Barbara Mikulski

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I wish to support the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act of 2015. Cyber security is the most pressing economic and national security threat facing our country today. As a member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, I am keenly aware of the damage cyber attacks cause on our Nation. As vice chairwoman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, I believe we must have a clear and comprehensive approach to funding cyber security. In boardrooms and around kitchen tables, concern over cyber security is heightening. It is gaining new traction following the cyber attack on the Office of Personnel Management, which compromised the personal information of more than 22 million Federal employees, contractors, and their families. The American people expect serious action by Congress. This can and must be done, while respecting privacy and avoiding data misuse by the government or businesses. Congress must act with a sense of urgency to pass the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act. If we wait for another major cyber attack, we risk overreacting, overregulating, overspending, and overlegislating. The time to act is now. Our Nation is under attack. Every day, cyber attacks are happening. Cyber terrorists are working to damage critical infrastructure by taking over the power grid or disrupting air traffic control. Cyber spies are moving at breakneck speeds to steal state secrets, intellectual property, and personal information. Cyber criminals are hacking our networks, stealing financial information, and disrupting business operations. These cyber attacks can disrupt critical infrastructure, wipe out a family's entire life savings, take down entire companies, and put human lives at risk. In the past year alone, we've seen cyber attacks against Sony, Home Depot, UPS, JP Morgan Chase, Experian, T-Mobile, Scottrade, and the list goes on. The economic losses of cyber crime are stunning. In 2014, the Center for Strategic and International Studies and McAfee estimated the annual cost from cyber crime to be over $400 billion. I have been working on cyber issues since I was elected to the Senate. Our cyber warriors at the National Security Agency are in Maryland, and I have been working with the NSA to ensure signals intelligence was a national security focus even before cyber was a method of warfare. In my role on the Intelligence Committee, I served on the Cyber Working Group, which developed findings to guide Congress on getting cyber governance right, protecting civil liberties, and improving the cyber workforce. As vice chairwoman of the Appropriations Committee and the Commerce, Justice, and Science Subcommittee, I put funds in the Federal checkbook for critical cyber security agencies. These include the Federal Bureau of Investigation, which investigates cyber crime; the National Institute of Standards and Technology, which works with the private sector to develop standards for cyber security technology; and the National Science Foundation, which researches ways to secure our Nation. As a member of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense, I fight for critical funding for the intelligence and cyber agencies, including the National Security Agency, Central Intelligence Agency, and Intelligence Advanced Research Projects Activity, who are coming up with the new ideas to create jobs and keep our country safe. These funds are critical to building the workforce and providing the technology and resources to make our cyber security smarter, safer, and more secure. This bill does three things from a national security perspective. First, it allows businesses and government to voluntarily share information about cyber threats. Second, it requires the Director of National Intelligence to share more cyber threat information with the private sector, both classified and unclassified. Third, it establishes a Department of Homeland Security ``portal'' for cyber info-sharing with the government to help dot-gov and dot-com in a constitutional manner. These three provisions are an innovation. Despite all the amazing talent companies have, many are being attacked and don't even realize it. This legislation allows unprecedented dot-com and dot-gov cooperation. There are also key provisions on privacy protections and liability protection for companies that monitor their own networks or share information. Why do we need a bill to make these vital partnerships happen? America is under attack every second of every day. The threat is here, and it is now. If we do not act or if we let the perfect be the enemy of the good, this country will be more vulnerable than ever before, and Congress will have done nothing. This bill is not perfect. The Department of Homeland Security's role has been criticized by many, including myself. I have been skeptical about their ability to perform some duties assigned in this bill. I am still skeptical, although less so than before. But this bill takes important steps to diversify government and private sector actors, so we are not just focusing on DHS, but also keeping civilian agencies in charge. We cannot have intelligence agencies leading this effort with the private sector. Some would like to see that go further, but