Barbara Mikulski

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. I am seeking clarification.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Does the Senator wish to comment on the Moran amendment?

Ms. MIKULSKI. We are alternating back and forth, so we will go to Senator Sessions and then Senator Udall.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Then we will go to the Senator from Colorado for his comments.

Ms. MIKULSKI. We have an order that has been established. I can understand the Senator from Michigan wanting to rebut. How long does the Senator from Michigan wish to talk?

Ms. MIKULSKI. OK.

Ms. MIKULSKI. No objection.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, this is a very interesting bill on the floor. It is really three bills. It is the Agriculture appropriations, Commerce-Justice-Science, and the Transportation-Housing bill. Our colleague, Senator Herb Kohl of Wisconsin, spent a good part of yesterday managing the bill. He chairs the agriculture subcommittee. I am doing it today. Senator Kohl is tied up on other matters. He is adamant in his opposition to the Moran amendment providing $8 million for the Watershed Rehabilitation Program. While he is not opposed to the Watershed Rehabilitation Program, he wanted to make it clear that we had to make very difficult decisions. He does not support Senator Moran's amendment as it would offset funding in the departmental administration providing numerous essential services to USDA. These cuts would force USDA to impose a reduction in force and would have a detrimental effect on the Department and its operation. USDA has initiated buyouts to several thousand employees across many agricultural agencies. The level for the Department administration is over $13 million and $7 million below the request. Secretary Vilsack has reached out to the agricultural subcommittee and has concerns with overall staff reductions at the Department. Senator Kohl echoes Secretary Vilsack's concern. Senator Kohl opposes this amendment, and on his behalf, I urge other Senators to oppose it as well. He also opposed the Crapo amendment because, in a nutshell, says that dictating that funds cannot be used unless the rulemaking agenda and implementation schedule meet with congressional approval or constraining the regulatory process of defining terms just goes too far and is a veiled attempt to roll back critical Dodd-Frank reforms, particularly in the derivative area. Again, on behalf of Senator Kohl, he urges all Senators to reject Crapo amendment No. 814. I note the absence of a quorum.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise to oppose a pending amendment, the amendment offered by the Senator from Arizona, Mr. McCain, and that is amendment No. 740. This amendment would eliminate any funding under the Economic Development Administration for trade adjustment assistance. Trade adjustment assistance, under the Economic Development Administration, is $15.8 million. This amendment would stop EDA from implementing the TAA for something called the firms program, which was just reauthorized last week by the Senate. The Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms Program is the only program specifically designed to help small manufacturers hurt by import competition. Let me emphasize. It is the little guys. It is the machine tool shop. It is the small to medium-sized business that we go ``hoorah, hoorah'' for in the Senate all of the time. But when it comes to helping them when they have been hurt by trade imports or their intellectual property has been stolen, we are not going to give them help. I oppose this amendment. The Economic Development Administration is in the Commerce-Justice- Science Subcommittee. It was reauthorized by the Senate. Under the bill that was passed, it would have provided technical assistance and matching Federal funds to help develop and implement a plan to help them get back on their feet. It is a competitive grant program, and the largest grant is $75,000. The trade adjustment assistance for something called the firms program was created back in 1974, under Gerald Ford, to help small businesses and small manufacturers adjust to increased imports and increased international competition. The 2011 trade adjustment assistance bill passed last week authorized this program at $16 million and said the EDA should manage it. The CJS follows the authorizing direction, as we should. The Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms Program, for small businesses, helps them adjust, retool, and stay competitive in an increasingly global economy. In 2010, this program enabled 330 firms to devise strategies to help get back on track. What did it help them do? It helped them identify new markets, improve efficiencies in their operation, and also helped them identify additional financing. Ninety- eight percent of the companies that participated are still in business after 5 years. Without the TAA for Firms Program, many of these companies would be out of business. Since 2006, it is estimated that over 50,000 manufacturing jobs were saved because of this. Manufacturing is the backbone of America. One of the reasons we are in the economic turmoil we are in now is that we have lost so much manufacturing. We give all kinds of tax breaks to send jobs overseas. We also do bailouts to help the really big boys, such as the automobile industry. And we had to help them. I understand that. But these small to medium-sized businesses, some of which I have visited in my own State, need this kind of help when they are whacked by often subsidized imports. Many Maryland companies know how to compete with other companies, but they often feel they are competing with other countries. They know what to do, and we need to be able to help them do it. Trade adjustment assistance is important. If we don't invest in helping our manufacturers stay in the global game, we are going to lose out. So we would hope that we would defeat the McCain amendment. During the Senate consideration of the trade adjustment bill, our colleague, the other Senator from Arizona, offered an amendment to strike the program then. It failed 43 to 54. I hope this amendment fails again. Let's use some of the Federal help to help those who are creating jobs. If we really want to talk about creating jobs and creating jobs in manufacturing, let's leave this program--modest, small. For $15 million, we could really help small businesses and medium-sized businesses learn how to get back on their feet after they have been whacked often by unfair and anticompetitive trade practices. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, I oppose the McCain amendment and OMB's recommendation. Trade adjustment assistance is an effective and modest program, and it is only $15.8 million. The average grant is $75,000. From 2006 to 2010, it has helped over 830 firms and created about 50,000 jobs. I urge defeat of the McCain amendment.