Barbara Mikulski

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of Calendar Nos. 206 through 210 en bloc, which are all post office-naming bills--in other words, naming post offices, if they remain open, after distinguished Americans.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the bills be read a third time and passed en bloc, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table en bloc, with no intervening action or debate, and any related statements be printed in the Record.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, would the clerk please call the roll and see if a quorum is present. I believe a quorum is present.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Point of personal privilege. Could we call the roll faster?

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I wish to thank Chairman Kohl and Senator Blunt for their hard work on this bill. They had to make tough choices because of their tight allocation. I commend them for the choices they made and agree with them. They have my full support for this bill. I especially want to thank them for increasing the Food and Drug Administration's budget. They provided $2.5 billion which is $50 million over this year's funding level. Twenty-five cents for every dollar spent by consumers is for FDA-regulated products, over $1 trillion worth of goods bought each year. This funding increase will strengthen our food safety infrastructure so that the FDA can meet its increased responsibilities. It gives the FDA new defense capabilities to hold imported and domestic foods to the same standards. It also will help Federal, State, and local officials prevent and more efficiently detect food safety problems. Finally, it increases the FDA and State and local workforce capacity to prevent deadly outbreaks. Employees at the FDA are on the front lines every day to stop food safety outbreaks in their tracks and get unsafe foods off of supermarket shelves. We rely on the FDA more than ever to make sure the drugs and medical devices we depend upon are safe and effective. I have been a longtime fighter for the FDA. I have fought for years for the right facilities and the right resources. I will continue to fight for these hard-working employees. This increase will help the FDA continue to be the gold standard in upholding drug, device, cosmetic, and food safety. They also make nutrition assistance programs a priority, which is so important in these difficult economic times. For Women, Infants and Children, they provide $6.6 billion. This funding level will meet the needs of low-income pregnant women, infants, and children under 5 by providing nutritious foods, dietary supplements, healthy eating information, and medical referrals. This bill is also very important to Maryland. It supports the hard- working Federal employees at FDA and the Beltsville Agricultural Research Center. Headquartered in Silver Spring, MD, FDA employs 9,400 people, while BARC, located in Beltsville, MD, employs 975 Federal employees, including 250 scientists. BARC is the flagship campus of the Agricultural Research Service. It conducts cutting-edge research to develop and transfer solutions to our Nation's most pressing agricultural problems. This research is impacting not just farmers but every American as it relates to food safety, nutrition, and obesity. They keep BARC funded at existing funding levels and protect these jobs. They also provide $16.5 million for farmers market nutrition programs. This program gives WIC recipients vouchers to use at farmers markets and roadside stands to buy locally grown fruits and vegetables. This program helps low-income women and children as well as our local farmers. In 2009, Maryland distributed $403,000 vouchers to 42,000 WIC clients. This also helped 260 Maryland farmers sell their crops. In addition, Maryland is home to two land grant institutions: University of Maryland at College Park and University of Maryland Eastern Shore. They rejected the House cuts to land grant university research and extension programs and keep them in good standing. These programs support food and agriculture research, provide peer-reviewed, competitively awarded grants, help attract top-notch scientists, fund youth programs, including 4-H, and reach out and solve community needs for small farmers and business owners. Maryland's No. 1 industry is agriculture. We have both the traditional industry sectors and nontraditional: everything from poultry, to dairy to organic farms and vineyards and a specialty nursery industry. This bill supports these farmers and small business owners, but it also supports all Americans by protecting our public health and safety when it comes to our food supply, drugs, and medical devices. Mr. President, I also wish to thank Chairman Murray and Senator Collins for their hard work on this bill. I say to the Senators, you worked together in a bipartisan way and with collegiality. You had a tight allocation and had to make tough choices. But you did an outstanding job, and you have my full support for this bill. I support this bill because it is a jobs bill. It provides formula funding to the States for our highways, byways, and subways. According to the U.S. Department of Transportation, every $1 million spent on transportation creates 13 jobs. This bill will hire the construction workers and engineers to widen our highways and build new bridges. The bill also provides $550 million for TIGER Grants, the discretionary grant program begun in the economic recovery bill. This competitive grant program funds road, rail, transit, and port projects. This bill provides nearly $16 billion for the Federal Aviation Administration, the current year funding level. This funding supports our air traffic controllers, air safety personnel, and construction jobs at our airports. This bill also provides funding to maintain the Maritime Security Program. This program maintains 60 U.S. flagships, crewed by U.S. citizens, to service both commercial and national