that is what the amendment process is for. People in the civil liberties community worry that this bill could allow government intrusions into people's privacy. This was of tantamount concern for me. If we don't protect civil liberties, the added security is for naught because we lose what we value most: our freedom. The authors of this bill, especially Senator Feinstein, have made key improvements on issues of law enforcement powers and protecting core privacy concerns. While not everyone is entirely pleased, this bill has made important strides to balance information sharing and privacy. The business community is concerned because it fears strangulation and overregulation. They worry that they will open themselves up to lawsuits if they participate in the program with the government. I have heard from Maryland businesses and these are valid concerns. Importantly, this bill has made strides in accommodating business and builds a voluntary framework to allow businesses to choose that protection. Protection does not come without responsibility for participants, but this bill links the need for cyber security, appropriate liability protection, and the expertise of our business community in a way that answers a lot of companies' concerns. We cannot eliminate all government involvement in this issue because it simply won't work, and we will lose key government expertise in the Department of Defense, Federal Bureau of Investigation, and elsewhere. However, we can work to try to minimize it while maintaining the government's role in protecting national security. I am so proud that the Senate came together in a bipartisan way to draft and pass this legislation. The Senate must pass this legislation now. Working together, we can make our Nation safer and stronger and show the American people we can cooperate to get an important job done. Amendment No. 2557 Mr. President, today I wish to speak about my amendment to the cyber security bill. This amendment would provide an additional $37 million for the Office of Personnel Management, OPM, to accelerate completion of its information technology, IT, modernization and thwart future cyber attacks. This additional funding would allow OPM to make needed upgrades to cyber security and network systems 1 year ahead of schedule. This means OPM will not have to wait another year to protect sensitive personnel data by implementing hardware and software upgrades recommended by security experts. The $37 million is designated as an emergency under the Budget Control Act of 2011. For over a year, the Office of Personnel Management's systems were compromised. This hack exposed the financial and personal information of 22 million Federal employees and their families, contractors, job candidates and retirees. This is unacceptable. OPM's retirement services and background investigation databases contain the most sensitive data OPM holds, including Social Security numbers, health information and fingerprints. I have heard from employees across the government. Data breaches undermine morale and complicate their ability to serve the American people. OPM has moved to provide protections, but that is not enough. Securing these systems must be done now. We can't wait for the next budget cycle. I urge support for my amendment. This is a crisis, so we ought to treat it like one. Twenty-two million Americans who entrusted their data and fingerprints to the government deserve the highest standard of protection. There is a reason OPM was exploited. Federal cyber security has been weak. The Appropriations Committee has consistently given agencies the resources they asked for to protect their dot-gov systems. But under sequester-level budgeting it hasn't been enough. Constrained agencies don't ask for what is truly needed to do the cyber security job. Tight budgets mean immediate problems get requested and funded before other much needed IT protection and maintenance. We aren't even doing the simple things. After the OPM breach, the Office of Management and Budget, OMB, conducted a cyber sprint. OMB asked agencies to take four minimal steps: No. 1, deploy Department of Homeland Security malicious activity detectors; No. 2, patch critical vulnerabilities; No. 3, tighten privileged user policies; and No. 4, accelerate deployment of multifactor authentication. While there was improvement, only 14 of the 24 agencies met the fourth goal. Some of it is a lack of will, but some is a lack of resources. OPM knows it needs to harden its information technology. That is why I am offering this amendment, providing $37 million in emergency spending to harden OPM systems now--not a year from now. These funds meet the criteria for being designated as emergency spending as set out in the Budget Control Act of 2011. OPM's needs are urgent, temporary, and, regrettably, unforeseen. What does it mean to designate funds as emergency spending? It means no offsets, so we don't pay for this amendment by drawing from existing funding used to defend the Nation or help America's families. The need is urgent--our adversaries are still trying to attack us. The need is temporary--these are one-time costs to accelerate IT reform. And the need is unforeseen which is sadly the reason they were not requested in the President's fiscal year 2016 budget in February. Some say this funding is premature, and OPM is not ready to deploy it effectively. However, those reports were written before Beth Cobert became OPM Acting Director. She is turning OPM around, but she needs the resources to secure OPM's IT systems, and cyber security is a critical issue. Government can't be reckless with the sensitive data it has. We must do better with dot-gov and get our own house in order. We know what OPM needs to do--they have the will, they have a business plan, and now they need the wallet. Vote for my amendment No. 2557 to get OPM the resources it needs.