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise to comment on the amendment of the Senator from Texas. I am chair of the Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, and Science, and we fund the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms. I will comment on the amendment. Before I comment on the amendment explicitly, I compliment the Senator from Texas for raising the issue on the floor and, second, for his fierce defense of the southwest border and his devotion to Federal law enforcement and for always being concerned when we send them into harm's way, and where we, in any way, could have contributed to either their injury or their death. I compliment the Senator on that. My ranking member, Kay Bailey Hutchison, also from Texas, has spoken eloquently, diligently, and unflinchingly about the need we have to be serious about what is happening on the southwest border. I say this to the Senator and those of us concerned about our country: We support the effort to control our border and stop the growing violence that is occurring there. I believe America is in four wars--Iraq, which is winding down; Afghanistan, which ultimately will; the southwest border; and the cyber war. We have now two enduring wars. I say to the Senator from Texas, I wish to work with him. When I look at what happened with Operation Fast and Furious, I was fast to be furious about the bungled, botched occurrences that happened. For those who might not be familiar with it, this was when Federal law enforcement, trying to combat illegal gun trafficking, allowed guns to knowingly ``walk'' into Mexico so we could track what was happening. It was poorly planned, poorly executed, had flawed leadership, and it was definitely of questionable strategy and value. I wish to work with the Senator from Texas on some slight modifications to the bill--some tweaking and more precise definitions-- over the next hour or so, if we can look at it. I would like to be able to accept his amendment. He is on to something. I would like to work with the Senator's colleague from Texas also and those others from the Southwest to get the answers they want from the Attorney General. They are all entitled to them. People at the local level who put local cops on the ground should at least have answers from their own government about what they are doing. Operation Fast and Furious was one of many strategies along the U.S./ Mexico border, in Arizona, targeting illegal gun and drug smuggling-- the offshoot of Project Gunrunner. There were teams of ATF agents and investigators who increased our coverage, disrupting firearm traffic in corridors. That Project Gunrunner has been operating since 2006. Fast and Furious went too far. It went beyond the normal Project Gunrunner strategy and allowed assault weapons to be sold to suspected straw buyers who transported them to Mexico and then the ATF lost track of the weapons, which was the point of what they were trying to do. Fast and Furious was brought to an end but with terrible problems. There is no doubt ATF has done good work. They have seized tens of thousands of guns. There is the issue of allowing the selling of guns across the area. But hundreds of Mexican citizens have died, our own law enforcement people have died, and we have to do something about it. I understand from the Attorney General that when he heard about it, he did take decisive steps to clean it up. He immediately asked the DOJ inspector general to conduct an investigation and examine the facts of what happened. He made it clear to all Federal prosecutors and law enforcement that they should never knowingly allow guns to cross the border--long time Justice Department policy. He changed the leadership at ATF and the U.S. Attorney's Office in Arizona and has complied--he tells me--with congressional requests for thousands of documents. If the Senator feels he is not getting answers, I will join with him. He deserves the answers. We need to make sure we are giving law enforcement the tools they need--hopefully, we have it in the bill--to fight those drug cartels and gun crimes, which are violent, grim, and ghoulish. We have listened to the concerns of our colleagues who have spoken. The Senators from Texas and our two colleagues from Arizona, Senators Kyl and McCain, are well known in their advocacy. We have made a major investment in 2009 and another close to $2 billion is in this bill--it is $1.9 billion--to safeguard our southwest border. We are putting resources in it. Fast and Furious has ended. We need better leadership, a better strategy. I wish to work with the Senator on his amendment. If we could, I think it would be great if we could just accept it. We all have to be in this together. The southwest border is America's border. I don't live in the Southwest; I live in the Northeast. But anything that happens at your border affects us. That is the way we need to think about ourselves. We are all Americans. We need to look out for one another. We need to be able to protect our borders, those defending the border, make sure we get it right and that we don't contribute to the problem. I would sure like to work with the Senator on this.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I am pleased to present to the Senate the fiscal year 2012 bill to fund CJS appropriations; that is, the Department of Commerce, Justice, Science, and related agencies. I wish to thank Leader Reid and Minority Leader McConnell for bringing the CJS bill to the floor so we Senators have an opportunity to discuss and vote on this important legislation. The CJS bill is the product of bipartisan cooperation. I stand here today with my ranking member, my colleague, my partner on this bill, Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison. At the outset, I wish to thank her and her excellent staff for working hand in hand to advance the cause and the goals we believe in--creating jobs, making sure our streets and our neighborhoods are safe, and, at the same time, funding innovation and technology so America continues to be an exceptional Nation. We have worked together, and I thank her for her support and her cooperation. This fiscal year CJS totals $52.8 billion in discretionary spending. It is consistent with the subcommittee's allocation. That allocation is $491 billion below 2011. So everybody should hear this. We are almost $\1/2\ billion below where we were in 2011, and we are $5 billion below what the President wanted in 2012. When the President said he wanted to outbuild, outeducate, and outinnovate, he had a different budget than what we have today because of the substantial cuts that were made in other legislative initiatives. These agencies promote jobs. They also promote security and they promote, as I said, American innovation. Let's talk about some of the agencies that promote jobs. Let's start with the Department of Commerce. I am very proud of the Department of Commerce and its funding for the International Trade Administration which enforces our trade laws and promotes small businesses overseas and also our Economic Development Administration, creating economic growth in our communities and in our small towns. The National Institutes of Standards works with the private sector to set the standards for those new products and those new technologies. In the Patent and Trademark Office, we have done a lot in innovation. We believe if one invents it, they should be able to keep it. Then, of course, we have our Census Bureau, which makes sure every American counts and every American should be counted--or every person who lives in the United States. We have the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which predicts our weather and also protects our marine resources. Then this committee funds the Department of Justice, keeping us safe from violent crime and terrorism, prosecuting criminals, and also funding State and local police departments, the National Science Foundation and NASA, which, again, promote our innovation. This agency also funds the Commission on Civil Rights, upholding citizens' rights, along with the Equal Opportunity Commission, ensuring fairness particularly in the workplace, and the Legal Services Corporation, which represents the poor. This agency has broad scope, but, again, it is America's job to promote jobs, security, and innovation. Within our ever-shrinking funding levels, the CJS bill has priorities to save lives, promote jobs, and protect the safety of our citizens. We face two very pressing funding challenges that are critical to life and safety. One is the next generation of weather satellites. It is our weather satellites that not only say whether we are going to have stormy weather, but our weather operations also give us early predictions for everything from tornadoes to hurricanes. Also, we have a growing and explosive prison population. Together, looking at just those two, the issue related to an exploding population in prisons, meaning more prisoners, more density in prisons--they require $350 million more in our budget, and we needed almost $400 million for our weather satellites. Meeting their obligations caused us to set other priorities, but we did meet our priorities. We provided $2.3 billion to support our police officers, to keep them safe with bulletproof vests, and to make sure they had funds for the latest crime