security needs. This bill provides $120 million for Choice Neighborhoods. Choice Neighborhoods uses the lessons of HOPE VI. It builds upon them to reach more communities and turn ZIP Codes of poverty into healthy, vibrant communities. It also provides much-needed funding for veterans' housing, a total of $75 million, to get them the housing help they need. Our Nation owes our vets a debt of gratitude, and I will keep fighting to show that gratitude not just with words, but with deeds. For Maryland, this bill guarantees $750 million in Federal transportation formula funding. Within this amount, Maryland receives $600 million for highways and $150 million for transit. It also supports 9,750 jobs. About half of Maryland's highway and transit capital projects are funded with these Federal dollars. In addition, this bill funds Metro here in our Nation's capital, providing $150 million for safety improvements, including new rail cars, track, and signal upgrades. It also guarantees Metro's $228 million in Federal formula funding for capital improvements. This funding combined supports nearly 5,000 public and private sector jobs. Infrastructure and housing investments are vital to sustain economic growth and create jobs. I support Senate action on multiyear transportation and aviation authorization bills and infrastructure bank legislation. But agreement and passage of these bills is going to take some time. This appropriations bill is a jobs bill we can pass now to get Americans back to work in the near term.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on October 20, 2011, at 8 a.m. in room 216 of the Hart Senate Office Building.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on October 20, 2011, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Housing Finance Reform: Continuation of the 30-Year Fixed-Rate Mortgage.'' Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on October 20, 2011, at 2:30 p.m., in room 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on October 20, 2011, at 10 a.m., to hold a hearing entitled, ``U.S. Military Deployment to Central Africa.''

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Why don't you proceed.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, what I wish to suggest as a way of proceeding, with the concurrence of the other side, is the Senator modify his amendment, because that is quick. Then we will go to the Senator from Idaho. Then I have some rebuttals to some of the amendments offered.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I would advise the Senator that we are waiting for one of the Senators to come and offer an amendment, if he wishes to speak on another subject.

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

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I want to associate myself with the remarks of my colleague from Maryland regarding the nomination of Mr. Boarman. My colleague from Maryland has offered a spirited and comprehensive description of why Mr. Boarman should be confirmed as our Public Printer. I wish to, one, validate everything he said; and, second, Mr. Boarman, we need to know, is a reformer. He has the heart of a reformer. He has the spirit of a reformer. He has the know-how of a reformer. As we look at the position he is being asked to serve in, we need someone who has technical competence in the field, experience in managing a large organization, and also one who has dealt with the challenges related to both delivering a product but also those related to the workforce. I think we are doing a national disservice by not putting this man in office so he can take charge and maintain something that is a nonpartisan job--the Government Printing Office. It is not as though he is going to be in some back room reprinting little pamphlets from the 1930s Bread March. He is here to be our Public Printer. We know we are into a new age, a digital age. He has a lot of reform to do. We know there is workforce reform that needs to be done but done with sensitivity. Again, he is somebody who himself is from the rank and file. I think this: Once again, we are playing politics with a job that certainly is not political. We have an esteemed, qualified individual who wants to be a reformer, to get the job done, and who knows we are in a more frugal atmosphere. I think we are wasting time, we are wasting money, and we are wasting the talent of an exceptional individual. I am going to say this: The more we continue to delay and be deleterious on these appointments, why would anybody want to come forth to serve in the public domain? They often have to give up jobs or put their jobs on hold while they are waiting for these confirmation processes. We put more sand in the gears of government, and then we blame government for grinding to a halt. Let's have an orderly way of dealing with nominations and at least give the man a vote up or down, yes or no. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, the American people are watching this and saying: What are they doing? Well, actually we are doing a lot. Senator Blunt and I are managing the bill. You might say: But there is nothing going on. Well, there is a lot going on because we are reviewing amendments of Senators. That is what all this discussion is, to see what we can take or there might even be bipartisan agreement. And then we are lining up how we will proceed on the next four to six amendments, again alternating both sides of the aisle. So if people are watching this and saying: What are they doing, just what are they doing, well, we are doing a lot. We hope to, by the close of business tomorrow, finish the Agriculture, Commerce-Justice, and Transportation-Housing bill appropriations. We are going to have some robust debate on some amendments. Some are quite controversial. But right now, we are trying to see what we agree on and, what we don't agree on, how could there be a regular, civilized, orderly process for having a debate and then voting. We anticipate that somewhere around 5:30 or 6:00, we will have a cluster of votes. So that is kind of the game plan so far. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the next first-degree amendments in order to be called up and made pending to H.R. 2112 and the substitute amendment No. 738 be the following: Ayotte, No. 753; Crapo, No. 814; Moran, No. 815; Coburn, No. 793; Coburn, No. 798; DeMint, No. 763; DeMint, No. 764; Grassley, No. 860; Sessions, No. 810; Lautenberg, No. 836; Brown of Ohio, No. 874; Merkley, No. 879; Bingaman, No. 771; Gillibrand, No. 869; Feinstein, No. 855; and Menendez, No. 857; further, that a motion to recommit from Senator Lee be in order; that, if offered, the motion be set aside and the Senate return to the consideration of the pending amendments.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, this means this is now the order in which we will proceed. These are the amendments that both sides have agreed should be offered in this tranche or cluster. We are saying to the Senators who now have these amendments, get ready to come to the floor. As I understand it, Kelly Ayotte will be here to offer her amendment, which will be important, and then what we would like to do is alternate on both sides of the aisle. The Senator from New Hampshire will offer her amendment. We hope then that there would be a Democrat, and we will go back and forth. If a Senator is not here, we will move on to the people who are here. We have 16 amendments. We would like to finish these amendments this evening. The more that can come and be ready to offer their amendments and debate--and Senators will be able to present their amendments and debate them, but we would like to do that. That is the way we are going to proceed. These are the amendments. We will alternate on both sides of the aisle. We encourage Senators who have these amendments to come over and we will call them up.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, the Senator from Missouri is right. We haven't had a regular order for some time. Leadership on both sides of the aisle has created this fantastic opportunity. We are actually following a regular order on our appropriations. We are actually following a regular order. This is our opportunity to show we can have a regular order, that we can move our annual appropriations together in a well-measured, well-paced, well-debated, and well-scrutinized way. I hope our colleagues who have amendments will come over. We know Senators have lots of opinions, and opinions sometimes get translated into amendments. But we ask our colleagues now to show we can govern. Come down, come to the floor and offer these amendments and show we can move three very important bills. The one affecting transportation and housing is important to our economy. This is a jobs bill, putting people to work building highways, roads, and housing. Agriculture is an important part of our economy, and also Commerce, Justice, and Science is the innovation committee, the trade committee, and the advocacy for justice committee. We look forward to these amendments and debating them. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Does the Senator from Idaho wish to offer an amendment?

Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, I want to thank the Senator from New Mexico for his comments regarding the U.S. Trade Representative and the work of the U.S. Trade Representative's Office. We do have to fight unfair and even predatory trade practices. In his cogent comments, he spoke about steel. We have been trying to look out for steel in my State for some time against these unfair practices. Sometimes we win, most of the time we lose ground. The amendment that is offered by the Senator from New Mexico would, as he said, increase the funding by $4.5 million for a new total of $51 billion. That is identical to what the House has. The amendment does rescind money from the forfeiture fund which has been used for law enforcement task forces, including drugs, human trafficking, and other things. I am inclined to support the amendment. I certainly support the philosophical thrust of the amendment. We have some questions about the offset. We have to get the concurrence of CBO to make sure it is budget neutral, and we are consulting with my ranking member to get her thoughts and views on it. Again, I wish to say to the Senator from New Mexico that I support the thrust of the amendment, and I need to consult. We are waiting for a comment from our ranking member who is tied up on other legislative matters and we expect to hear from her shortly. When we do, we will be able to talk about how we will dispose of this amendment. I thank the Senator from New Mexico for his advocacy. Amendment No. 753 I wish to speak on another matter, which is an amendment that was raised, amendment No. 753, on terrorists and prosecutions, which was offered by the Senator from New Hampshire earlier. In order to expedite proceedings, I withheld my rebuttal, and now I choose to take this time to rebut the amendment of the Senator from New Hampshire. I rise in opposition to her amendment. Although well intentioned, there are serious objections to it. Her amendment would prohibit the Department of Justice from trying anyone charged with terrorism-related concerns in an article III court in the United States. I oppose the amendment for three reasons. First, the amendment is unnecessary. The Department of Justice has a strong track record of successfully prosecuting terrorists in criminal courts. Second, it goes beyond the law that already prohibits certain terrorist suspects from even coming into the United States, even for prosecution. This was language included in the 2011 continuing resolution, and our fiscal year 2012 CJS bill does carry that same language. For example, we have already dealt with someone such as Khalid Shaikh Mohammed. This amendment also would reach beyond that and it wouldn't allow prosecutions on any new non-U.S. citizen on terrorism-related charges. Third, this