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, I rise as the vice chair of the Appropriations Committee to urge my colleagues to vote no on the motion to proceed to the Energy and Water appropriations bill. I wish to comment about the remarks of the Senator from Tennessee. First of all, I have such admiration for him and for his advocacy for Tennessee, the skilled legislator that he is. He has been an advocate for his State and for the United States of America. He is an outstanding chair of the Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development. I know he and my colleague, the ranking member, Senator Feinstein, have worked very well together. I don't dispute many of the things the Senator said in terms of what impact this would have on the economy. Certainly, if one is the Senator from Maryland, the Corps of Engineers is part of our economy, particularly because of the role it plays in helping to keep our waterways open and able for the Port of Baltimore to be viable and accept the new Panama Canal shipments. We could go through item after item. We need a bipartisan budget agreement. While the Senator says he wants to have his say, which I appreciate, we have been trying to get budget negotiations going since May. In the committee I voted to move this bill forward because I wanted to move the process forward. I was hoping that the leadership of both bodies would move to a new top line 302(b) allocation and lift the caps. We need leadership on both sides of the aisle and on both sides of the dome. We wanted that five months ago, yet here we are for yet another parliamentary maneuver that just pits well intentioned, hard-working people against each other over process. We need a new top line so we can have a better bottom line for our national security and our economic security. I am deeply worried that the trajectory we are on is hollowing out our America, that we are hollowing out the much-needed infrastructure that we need, part of which comes from the Army Corps of Engineers, which includes our waterways. Look at the whole issue of dam safety. Our colleagues in South Carolina now are worried about the rivers. The Corps of Engineers is working 36-hour days with Governor Haley to really try to help South Carolina. But we need investments in our infrastructure, not only for crisis response. And by the way, of course we are going to stand with the people of South Carolina to help them. We need to be able to cancel sequester, and we need to be able to do it for defense and for nondefense. In the Energy and Water bill that is before us, the increases are in the defense side. Some of the national security issues have been outlined by the Senator from Tennessee. But in the area of nondefense, it has just gone up a couple of hundred million dollars--excuse me, $8 million. The bill is short on infrastructure and it is short on research funding. Now, I believe we should have a sensible approach to spending. I know that we agree with the budget caps, but these budget caps are placing a cap on our national security. They are placing a cap also on our compelling infrastructure needs that every State is crying out for. The Senator from Tennessee knows the requests have come his way, along with Senator Feinstein. We are also capping innovation. We need to be able to have more breakthroughs, whether it is in life science--we had a wonderful hearing yesterday that we both attended regarding the breakthroughs at NIH, but we need breakthroughs in energy. We need to maintain our Strategic Petroleum Reserve. We need the Corps of Engineers to have the resources it needs for flood control, waterways, and harbors. My port depends upon it. We also need adequate funding for the cleanup of uranium enrichment plants such as in Portsmouth, OH, where 500 workers will lose their jobs. We need to stop talking and engaging in parliamentary dueling. My hope is to encourage our leadership to come up with a new budget deal that lifts the caps so that the Senate appropriations committees can get on with their job. I have worked now with our colleague, the full committee chairman, Senator Cochran. The Senator from Mississippi, a gentleman of the old school, has done a good, solid job running the committee. As to the chairman that we have worked with, we feel we have good relations. But it is not how well we get along; it is how much we get done. And the way to get it done this year is to be able to lift the budget caps, come up with a sensible agreement with appropriate offices, and then let's let the appropriators do our job. I wish to say to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, we do look forward to working with you, but when all is said and done, we want to get more done than we get said. I yield the floor.