analysis and forensic tools. We also funded the Byrne formula grants, which are the important tools for State and local police operations, at $395 million. Regrettably, it is $35 million below last year. We also funded our COPS hiring grants but, again, at a reduced level. Then there is Federal law enforcement. Aren't we proud of our FBI? Look at what they have done in the last 2 weeks with the take-down of the plot to assassinate the Saudi Ambassador. But the FBI is on the job every day in every way, going after organized terrorists, organized crime, and even predatory lenders and mortgage fraud. They are on the job looking out for us. And look how they work hand in hand with DEA, our Drug Enforcement Agency. We have the Marshals Service, which, in effect, guards our judges and so on at our courthouses, but they are also the guys who go after sexual predators. Under the law we have, they are enforced with any runaway or rogue sexual predators. This means we did what we could, but unfortunately we had to cut these agencies by 2 percent. It was with enormous regret that I had to do that, but we are where we are. Cuts do have consequences. I say to my colleagues, cuts do have consequences. Then there is the area of innovation. We have worked hand in glove with the authorizers on the America COMPETES Act. Senator Hutchison is a member of that committee and one of the promoters of that. The America COMPETES Act recommends that we increase funding for NSF and other science agencies by 7 percent every year. Well, we would settle for 3 percent every year. This is to come up with the new ideas for the new jobs, for the new products. But what did we have to do? We didn't raise it by 7 percent; we didn't raise it by the amount we want; in fact, we had to reduce it by 3 percent. All those who would like to pound their chests and go ``hoo-ha hoo- ha'' on American exceptionalism have to realize that cuts have consequences. But we did work to ensure the fact that we have funded the national space agency at $17.9 billion. It is $1.5 billion below the authorized level, which, again, Senator Hutchison is one of the lead authorizers. We did preserve a balanced space program, human space flight, space science, also aeronautics, and the development of a reliable space transportation system. This means, though, that NASA will be asked once again to do more. We did fund the James Webb Space Telescope, which is the successor to Hubble. By funding the James Webb Space Telescope, we will ensure America's lead in astronomy and in physics for the next 50 years. I am very proud of the fact that a Marylander at Johns Hopkins and the Space Telescope Institute, on the Hopkins campus, just won the 2011 Nobel Prize for physics--Dr. Adam Riess. When he accepted the Nobel Prize, do you know what he said. He said: I could not have done my Nobel Prize without the Hubble telescope. All my research is based on the Hubble. Then he said: I want to thank the American people for supporting the political leadership that funded the Hubble and kept Hubble in space during very dark times. We won that Nobel Prize. It is going to reveal secrets of the universe and secrets of physics that are going to help us again invent new kinds of things. So our bill does focus on jobs, safety, and innovation. We would have liked to have done more, but regrettably we could not. So, Mr. President, we bring this bill before you. I want to close by saying this. There are many who like to wring their hands about China, and China is surging ahead. We can't stop China, but we can stop ourselves. And the question is do we want to stop ourselves in what we need to do? We need to promote commerce, trade, patents to protect our intellectual property, make sure we have a standard-setting agency, so if you invent it, you create the standard, so you can sell it around the world. We need to be able to save lives so we can save them not only at NIH in finding cures but also throughout Maryland, the Plains of the United States or in my own community. You know when a hurricane is coming, you know when a tornado is coming. But right now the Chinese are taking what is our National Science Foundation and they are replicating it, and we are, unfortunately, forced to keep it at a very modest funding level. So if you want America to continue to be great and you want America to continue to be exceptional and you want to create jobs, support the passage of the CJS bill. I yield the floor.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Save Our Postal Worker Jobs Act. Even with advances in technology, America relies on the Postal Service for everything from notes to family back home, birthday cards, medicine, tax returns and absentee voting. The Postal Service binds our nation together through communication. But the Postal Service is facing a financial crisis and it needs Congress to help. The Save Our Postal Worker Jobs Act is simple. It doesn't restructure the Postal Service, lay off workers, or close Post Offices. It simply gives the Postal Service the authority it needs to take its own money-- not taxpayer money--that it overpaid into its employee pension funds to use to help pay its obligations. This bill is a jobs bill. Many of the plans that have been introduced to keep the U.S. Postal Service financially solvent include provisions to lay off thousands of workers, cut promised benefits, and undermine collective bargaining rights. The Postal Service has talked about reducing its workforce by more than 200,000. Our postal service employees are on the front lines every day, working hard for America. I want them to know that I am on their side, and I will not let them be scapegoated for financial problems at the Postal Service. Through the dedication and diligence of our postal workers, the mail is delivered across the country through rain or sleet or snow. It is their work that conveys messages to family, brings medicine to our veterans and seniors, and helps our constituents who are away from home on election day have their voices heard. This bill is about preserving the local Post Office--an important part of a neighborhood's identity and a piece of the fabric of our communities. This bill is about preserving Postal Service delivery-- which is so important for rural areas like Western Maryland and the Eastern Shore. Each region has unique geography that can complicate or delay mail delivery. And reductions to the Postal Service could seriously harm those residents. This bill alone will not solve all of the Postal Service's problems. The process of reforming the Postal Service and bringing it into the 21st Century may mean that some workers will be let go, some Post Offices may close, and some changes may be made to delivery. Ultimately, this bill is about allowing those decisions to be thoughtfully considered, with time for the Americans who rely on the Postal Service to be heard. It's about avoiding making rash decisions with a crisis hanging over our heads. It is about saving our postal workers' jobs.