amendment is opposed by the Departments of Justice and Defense. I don't mean just the Departments. Attorney General Eric Holder and Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta object to this amendment. They feel they have a working agreement on how best to try terrorists. I say to my colleagues, I hope they would reject the amendment of the Senator from New Hampshire when it comes up. The Department of Justice has a strong record of successfully convicting terrorists in their criminal courts. One can look at the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, the attack on the U.S. Embassies in East Africa, and the trial and conviction of the Blind Sheik. Over 400 terrorists have been tried and convicted since 2001. Just last week, another success, the so-called underwear bomber, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, pled guilty in Federal court in Michigan. There were and are major cases resulting in criminal convictions of terrorists. So I would suggest the Senator from New Hampshire's concern that the Department of Justice is not equipped to try terrorist suspects does not have traction because the record shows otherwise. I think we have to be careful because this amendment goes beyond current law. In 2011, we passed the Defense Authorization Act and then the 2011 continuing resolution, both of which prohibit the administration from bringing Guantanamo Bay detainees into the United States even for prosecution. Congress will have to change restrictions in law before Gitmo detainees are transferred to the United States for prosecution or detention. Senator Ayotte's amendment would go beyond these restrictions to say that anyone indicted on a terrorism-related charge who isn't a U.S. citizen couldn't be prosecuted in Federal courts, unnecessarily court-stripping. I have no sympathy for terrorists, and I am going to make sure we honor international law but that we prosecute to the fullest extent possible. What we want to be able to show is that the Department of Justice has successfully prosecuted them, and this amendment would prohibit--this amendment would not be about prosecuting terrorists, it would be about choking the Department of Justice. Let me go to my third reason, which is the opposition by Secretary Leon Panetta and Attorney General Holder. Defense and Justice share responsibility for prosecuting terrorists. Justice prosecutes in criminal courts and the Defense Department prosecutes in military commissions. Defense and Justice have a joint protocol where they work together to evaluate terrorist cases to decide where best, where most effectively to prosecute them. In light of the restrictions Congress has already made on these trials, the Defense Department decided earlier this year to resume new charges in the military commissions. But Congress shouldn't restrict the ability of the executive branch to decide where best to prosecute terrorists--understanding some of the dynamics of international law, criminal codes, codes of military conduct, to decide where best to prosecute terrorists. We don't want to set a dangerous precedent, if Defense or Justice are restricted from using every tool available to bring the terrorists to justice. I hope, when we vote on this amendment, we defeat it, recognizing that the Senator from New Hampshire wants to be sure justice is served, and we want it too. The best way to serve justice is to let the Defense Department and Justice Department decide what court or tribunal is the best way to proceed--to ensure the fairness of a trial but to make sure we have the best, most effective, most efficient way to do it. I must say, when one looks at the record of the Justice Department in prosecuting these terrorists in civilian courts, prosecutions were achieved, convictions were obtained, and as the world watched it, justice was served. I am pretty proud of that. I hope we will defeat the amendment of the Senator from New Hampshire but that we be united as a Congress and the Senate in making sure we prosecute those who engage in any predatory activity directed to the United States of America and its citizens. I yield the floor.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I would like to compliment the Senator from New Jersey for this amendment. I think it is common sense. I think it accomplishes so many objectives. No. 1, it helps people with real problems be able to get back on their feet, maintain home ownership, and get our economy going and put people to work. I know the Senator from New Jersey and others here support an infrastructure bank. Yes, we want to build roads and bridges. I would like to take broadband to every part of America. But we also need to look at home building, and Maryland's has come to a screeching halt, even in a robust State such as Maryland. Everybody I talk to in the Maryland business community says: Unless you crack the housing situation, you cannot crack the economic situation. By having access to the American dream, which has now become an American nightmare, this American dream created jobs, whether it was people who built them, the real estate developers who developed them, or the people like Senator Isakson who made a career of selling them. This was about building a home, and in many instances it was about building community. I think that where we are, if we agree to the Menendez amendment, that will go a long way in being able to help people. We have to really deal with this. Quite frankly, I have been disappointed. Just about every darn thing we have done to ``help with the housing mortgage situation'' has been a bust. It has been an absolute bust. We spent millions and so on. We had this program. We had catchy little titles. But nothing catches on to solve the mortgage crisis. I believe the Menendez amendment, supported by someone who really understands business and housing and community--I think this amendment is a winner. I am happy to put my name on it. I will look forward to voting for it when the time comes.