Ms. MIKULSKI

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

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I understand the pending business is that we are discussing the motion to proceed to the VA-Military Construction bill, and I rise today to urge my colleagues to vote against this motion to proceed. And why? Well, because, quite simply, this is a parliamentary maneuver. This isn't a real deal to get to real benefits and real help for America's veterans or to modernize our military bases. This maneuver, quite simply, is a scam. The Republican leadership knows we do not have enough resources for our veterans. This bill is inadequate. And to bring up an appropriations bill before we have a new budget deal is really just a hollow gesture. We passed a continuing resolution. I am so pleased we did that so we would not have a government shutdown. We do not need a government shutdown. It is not in our national interest, it is not good for the economy, it is not good for our standing in the world, and most of all it is not good for the way we need to help the American people, whether it is in the area of national security or economic security. Having passed the CR, it is well known that the leadership on both sides of the aisle and the President want to negotiate a new budget deal. So what does that mean? A new budget deal gives the Committee on Appropriations a top line--something called a 302(a). A 302(a) tells the Committee on Appropriations what it can spend. We can't spend over a 302(a) unless we waive the Budget Act. And the whole purpose of the negotiation for the budget is to lift the cap through responsible, bipartisan, bicameral negotiations and to come up with additional revenue by either cuts or new revenue. My advice to my colleagues is don't go through trying to pass the bill when we know we are going to be getting a new allocation to truly try to meet America's needs. We all say we love our veterans. Everybody wants to wear yellow ribbons, and we all want to go to Veterans Day observations and so on. But I believe you show your support for veterans by deeds and in this case by putting forth the help we do need for our veterans. The bill pending now shows we need a new budget agreement. We need to cancel sequester--these across-the-board draconian cuts--so we can keep our promises to our veterans. Cloture on the motion to proceed is Washington-speak in order to filibuster a debate. The real debate here is whether the Senate will move forward with spartan Republican budget levels or whether we will come up with a new deal that will enable us to lift the cap we have and move ahead to getting a real deal. The Senate passed the bill to keep the government open. Now we need a budget deal that lifts the caps to make sure we have a 50-50 split between defense spending and domestic spending, acknowledging that domestic spending also meets national security needs. This bill is a perfect example. Military construction doesn't come out of DOD. There it is, in a domestic bill, and it is in the same subcommittee as funding our veterans. In terms of funding our veterans, the bill before us has an unacceptable cut of over $850 million from the VA, yet at the same time VA costs are rising. What am I talking about? Well, let's go to the new hepatitis C drugs that are causing veterans to seek treatment and really get the help they need. This inhibits us from buying the lifesaving drugs we need. Then there is the cost of the caregiver program. Those costs have nearly doubled since the original fiscal 2016 estimates that we received. And who are these caregivers? They are wives, spouses, parents taking care of really sick wounded warriors. You know those pictures we see when we have a concert for a fundraising drive for a veterans charitable organization--those men who are bedridden, many who can't talk, and some who have traumatic brain injury or some causing injury that causes paralysis--your heart goes out to them, and we have families taking care of them. Those families need help. The cost for that care is doubling. Yet this bill doesn't take care of it. We say: Oh, a grateful nation never forgets. Well, we seem to forget when it comes time to voting on the budget. We have held in the Committee on Appropriations hearing after hearing. The VA's Secretary McDonald testified that the budget request for hepatitis C is too low by as much as $1 billion. In fiscal year 2015 alone, the VA spent close to $700 million just on hepatitis C drugs. I think we need to be able to give veterans the medications they need. Veterans care should not be held hostage to artificial budget caps, and veterans in the audience watching this should understand this is not a single-year problem. This cap will be in place until 2021. Remember, we are not funding an agency; we are funding help for our veterans. We want to reduce that backlog. We want to make sure our hospitals are fit for duty. We want to make sure there are no waiting lists for veterans. We want to be sure that the way they showed up for America, we are showing up for them. These veterans deserve to know that promises we made will be the promises we keep. I am asking my colleagues to get serious. Let's get a real budget deal. I know the