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Save Our Postal Worker Jobs Act. Even with advances in technology, America relies on the Postal Service for everything from notes to family back home, birthday cards, medicine, tax returns and absentee voting. The Postal Service binds our nation together through communication. But the Postal Service is facing a financial crisis and it needs Congress to help. The Save Our Postal Worker Jobs Act is simple. It doesn't restructure the Postal Service, lay off workers, or close Post Offices. It simply gives the Postal Service the authority it needs to take its own money-- not taxpayer money--that it overpaid into its employee pension funds to use to help pay its obligations. This bill is a jobs bill. Many of the plans that have been introduced to keep the U.S. Postal Service financially solvent include provisions to lay off thousands of workers, cut promised benefits, and undermine collective bargaining rights. The Postal Service has talked about reducing its workforce by more than 200,000. Our postal service employees are on the front lines every day, working hard for America. I want them to know that I am on their side, and I will not let them be scapegoated for financial problems at the Postal Service. Through the dedication and diligence of our postal workers, the mail is delivered across the country through rain or sleet or snow. It is their work that conveys messages to family, brings medicine to our veterans and seniors, and helps our constituents who are away from home on election day have their voices heard. This bill is about preserving the local Post Office--an important part of a neighborhood's identity and a piece of the fabric of our communities. This bill is about preserving Postal Service delivery-- which is so important for rural areas like Western Maryland and the Eastern Shore. Each region has unique geography that can complicate or delay mail delivery. And reductions to the Postal Service could seriously harm those residents. This bill alone will not solve all of the Postal Service's problems. The process of reforming the Postal Service and bringing it into the 21st Century may mean that some workers will be let go, some Post Offices may close, and some changes may be made to delivery. Ultimately, this bill is about allowing those decisions to be thoughtfully considered, with time for the Americans who rely on the Postal Service to be heard. It's about avoiding making rash decisions with a crisis hanging over our heads. It is about saving our postal workers' jobs.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, today I recognize an outstanding public servant and longstanding resident of the great State of Maryland, Arthur W. Divens, Jr., as he completes more than 31 years of continuous service within the civilian leadership of the Department of Defense. Mr. Divens began his public service life in naval shipbuilding as a project engineer/contracting representative for the Military Sealift Command and is ending it as executive director for the Amphibious Warfare and Sealift Office, Program Executive Office, Ships, where he oversees one of the broadest acquisition portfolios in the Navy--including more than $30 billion in complex shipbuilding procurements. Highly respected throughout the DOD acquisition community as a visionary leader and a man of uncommon character, he has left a long and lasting legacy to our Nation--both through his unparalleled contributions to the strength and flexibility of our Navy's surface forces and through the generation of professionals that he has mentored throughout his time in Federal service. Today, it is my great pleasure to recognize his achievements and to thank him and his family for their service to the Navy and our Nation. Mr. Divens has a long and distinguished career of innovative thinking and aggressive execution of shipbuilding programs across the entire spectrum of naval shipbuilding. He has been directly involved in the design, construction, or delivery of over 150 ships and over 1,000 small boats and craft, more than any other individual in the Department of the Navy. Since joining Federal service in 1980 and the Senior Executive Service in 2000, he has held a variety of key leadership roles throughout his professional life, including positions with the Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command, the Military Sealift Command, and the Naval Sea Systems Command. He has also provided strong leadership to groups such as the National Shipbuilding Research Program and the Marine Engineering and Shipyard Management Program, where he has worked tirelessly with his peers throughout government and industry to promote the open interchange of ideas and information and constantly improve shipbuilding and ship repair processes and technology. In 2002, Mr. Divens joined the Program Executive Office, Ships, where he has played a critical role in defining and fielding our Navy's future Surface Fleet. During his tenure and as a result of his sound stewardship, 31 ships have been delivered to the U.S. Navy and our allies, including two first of class vessels--USS SAN ANTONIO (LPD 17) and USNS LEWIS AND CLARK (T-AKE 1)--and the amphibious assault ship USS MAKIN ISLAND (LHD 8), widely lauded for its revolutionary application of hybrid technology and integration of environmental efficiencies and fuel conservation initiatives in the earliest stages of ship design. In the past year, he has worked tirelessly with General Dynamics NASSCO to contract for three affordable and flexible mobile landing platforms, saving the Navy nearly $2.1 billion and preserving the shipbuilding capability of the Navy's only west coast shipyard. He has been an influential advisor to the LHA 8 analysis of alternatives which will result in a well deck ship configuration for the next Marine Corps large deck amphibious ship, and has worked to maximize competition in the Ship to Shore Connector Program, which will provide an unprecedented level of support to amphibious forces. He has been the central figure in some of the Navy's toughest negotiations involving nearly $10 billion in Navy shipbuilding funding, to include the award of LPD 22-26 and the LHA 6 amphibious assault ship, the joint high speed vessel competition, and the Landing Craft Air Cushion Service Life Extension Program. At the heart of his efforts has been a relentless drive to improve the strength, capability, and flexibility of our operating forces at the best possible value to the American public. Mr. Divens is also responsible for more than 100 foreign military sales cases, with more than 30 nations and a collective value of nearly $2 billion. Of special note has been his direct effort with United States Forces--Iraq, helping Iraqi security forces develop the tools they need to defeat terrorism and sustain an environment where they can live free. Mr. Divens' contributions to our Nation extend far beyond his material achievements and programmatic accomplishments. He has served as an inspiration to all who have served with him, ensuring that all members of his team are keenly aware of their importance to the Navy and the true appreciation that he holds for their efforts. His unique ability to recognize talent and to foster respect and camaraderie throughout the workforce has had an enormous influence on junior Sailors and civilians and will continue to steer the course of our Navy well into the future. Mr. Divens received his bachelor of science degree from the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy in Kings Point, NY in 1979 and his master of science degree from the University of Maryland in 1997. Throughout his distinguished Federal service career, he has been honored with numerous awards for his exceptional service, including the Navy Distinguished Civilian Service Medal, the Meritorious Presidential Rank Award and, most recently, the Rear Admiral Wayne E. Meyer Memorial Award. Mr. Divens' tireless leadership and lifelong commitment to the Navy's shipbuilding capability have earned him the deep respect of his peers and shipmates throughout the Navy acquisition and fleet support communities. It is, therefore, a pleasure to recognize him for his many contributions in a life devoted to our nation's security. I know my colleagues join me in wishing him, his wife Joan, his daughters Alison, Laura and Molly, and his grandson Daniel much happiness and fair winds and following seas as they begin a new chapter in their lives together.