Ms. MIKULSKI. We have set aside the motion to recommit offered by the Senator from Utah; however, I wish to rise in opposition to his motion. This is all about budget-speak. It is really hard to follow between budget authority and expenditures, et cetera. But let me just say this in plain English. This bill is $500 million less than we spent in 2011--$500 million less than we spent in 2011. Now, this is not the chairperson of the CJS bill kind of making up numbers. This is confirmed by the Congressional Budget Office. It has been certified by the chairman of the Budget Committee. The CJS bill is nearly $500 million less than last year. Now, am I doing fuzzy math? No. I do not do fuzzy math. The CJS bill is consistent with something called the Budget Control Act. The Budget Control Act requires appropriations to cut $7 billion for our fiscal year 2012. When we got our allocation, the CJS subcommittee allocation was $500 million below 2011. I am going to say it again--$500 million below what we spent in 2011. This allocation required the CJS subcommittee to take stern and even drastic measures. I eliminated 30 programs. Yes, Senator Barbara Mikulski, a Democratic, a liberal, I cut and eliminated 30 programs: 4 in Commerce--I think you objected to 1; 20 in Justice; 1 in Space; 4 in the National Science Foundation. I could not believe it, but that is what we had to do. We cut the Deep Underground Science and Engineering Lab by $1 billion. That was a $1 billion project the National Science Foundation wanted. We said we would like it too but not in these austere times. There were other programs that we were able to do. And we were not happy about it. We absolutely were not happy about it. We cut the Baldridge Program. We cut the public telecommunications facility planning and communications. I mean, we did what we had to do. So while the Senator looks at I am not sure what, I can tell you we are $500 million below 2011. The Congressional Budget Office says it. The numbers were reviewed by the Budget Committee itself. The chairman signed off that we were $500 million below, to help the overall Appropriations Committee reduce its expenditures by $7 billion. So that is for 2011. Now let's look at 2012. I mean, the President came to Congress and gave a dynamic State of the Union speech. It touched America deeply when he said: I want to outbuild, outeducate, outinnovate anyone in the world. And he proposed his budget. When you look at what we are doing here, my appropriations, my Commerce-Justice appropriations, is $5 billion--that is ``b'' as in ``Barb''--not $5 million, like ``m'' in ``Mikulski.'' We are $5 billion below what the President said he needed in Commerce-Justice-Science, technology, the innovation subcommittee, to help outeducate and out- innovate anybody else in the world. So I am $5 billion less than what the President of the United States said he needed to have to accomplish national goals. Now, we talk a lot about that we want America to be exceptional. Well, you have to spend money to be exceptional, and when you put your money in science, technology, and education, we can come up with new ideas, new products that we can make and sell around the world, and our children know they have a future in this new global economy. I do not want to be nickel-and-dimed here. I have already been nickel-and-dimed to be able to comply with this bill. You know, I am back to where Obama was in January, that cold day, and now here we are. So when we talk about cutting, we have cut. We have absolutely cut. We cut discretionary spending at an incredible level. And do you think it is has helped create one job? Do you think the market is going ``hoorah, hoorah, look at what they are doing''? No. Do you know why? Because the private sector knows that if we are going to be a 21st- century nation, if we are going to be America the exceptional, we must educate. We also must invest in scientific research so that the private sector can take that basic research we do, value add to it, and with the genius that is America, the ability--that intellectual property you can own and be protected, that you are going to develop a product, and you have the National Institute of Standards to come and help you develop the standards so that you will be able to sell it in America in every State and sell it around the world in every nation. So come on. If we want to be America the exceptional, stop nickel- and-diming. One of the ways you deal with debt is a growing economy, restoring consumer confidence, restoring citizen confidence, No. 1, that we can govern ourselves and that we can govern ourselves in a smart fashion. Yes, we do need to be frugal, but we sure do not need to be stupid. I am going to oppose this amendment, and I sure hope the people pass my bill. I yield the floor.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Does the Senator wish to offer an amendment?