Republican leadership has been in contact with the President. We need our Democratic leadership to be a part of that conversation. I am the vice chair of the Committee on Appropriations. This is the committee that puts the money in the Federal checkbook. I want to be complimentary about the chairman, the distinguished gentleman from Mississippi, Senator Cochran. We know how to move bills, but what we need are the right allocations given to us so we can make the right decisions. Now, can we make some trims here, can we make some strategic cuts? Yes, but we need a new budget deal that lifts the caps. So I therefore will vote no on the motion to proceed, which is parliamentary-speak, but by voting no on the parliamentary maneuver I am saying we vote yes in meeting the compelling national needs we have. Let's get a new budget deal, let's lift the caps, let's do it in a responsible way, and let's help move America forward. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, today we are voting on a clean, short- term continuous funding resolution, CR. Passing this legislation means no government shutdown. There may be some drama, but we intend to keep the government open and avoid shutdown, slamdown politics. Shutdowns are bad for everyone. Shutdowns create uncertainty which slows economic growth, hurts the health and well-being of the entire Nation, and causes the loss of private sector jobs. Shutdowns make it impossible for Federal agencies to meet missions that serve the American people. Let's show the American people we can work across the aisle and across the dome to get the job done. Avoiding a shutdown is just the first step. Next, we need a budget deal to cancel sequester. Right now, our budget caps spending, but doesn't cap tax breaks for billionaires and corporations that send jobs overseas. Americans are angry. They feel like the rules are rigged against them and that those who write the rules don't care. Let's show them this Congress cares. The people deserve a government on their side. That is why I am fighting to make sure they have a government that works as hard as they do. After we pass the bill to fund the government, we can move on to a new budget deal that cancels sequester, raising the caps equally for defense and nondefense domestic spending. The budget deal will give us a framework for an omnibus funding bill that invests in America, protecting national security, rebuilding our physical infrastructure, creating jobs for today and jobs for tomorrow, and meeting our compelling human needs. The Appropriations Committee needs 30 days to get the job done after a new budget deal is passed. I challenge leadership to work with Speaker Boehner to enact a new topline budget deal by the end of October. We can't let October brinksmanship become a Christmas crisis. It is clear we need to cancel sequester. And it is clear that the 2013 shutdown was a disaster for everyone--not to be repeated. This bill provides the resources to keep our government open so agencies can continue to serve the American people, keeping us safe, healthy, educated, moving, and thriving. The bottom line is we need a new topline. With a new budget deal we get a new topline to invest in America's safety and future. But we need to pass this short-term CR to get to a deal and not to another shutdown.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I wish to recognize and pay tribute to COL Jenny W. Davis, legislative assistant to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, for her service to our country. Her retirement later this year marks more than 26 years of devotion to our military and our Nation. A Maryland native, COL Davis was commissioned into the Adjutant General's Corps in May 1989 upon graduation from the United States Military Academy, West Point, NY, and served her initial 4 years in the Army as a branch detailed officer in the Air Defense Artillery. Her military education includes the Air Defense Artillery Officer Basic Course and Adjutant General Officer Advanced Course and the U.S. Marine Corps Command and Staff College. COL Davis has held assignments ranging from platoon leader, battery executive officer, and battalion adjutant, 6th Battalion, 43d Air Defense Artillery, 32d AADCOM, and V Corps, Ansbach, Germany; detachment commander, B Detachment, 546th Personnel Services Battalion, 3d Personnel Group, and chief of officer management, 2d Armored Division, Fort Hood, TX; HHC commander, 8th Personnel Command, 8th U.S. Army, Camp Coiner, Korea; joint staff intern serving in the offices of the J1 and the Assistant Secretary of the Army, Manpower and Reserve Affairs, the Pentagon; company grade assignment officer, chief of officer management division and chief of personnel management division, I Corps, and battalion executive officer, 22d Personnel Services Battalion, 1st Personnel Group, Fort Lewis, WA; strategic planner, Army G-1, Headquarters Department of the Army, HQDA, the Pentagon; DoD Congressional Fellow, office of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, Washington, DC; legislative liaison--Personnel Policy Portfolio, Office of the Chief of Legislative Liaison, OCLL, the Pentagon; Strategic Initiatives Group, I Corps/U.S. Forces--Iraq, OIF; legislative liaison--Arlington National Cemetery, OCLL. COL Davis's awards and decorations include the Meritorious Service Medal, with four oakleaf clusters; Joint Service Commendation Medal, with one oakleaf cluster; Army Commendation Medal; Army Achievement Medal, with two oakleaf clusters; Parachutist Badge; and Joint Chiefs of Staff and Army Staff Identification Badges. Jenny is married to Grant Davis. They have two sons, Zach, 16, and Ben, 14.