny Inouye, who was indeed a giant among men, a war hero, and an advocate for social justice, national security, and a compassionate government. I want to just say to my colleagues, as I assume this chairmanship, I look forward to working with each and every Member of the Senate, both within my own caucus and across the aisle, to have a committee that functions on a bipartisan basis. The Appropriations Committee is a constitutionally mandated committee. The Appropriations Committee is governed by the Constitution of the United States, by the laws of the land, and by the rules of the Senate. Under the Constitution, the Founding Fathers said every year there should be a review of the annual Federal expenditures. That is what our committee will do. We will bring forward legislation that will show what are the expenditures of the United States Government, what we propose to be ratified by the full Senate. We will do it, first of all, on a bipartisan basis. One of the first calls I received when I knew this honor would come to be chair was to reach across the aisle to Senator Richard Shelby of Alabama, my good friend and colleague who is now the ranking member on the Appropriations Committee, to reach out to him, as I did in a phone call. And I say publicly today that when we look at how we are going to spend the money and how we are going to meet our national security needs--but our compelling human needs in this country, and public investment in our children, in our future, and how to promote our economy--we need to do it on a bipartisan basis. I want to thank Senator Shelby because he assured me of his cooperation to do so. Our committee will function in a way that is open, transparent, and we wish to follow the regular order. What we want to do in following the regular order is to ask our colleagues to join with us so that we move the urgent supplemental which so many American people are depending on us to pass, this legislation to meet the needs of individual assistance to restore homes, lives and livelihoods. It is going to be a new day in the Appropriations Committee, but we are going to follow old-school values of the men who went before us: Dan Inouye, Ted Stevens, men who fought in World War II to defend America. They stood on this Senate floor to defend the Constitution. They spoke for their States. That is what we are going to do. I want everyone to know, we also will want to ensure that our spending reflects our values to protect our country, to protect vulnerable populations, and to also prepare America for the future. I will have more to say about all of this at a later time. I just wanted to say, I take this not as an honor but as a great responsibility. I am so appreciative of the caucus that confirmed me. I am very appreciative of the way Members of the other side of the aisle also reached out. If we take the time to listen to each other, to respect each other and listen to the needs of the people, we can work to get more bang out of the buck, get more value for the dollar. We can have a strong economy, a safer country. We can be frugal without being heartless. At the same time, we can assure the taxpayers we have heard them. They want us to do a better job with our spending, but at the same time they want to see it in an open process. I just wanted to come to the floor to say that. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.