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, I rise in opposition to the amendment to the America Invents Act offered by the Senator from Oklahoma. I, along with my fellow members of the Appropriations Committee, share the Senator from Oklahoma's goal of ensuring that all fees paid by inventors to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, PTO, are used only for the operations of the PTO. The PTO fosters American innovation and job creation by providing protections for ideas and products developed by our entrepreneurs, businesses and academic institutions. As the chairwoman of the Appropriations Subcommittee that funds the PTO, I have worked to ensure that PTO receives every dollar it collects from inventors. But, while I share the Senator's goal, I oppose his amendment for three reasons. First, the amendment is unnecessary. It is a solution in search of a problem. The underlying America Invents Act before the Senate today ensures that PTO can keep and spend all of the fees collected. This legislation establishes a Patent and Trademark Fee Reserve Fund. Any fees collected in excess of annual appropriations would be deposited into the fund, and those fees would remain available until expended solely for PTO operations. The creation of this fund is not a new idea. Provisions of several bills reported out of the Senate Appropriations Committee in prior years allowed PTO to keep and spend fee revenue in excess of appropriations levels. I can assure my colleagues that the committee will continue to support such language. Second, the amendment would significantly reduce oversight of the PTO. The Senator from Oklahoma's amendment would establish a new, off- budget revolving fund for PTO fees. This would put the PTO on autopilot, without the oversight of an annual legislative vehicle to hold the agency accountable for progress and wise use of taxpayer funding. Since fiscal year 2004, funding for PTO has increased by over 70 percent. At the same time, however, the backlog of patent applications has climbed to more than 700,000. It now takes over three years for PTO to make a decision on a patent application. This is unacceptable. While America's inventors are waiting in line, their ideas are being stolen by other countries. Through annual appropriations bills, the Appropriations Committee has succeeded in forcing management reforms that have slowed the growth of PTO's backlogs and improved employee retention. While further accountability is needed, the America Invents Act keeps PTO on budget and on track for continued oversight by the Appropriations Committee each year. Finally, the Senator's amendment could have unintended consequences. If PTO were permitted to operate on autopilot, the agency could face fee revenue shortfalls and the Appropriations Committee would not be poised to assist. The committee continually monitors the agency's fee projections to ensure the agency can operate effectively. It is not widely known, but over the past 6 years, PTO has actually collected nearly $200 million less than the appropriated levels. In fact, I recently received a letter from the Director of the PTO informing my Subcommittee that fee estimates for fiscal year 2012 have already dropped by $88 million. I will ask consent to have this letter printed in the Record. If PTO was put on autopilot as proposed by the Senator's amendment, the committee would no longer have the tools to provide the necessary funding to keep our patent and trademark system operating should a severe funding gap occur. The PTO's full access to fee revenue is critical to American innovation and job creation. I commend Chairman Leahy for his efforts to improve the patent system and ensure that PTO funding is spent wisely and effectively. I support the funding provisions of the America Invents Act and oppose the Coburn amendment. I urge my colleagues to do the same. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the letter to which I referred.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to honor the life and legacy of Senator Mark Hatfield. He was a true giant, a man who placed principle above politics--doing what he felt was right for the people of Oregon and the Nation. Senator Hatfield's life was one of service. He served as a naval officer during World War II. He fought in the battles of Iwo Jima and Okinawa. Later, he was one of the first Americans to see the effects of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima. He served in the Oregon state legislature, as secretary of state and Governor, and then as Senator of the United States. In the Senate, Senator Hatfield was known for his many accomplishments for the people of Oregon. He used his position on the Appropriations Committee, where he became chairman, to bring jobs and opportunity to his State. One of his greatest legacies is in foreign policy, nuclear disarmament, and in the pursuit of peace. Senator Hatfield was one of the first in the Senate to oppose the Vietnam war. He was a leader in the pursuit of nuclear disarmament, and he was a steadfast supporter of civil rights. I was honored to serve with Senator Hatfield in the Senate and on the Appropriations Committee. We were neighbors on the 7th floor of the Hart Building. We worked together on many important issues, especially on international women's rights. As coastal Senators, we also worked together on jobs that affected both of our States--everything from fishery issues to saving jobs in the shrinking shipbuilding industry. Senator Hatfield was a man of deep faith, known for putting his values into action. He was also a gentleman who accomplished so much for his State and his Nation. He will be greatly missed.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, through serious negotiation, leaders from both parties and the President have reached a bipartisan solution that will lift our debt ceiling and prevent a downgrade of our credit. Make no mistake, this agreement is stark and stern but necessary. It includes cuts that I would have never voted for under different circumstances. However, if we fail to take action, the economy will be irrevocably fractured. While it is far from perfect, the agreement meets my principles for avoiding default and downgrade. It provides a long-term extension of the debt ceiling, a significant downpayment on cuts, and a path forward to reform tax earmarks and entitlements. The consequences of a default and downgrade would be significant and severe and would alter the course of the United States for a century. Default would have led to sky-high interest rates that would have created a new tax on every single American. It means if you have a variable rate mortgage, it would skyrocket. If you have a student loan, the interest would increase. And if you have a car loan, the payments would be greater. Under default, the President would also have to prioritize what obligations to pay. First, we would have to pay our troops. Then we would have to meet our obligations to seniors and veterans. Federal funding for State and local governments would run out. This would affect infrastructure projects, funding for schools and teachers and firehouses and police stations. Contractors who work for the Federal Government would face layoffs without pay, and businesses would reduce hiring. The economy would be further weakened, and it would be a self- inflicted wound. I could not allow this to happen. I took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution. The 14th amendment says that the validity of America's debt must not be questioned. While the lawyers made the interpretation complicated, the framers made it simple. America pays its debt with no exceptions. Failure to reach an agreement would be a violation of the American people and our creditors' trust. And it would have violated my oath to the Constitution. America must meet its obligations to its creditors. We must also meet our obligations to each other. Throughout this debate, I have insisted on no benefit cuts to soldiers, seniors, and veterans, and I will continue to do so. Obligations made must be obligations kept. I will also fight to fulfill our obligations to the next generation who will lead us through the 21st century. We can't cut our way to a new economy. We need to invest in it by rebuilding roads, bridges, and increasing access to broadband. This is what will lead to new jobs, new opportunity, and new prosperity. We also need to invest in education, science, research and technology. These investments will lead to jobs of the future and prepare students and workers to compete in a global economy. This means making sure kids have access to higher or career education. It means supporting scientists who are finding cures for the most devastating diseases. And it means giving businesses the tools they need to develop new products. We can't afford not to make these investments. After wrenching analysis, I will vote for this bipartisan agreement because it is an achievable and pragmatic solution to the crisis that would be caused by inaction. It will require tough action and strong medicine down the road, but it is necessary to honor our obligations to the greatest generation and the next generation.