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, it is time give it our best to move America forward and give Americans a fair shot. Let's show the American people that we can work across the aisle and across the dome to get the job done. Instead, here we are facing another shutdown showdown. There is no reason for there to be a government shutdown. Republican leadership does not want a shutdown. Democrats don't want a shutdown. There may be some drama, but we intend to keep the government open and avoid shutdown, slamdown politics. I hoped the Senate had learned its lesson in October 2013, when Republicans shut down government over the Affordable Care Act, or this February 2015, when Republicans threatened the Department of Homeland Security with shutdown over immigration policy. Senate Democrats won't be threatened and bullied into accepting poison pill riders. Serious policy issues like family planning and reproductive health deserve serious debate rather than becoming an ``add on'' rider to a funding bill. Shutdowns are bad for everyone, jeopardizing family checkbooks, business bottom lines, and the Federal checkbook. A shutdown makes it impossible for Federal agencies to meet missions that serve the American people. A shutdown means furloughed Federal employees and contractors; delayed tax returns; delayed small business loans; and delayed contracts. Uncertainty slows economic growth and hurts the health and well-being of the entire Nation. When the government was closed for 16 days in 2013, the shutdown hurt our growing economy, sacrificing 120,000 private sector jobs. Billions of dollars of economic output was lost. We lost 6.6 million work days, about 850,000 Federal employees were sent home. My home State was hit particularly hard. Maryland is home to many Federal agencies. It was not just the Federal workers that got hurt. The Baltimore Sun wrote about Jay Angle, the owner of Salsa Grill, a Peruvian restaurant in Woodlawn outside the Social Security Administration. Every day, 4,700 workers go to work at Social Security, but only 500 were on the job during the shutdown. Salsa Grill counts on the Social Security workers as customers, but they were not there. There were stories like Jay's all over the country. Because of the 2013 shutdown, hundreds of patients could not enroll in clinical trials at the National Institutes of Health, NIH, so their last chance for a miracle was delayed or denied. About 8,000 rural families had their home loan decisions delayed, pushing the American Dream down the road. Head Start grantees in seven States closed, leaving 7,200 children at home and families searching for high quality child care. Avoiding a shutdown is just the first step. We also need a new budget deal to cancel sequester. Right now our budget caps spending, but it does not cap tax breaks for billionaires and corporations that send jobs overseas. Americans are angry. They feel the rules are rigged against them and that those who write the rules don't care. But Democrats do care. We believe the people deserve a government on their side. That is why we are fighting to make sure the American people have a government that works as hard as they do. We have three steps to meet that goal. First, no government shutdown. We need to pass a clean, short-term continuing funding resolution with no poison pill riders to keep the government funded and open for business for as short a time as possible. After all, a yearlong CR just locks in sequester. The CR will give us time to take the second step, negotiating a new budget agreement that cancels sequester and lifts the spending caps equally for defense and nondefense spending so we can protect our national security and give the American people a fair shot. After the new budget agreement is reached, we will take the third step, writing and enacting an Omnibus spending bill. Remember, the Appropriations Committee needs 30 days to get the job done once we have our topline. That is my plan to cancel sequester and put the American people first. Why do we want to cancel sequester? Sequester requires draconian cuts to critical programs that will have consequences for American families for a generation. Sequester was supposed to be so arbitrary and unthinkable that it would drive Congress to a budget deal. But gridlock, hammerlock, and deadlock kept that from happening. It was the reality of sequester that led Congress to negotiate the Murray-Ryan budget deal that provided sequester relief for 2014 and 2015. Now we have got deja vu. We need a new agreement to cancel sequester- level spending in fiscal years 2016 and 2017. The Republican budget for fiscal year 2016 calls for spending at the sequester level of $1.017 trillion. The President's budget request asks for $74 billion more. That may sound like a big