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, I rise to speak on the Reid amendment. First of all, I am sorry we are engaged in a filibuster. We are using parliamentary procedure in a way that only delays us taking votes. We are days away from default. We are days away from our bond rating being downgraded. If we fail to raise the debt limit, the United States of America will be irrevocably fractured. We cannot fail and we cannot falter. We must act, and we must act tonight. Last night, the Senate rejected the Boehner plan because it wasn't a solution. It would lead us over the cliff because it did not meet certain tests. If the Republicans force us into default or downgrade, it will be the biggest tax increase on Americans. When interest rates go sky high, it will be a tax on Americans. We know that we have to agree to additional spending cuts, but it has got to be long term. We have to have a path forward for eliminating tax earmarks and entitlement reform that does not lead to a stampede to shrink Social Security benefits or to raise the Medicare age. Mr. Boehner took it upon himself last week to come up with a solution. He told the President he--Mr. Boehner--was the guy to do it. Well, he didn't succeed. His proposal was failed leadership and failed economics because it did not meet the threat to our economy from default and downgrade. Mr. Boehner insisted that there be a vote in December to raise the debt ceiling; that the House and Senate must pass a balanced constitutional amendment. That is false. In America we can guarantee a vote, but we can't guarantee an outcome. Here are the facts: We will be downgraded if we don't take action or if action is not taken seriously. So we must have serious policy, we must have a pragmatic process to reform taxes, and also the way to deal with entitlements. Those who rate our credit, such as Moody's, said a short-term extension would lead to downgrade in credit. Under the Boehner proposal we would be downgraded immediately because of his criteria. The Republicans' refusal to say yes to the $2 trillion spending cut that is proposed in the Reid resolution is mind boggling. We are agreeing to $2 trillion worth of cuts. As a Democrat, as a New Deal Democrat, as a Fair Deal Democrat, I have now agreed to more cuts than I would ever do under any other circumstances. I have compromised. Other Democrats of my political persuasion have compromised. Where is the compromise on the other side? We need compromise, first of all, to get a vote, and then to get it done. I am scared that if we go into a default, interest rates will skyrocket. But the President is going to have to set priorities. Benefits will be affected. Today I have a Marine Corps pin on. Why did I wear a Marine Corps pin? First of all, because of their words ``Semper Fi,'' always faithful. How about us? Why can't we be as good as the military we send into war? Those men and women are willing to put their lives on the line to fight and defend for democracy. Why can't we be willing to put our political careers on the line to fight and defend for democracy? I am willing to make the tough choices. I have already made a tough choice to support the significant and Draconian cuts in domestic spending with very little coming out of defense, but more should come. I wanted to get rid of sacred cows such as the ethanol subsidy, such as the oil and gas subsidy, those sacred cows that slurp it up and milk the public trough. But, oh, no. We couldn't go to revenues, we just had to go to cuts. So guess what. Democrats have compromised. We have gone 80 percent of the way. Why can't they come the other 20 percent and say yes to Reid? Reid gives us a deadline through 2013, which provides the certainty that the credit ratings would like. We make a significant downpayment on reducing the debt, and we have a political process--and I am willing to put more teeth in it--a political process to get rid of tax earmarks. And that is what they are; make no mistake, they are tax earmarks for the pampered and the prosperous. I am ready to reform that and then take a look at entitlement reform. I think the Reid proposal is the path forward. But I say, as we wrap up, could we put politics aside? Could we put partisan sniping aside? Could we not come together? We on this side of the aisle have made 80 percent of a compromise. We look to the other side to give us the other 20 percent. It will not be giving the Democrats that; it will be ensuring the solvency and security of the United States of America. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, how much time am I allowed?

Ms. MIKULSKI. I thank the Chair.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, I come to the floor today with a great sense of urgency. We are less than 1 week away from reaching our debt limit. If we fail and we falter, the United States of America will be irrevocably fractured. We aren't at an impasse; we are at the edge of a cliff. Unless Congress acts, we are going to go over it. What will be the consequences of it? If we do not meet our obligations to pay our debts, it will result in a default, and default will result in enormous increases in interest rates. For Americans who are so worried about tax increases, I've got to send a real red alert. When interest rates go sky high because of our failure to act, it will be the biggest tax on America that we could have, and it will be a tax at the kitchen table. It means if anyone has a variable-rate mortgage, it will skyrocket. If you have a student loan, that interest is going to increase. If you have a car loan, forget it. The payments are going to be enormous. So we need to face what this means: raising the debt limit. We need to prevent the default so our bond rating is not lowered. I have never been big on talking about bond ratings, but this is a crucial one. We now have a AAA bond rating. So what does that mean? It means when they buy our Treasury bills or other government-secured investments, but particularly our T-bills, it is as good as gold. If we are downgraded, we could just be a tinhorn, tin-cup nation. This is not the United States of America. This is not what people fought and died for. When people say they represent a party that wants to defend the Constitution, we all have to defend the Constitution. Right now, defending the Constitution and defending America is to lift our debt ceiling and get to the hard work of, No. 1, dealing with our debt but also dealing with job growth. We have to get to work. Instead, we are busy at work playing the blame game. Squabbling is not a solution. But I believe we Democrats do have a solution, and I think the solution does lie in the Reid proposal. The Reid proposal the majority leader has offered is substantive, it is real, and it is achievable. I was on TV yesterday, and they said: Oh, you are a liberal Democrat. Well, I don't know if I am a liberal, I don't know if I am a conservative, but I will tell you what I am. I am a diner Democrat. I think about the people. I think about the ordinary people, and I think about their day-to-day needs. When people talk about what kind of solutions they mean, they want everything on the table. What I want on the table are the things that affect the kitchen table. That is why I support the Reid proposal. It is an achievable framework for avoiding default and downgrade of our bond rating now. What does it do? It has three important elements. One, timing, to take us through 2012. It is not about the next election. It is showing we are serious and we are substantive. Second, it has important content where we do cut Federal spending. It's observable, it's quantifiable, and it's verifiable. No. 3, it gives us a path forward to deal with the important issues of entitlement and revenue reform. Wow. So why can't they take it? I am puzzled about why they can't take it. Is it 2012? OK. Who knows who is going to be in control of either the White House or the Congress then? But it can't be about us. It is not about me. It is about we--we, the people. Let's go to the content. There are substantial cuts there in discretionary spending. And there are substantial cuts to defense spending that do not affect readiness or military health care. These are actually cuts that the House voted for in the Ryan budget. So a few weeks ago, they said yes to the cuts. But when we say yes to the cuts, they say no to the proposal. I don't get it. But it's not whether I get it. It is that we have to make sure we get a solution. What I think is important about the Reid proposal is it is $2.7 trillion in cuts. I understand CBO has scored it and they say it is $2.2 trillion. Well, $2.2 trillion, $2.7 trillion, that is real money. That is real money, and it shows we are serious. It also provides this important path forward called a Joint Committee. It is not a commission where it is going to be outsiders who are experts from think-tank environments and hoo-ha, hoo-ha. It's Members of Congress, both sides of the aisle, both sides of the Dome. Let's get it together with them, and then let's have this committee where we then move forward on the reform of revenue as well as looking at entitlement reform. I want to be clear that if, the horror of all horrors comes where we fracture the standing of the United States of America, not only in the financial markets but in the standing of the world, it will have very serious consequences. The President is going to have to pay the bills based on whatever money is coming in. He would not be able to borrow. America would not be able to borrow. So our T-bill will not have the same value it once did. He is going to have to pay our bills. What are the consequences on federal benefits? One is paychecks. The first paycheck he is going to meet is the paycheck for our troops. He has to make sure that if they are fighting to defend America while we are squabbling around and screwing around, we are going to pay our troops. My God, did it ever occur to anyone that our troops wouldn't get paid? Yes, it is going to be tight. So we pay the troops. We are going to certainly pay our veterans' benefits. They might not be the same amount the first month, but we will kind of squeak through. Then, it will be Social Security. Well, maybe the checks will go out, but maybe it will only be at half the amount. But the Social Security offices will be closed. So benefits will have a direct impact. Where is he going to slow down the trickle of money? To State and local governments. So what does that mean? Community development block grant money, education, and so on. That is going to cause enormous layoffs of public employees and contractors at the State and local level. The asphalt contractor, the person who handles the office machinery, minority contractors, and so on--all that small business they love to romanticize over are going to have a big impact. Then the Federal Government will definitely have to slow down or not pay at all contractors, whether it is the big defense guys that employ thousands and thousands of people or it is the small- to medium-sized businesses, like the ones in my own State that do information technology? We are about to destroy the reputation and solvency of the United States of America. We are about to destroy the reputation and solvency of the United States of America not only for one day but for a decade and maybe the rest of the century. This is not being done by an outside power. We are spending $700 billion on defense, and we are destroying ourselves by a self-inflicted wound because of political dysfunction, political rigidity, and political ideology. What the heck is this? I could even use more intense language. What we are about to do, we cannot allow this to happen. One of my colleagues said to me yesterday, Senator Mikulski, what would it take to get you to the table? I said: Get me a plan and 30 Republican names behind it; I will see if I can support the plan and get 30 others. I know my time is up, but I don't want the time to be up on America. Let's come together. Let's stop being Democrats, let's stop being Republicans, let's call us what we should be called: Americans. What do Americans do? When the times are tough, the tough get going. Let's get going. Let's make the tough decisions. Let's put politics aside, put America No. 1, and get us back on track. I yield the floor.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise today in support of this resolution recognizing 2011 as the 11-year anniversary of the National Family Caregiver Support Program and declaring 2011 The Year of the Family Caregiver. This year, caregivers across the country and the Administration on Aging are celebrating family caregivers and working to improve the support family caregivers receive. Today's resolution recognizes the 65 million Americans who serve as family caregivers for their family members, friends, and other loved ones living with a disability, chronic illness, or other condition associated with old age. Family caregivers are the backbone of our Nation's long-term care system, accounting for 80 percent of all long- term services provided in the United States. They provide high-quality services that improve the lives of the people they care for and benefit our society. I created the National Family Caregiver Support Program in 2000 to strengthen the Older Americans Act so it may meet the day-to-day needs of our older Americans and their caregivers. The program is a partnership between States and Area Agencies on Aging. The National Family Caregiver Support Program provides counseling, training, respite care, adult daycare, and other support services to 600,000 caregivers so that families can get the resources they need to care for their loved one. The program helps American families take care of older parents while raising children of their own and pursuing a career. It also helps grandparents who are taking care of grandchildren. The National Family Caregiver Support Program helps families provide care longer and delays the need for costly nursing home care. Family caregiving continues to place a lot of stress on families in terms of time, energy, and finances, but American families are up to this challenge. I ask my colleagues today to join me in applauding the work of family caregivers and those who support them every day.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to talk about the crisis America is facing. We are facing two crises. We are facing a significant debt crisis, and we are facing a political leadership crisis. We need to deal with both. We need to be sure all things are on the table and all people are at the table trying to find sensible, pragmatic solutions to be able to move our country forward and stabilize our economy so we can grow our economy. Now, I am going to talk first about the debt crisis. Then I am going to talk about what we need to do to act like Americans. I am for a more frugal government. We have been voting on cuts in discretionary spending. I supported the ban on discretionary spending earmarks. You were a reformer in that area, and I joined with you in that area, Mr. President. I also voted for $41 billion in cuts in the continuing resolution. In April I voted for $78 billion more in cuts. I wanted to avoid a tea party shutdown and work for this more frugal government. But now we have to lift the debt ceiling, and in order to do that we need to have a path forward dealing with both the deficit and debt. In order to do that, we need to, just as we cut the earmarks on discretionary spending, cut the tax break earmarks, those tax break earmarks that have gone to the well connected but who are disconnected from how we can help our economy grow. I never thought a budget deal would be easy, but I believed we could agree on a few key principles. Well, we have not. The Republicans want to close Social Security Offices. I want to close tax loopholes. They want to get rid of teachers. I want to get rid of sacred cows. That is why I voted last week to end the tax break on ethanol production. Wow. Talk about a tax break earmark. It is ethanol. It has serious consequences to our budget. It also artificially raises the cost of corn. So what does that mean to Barb Mikulski? Well, right now one of the most important industries on my eastern shore is poultry. Poultry has helped make Maryland great and provided jobs for thousands of Marylanders, people who work hard, get dirt under their fingernails, salute the flag. Well, they want us to act like we salute the flag and work under the flag. Corn is now $7 a bushel. I have companies that have been around for over 100 years filing for bankruptcy. Well, I cannot allow that to go on. We have to get rid of the artificial subsidies and deal with it and use that money to go into deficit reduction. So I want part of any agreement that we make to make sure that eliminating the tax break earmark on ethanol is also in the budget. I also want to get rid of oil and gas tax breaks. Gas has reached $4 a gallon in many parts of my State. Yet at the same time, the five biggest oil companies made $36 billion in profits in the first 3 months--3 months they made $36 billion. Well, companies making billions in profits should again pay their fair share. We Democrats voted to end those subsidies and devote $2 billion a year to deficit reduction. Now, the Republicans want to keep tax break earmarks. I want to get rid of tax break earmarks. But they refuse to end these giveaways. There are others. Senator Durbin spoke eloquently about the tax breaks that send jobs overseas. Those jobs have left. They went on a slow boat to China, a fast track to Mexico. Other jobs are in dial 1- 800 anywhere but in the USA. We have to have a patriotic Tax Code where we crack down on the tax cheats and invest the money back here at home. It is not only the tax cheats, we legally give them money. We take the money of people who worked in manufacturing, who paid taxes, and when they paid those taxes, we gave subsidies to send their jobs oversees. Wow. No wonder people are mad at Congress. They ought to be mad at Congress. But I worry about the consequences also of default. When I go around Maryland, people do not understand what that means. They think when we raise the debt ceiling it is going to raise their interest rates on their credit cards, their student loans, or their mortgages in some way if they have a variable rate. Oh, my gosh. It is just something. We need to make known in plain English what this means. The fact that the United States of America might not pay its bills on August 3 is frightening. It is frightening from the standpoint of national honor. America should pay its bills. It has always paid its bills. Also, it is important for our economy. The consequences could be Draconian, unprecedented, and even well beyond the Armageddon of the Great Depression. We could, on August 3, not be able to pay our Social Security benefits. We could not be able to pay our veterans benefits. This is shocking. We cannot allow this to happen. So we have to come to the table. That is why I said at the opening of my remarks we all have to be at the table, and all things have to be on the table. Now, I am going to talk about political leadership. I want to talk about all of us at the table. I lived through a very serious crisis when Ronald Reagan was President, and Ronald Reagan, Tip O'Neill, and Howard Baker provided the political leadership. It was tough. It was scary. In 1982, we were scared that we could not meet our obligations, that our Social Security checks would go out. The trust fund was running on fumes. America faced the fact that we would go into default with our senior citizens. President Reagan provided leadership. I did not agree with everything President Reagan wanted to offer. But he said: We have to put America first. He called up his friend Tip O'Neill. Tip O'Neill brought Democrats to the table. Bob Byrd was our party's leader in the Senate. Those two men stood together as Americans, not as Democrats. We turned to Bob Dole, chairing the Finance Committee, and Howard Baker. They came to the table, not as Republicans but as Americans. That is what we need now. We have to come to the table as Americans. I love being a Democrat. My family were Democrats. We are going to be Democrats forever. But what I love more is being an American. I got into politics as a protester. In other countries they would have thrown me in prison. Here they put me into politics to stand up for the people. I would not have been able to go to college; I would not have been able to pursue the American dream. I love America and I want America to have a great future ahead of it. We have to stop acting as if we are the Red Party and the Blue Party. We have to start behaving as if we are the Red, White, and Blue Party. Now, I have heard about these pledges to Grover Norquist. But I take one pledge. I take a pledge to the flag of the United States of America. One Nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice-- justice--for all. That is what we need to do. I take an oath on the Constitution to protect and defend the people and the law that governs it. Let's get real and let's realize whom our first pledge is to. So I say to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle: Go back to your Republican history books. Read what Ronald Reagan did in 1982. Read what Republican leadership did in 1986. I will do the same for Democrats. When Tip O'Neill brought us to the table, I had to make tough votes. We drank strong medicine. But you know what. At the end of the day we made our obligations. Seniors got their checks, we got the Social Security trust fund out of that crisis, and we became a stronger economy and a better America. We can do it. But let's realize to whom we take our pledge. Mine will always be not to the Democratic Party but to the United States of America. So let's be at the table and put all things on the table. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I strongly support the Women Working in Non Traditional Jobs Act, introduced by Senators Gillibrand and myself late last week. This legislation would encourage local and State workforce systems to think differently about how they train and prepare women for jobs in which they are not well-represented. Women currently represent half of our Nation's workforce, but two-thirds of these women are concentrated in 21 of 500 occupational jobs. Nontraditional jobs, in which women make up 25 percent or less of employees, pay 20-30 percent more than traditionally female jobs. Because of this discrepancy, it is important to establish a program that will aid women in moving away from occupations they have traditionally held, which are by and large lower paying than occupations where men are concentrated. I have always been a strong advocate for equal opportunity in the workforce. This bill would create a new Federal grant program designed to help women find these high-wage nontraditional jobs. Currently, there is only one Federal grant program designed to train women for nontraditional jobs: the Women in Apprenticeship and Nontraditional Occupations, WANTO, but this program is under-resourced and overly narrow in scope. WANTO is 17 years old, has been funded at only $1 million for years, and is specifically designed to increase women's participation in the construction industry. The Women WIN Jobs Act would expand the work of WANTO by authorizing up to $100 million for recruiting, training, placing, and retaining women in nontraditional occupations that are high-demand, and high-growth. Women have difficulty entering nontraditional fields because they lack sufficient information about career opportunities and pathways. Without sufficient training, preparation, or information, women will not be able to fully participate in the Nation's workforce and will continue to be underrepresented in high-earning and in-demand fields. This bill would address that problem by encouraging workforce systems to give women the support and preparation they need to compete for nontraditional jobs. Preparing women for work in nontraditional fields is crucial to success in the workforce and general economic success for our country.