number, but it is hardly expensive. It is equal to the 2010 level--6 years ago. We must cancel sequester to give Americans a fair shot by investing in our country and our people. Sequester hurts national security. According to Army Chief of Staff General Raymond Odierno, only 33 percent of our brigades are ready to fight. Without sequester relief, the Army will not be truly ready to fight until 2025. Sequester keeps us from building and maintaining our physical infrastructure. Funding to build roads, bridges, and transit creates jobs while easing peoples commutes to their jobs. Sequester deepens our innovation deficit. Funding for basic research is an investment in jobs today and jobs tomorrow. New ideas and discoveries lead to startups that rev up our economy and find new cures for deadly diseases. Under spartan budgets, NIH funding has not kept up with inflation. Even the increases proposed under the Republican spending caps fund NIH by cutting education, college affordability, and labor protections. On the other hand, when we cancel sequester, we will invest in innovation and discovery without sacrificing other investments in our future. For example, the National Science Foundation would give 600 more grants supporting 7,500 scientists, students, teachers, and technicians. Cancelling sequester means meeting compelling human needs. We can help make college affordable for families. Right now, under sequester- level budgeting, Republicans instead took $300 million from Pell grants and eliminated First in the World grants to make college more affordable. Under sequester-level appropriations bills, we can not keep our promises to our veterans. Both the Senate and the House Republican bills underfund medical care at the Veterans Administration--by more than $600 million in the Senate. That is enough money to provide medical coverage for 61,000 veterans. The House also cuts $580 million for building VA health care facilities when there is a $10 billion maintenance backlog. It is clear that we need to end sequester. It is also clear that the shutdown was a disaster for everyone, not to be repeated. Because without the resources to keep our government open, agencies can not serve the American people keeping us safe, healthy, educated, moving, and thriving. The bottom line is we need a new topline. We need a new budget deal to invest in America's safety and future. We need a short-term CR, free of poison pill riders, to get there--not another shutdown.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, in recent weeks two of the leading contenders to be President of the United States called into question the devotion of American Muslims to this great country, and one even outrageously suggested that being Muslim precludes you from being President. I denounce this. It is in violation of Article VI of the Constitution and in violation of our County's basic principles. Everyone that serves in public office from President to the Senate must uphold the Constitution. Article VI of the Constitution explicitly states: All debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation. This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding. The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States. There are 3 million American Muslims in our country. They teach in our schools, they work in our hospitals, and they attend our universities. Their children play on the same playgrounds and go to the same schools. They are able to do this because one of our founding principles on which our country was established was freedom of religion. It is on that basis that the United States should strive to be a tolerant and accepting country where differences are understood and diversity is celebrated. This is not the America some leading candidates for President imagine. They are perpetuating an undercurrent of bigotry by suggesting that American Muslims can't be President because of their religious beliefs. Not only is this contrary to our American values, it defies the U.S. Constitution.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, I know it is not the usual protocol to follow the two leaders who have spoken, but I wish to exercise a personal privilege of being the senior woman in the Senate and say that on behalf of all the women in the Senate, we congratulate Senator Collins on this enormous and significant milestone. She is certainly in the tradition of a very esteemed predecessor from the State of Maine, Margaret Chase Smith, who was, herself, a historic figure. Senator Smith was known for her devotion to Maine, her advocacy for her constituents, her fierce independence, and for always being at the forefront of being an advocate for what is right. Senator Collins continues to do that. We want to congratulate her because she is a fierce fighter for Maine. She is absolutely independent. For her, it is not about the other side of the aisle; for her, it is not about aisles, it is about building bridges. I believe that if Margaret Chase Smith were alive today, she would walk over and give Senator Collins a great big hug and say: Keep at it. Keep at it. We say to Senator Collins: Keep at it for many more votes and for many more good years to come. I yield the floor. (Applause, Senators rising.)

Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, Congress has been reviewing the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action for the last 60 days. This was the process set up by the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015, which the President signed into law and 98 Senators supported. We have now come to the end of that process. A resolution of disapproval, to stop the deal from going forward, failed three times here in the Senate. I know my colleagues and our constituents have very strong feelings on this issue. This was a very tough vote for me and one that I took very, very seriously. But now this issue has been decided. But that is not enough. Now Republicans are saying that since the Iran agreement isn't technically a treaty, and because the Senate did not explicitly approve it, the deal doesn't carry forward into the next Administration. If history is any indication, we know international agreements are a critical part of diplomacy and many have lived on well after the President who signed them leaves office. This is how America conducts its foreign policy with its allies--and its adversaries. Many other agreements have lived on through more than one Administration. These includes the Helsinki Final Act, the Vienna Document, the Proliferation Security Initiative, and the Missile Technology Control Regime. It is clear that the Iran agreement can and should remain in force beyond the Obama administration, just like other important agreements that have come before it. The Senate has spoken on this issue. The Iran deal blocks the paths for Iran to get a nuclear bomb and is the best available option on the table. It can and should remain in force through the next Administration.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2663 to the resolution and ask that it be reported by number.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions be discharged from further consideration of S. Res. 242 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Ms. MIKULSKI. I further ask unanimous consent that the Mikulski- Collins amendment to the preamble be agreed to; the preamble, as amended, be agreed to; the title amendment be agreed to; and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I think the parliamentary choreography does not show what we just did. We are now, through a resolution cosponsored by Senator Collins and me, cosponsored by all the women of the Senate on both sides of the aisle, celebrating the 25th anniversary of the Office of Research on Women's Health at the National Institutes of Health. Twenty-five years ago, on September 10, 1990, the Office of Research on Women's Health was established at NIH. It ensured that women were included in NIH-funded research protocols. It set research priorities, scientific peer review and scientific knowledge, and it promoted medical research. There were two outcomes that I am so proud of--No. 1, what we have done to improve women's health, and No. 2, we showed that a process of working on a bipartisan basis actually worked. This is not to tell old war stories about legislative issues. Twenty- five years ago women were not included in the protocols at NIH. There were many reasons given, most of them not scientifically reliable or accurate. Working together, Senator Nancy Kassebaum and I--the only two women in the Senate at the time--joined hands with the House-- Congresswoman Pat Schroeder, Connie Morella, and Senator Olympia Snowe--and we worked together to get legislation passed to get women included in the protocols, scientifically appropriate, and to establish the office of women's health. We worked then with Senator Tom Harkin and Arlen Specter here and Senator Ted Kennedy and Senator Kassebaum to get it done. These rollcalls of people who are no longer with us in this institution and some who passed by showed we got it done. It was modest in money, big in dreams. I will give one outcome of what they did. George Bush the elder appointed Dr. Bernadine Healy to be head of NIH. Dr. Healy led a scientific study on hormone replacement. She was able to get the money because of Tom Harkin, Arlen Specter, and all of us, all working together. I was an appropriator as well who helped and assisted, Senator Kennedy, Senator Nancy Kassebaum--now, of course, Baker. And guess what. This is the outcome: Because of that hormone replacement study, medical practice was changed because of the excessive use of hormones in inappropriate situations. As a result, it is estimated by public health epidemiologists that we save 15,000 lives a year. Because of the hormone replacement study, breast cancer rates went down 12 percent. So when they say: Can't you guys and gals work together? When we do, we save lives. We save lives. It is estimated that over 600 lives were saved because of this one study alone, and more will happen every year. So when we get it together, yes, we save lives, hundreds of thousands at a time. So I commemorate the great work of the Office of Research on Women's Health, and I want to once again, joining with my dear friend and esteemed colleague Senator Collins, show that when we work together, we can really make a change--a change that improves the lives of the American people, and women all over this country thank this body for the leadership we have provided. I yield the floor.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, in accordance with the law, Congress has been reviewing the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action for the past 53 days. I have spent countless hours reading, being briefed and poring over the intelligence. I have diligently worked to make an informed decision, one that weighs risk and considers a future 10, 15, 25 years from now. Without question, this vote is among the most serious I have taken. This vote has monumental and enduring consequences. Throughout my review of this deal, my questions have been: How does this deal affect the safety and security of the United States? And how does this deal affect the safety, security and viability of Israel? For all my time in both the House and Senate, I have been an unabashed and unwavering supporter of Israel. I have persistently supported the sanctions that brought Iran to the table. I have been insistent on foreign aid and military assistance to Israel that maintains its qualitative military edge on missile defense. With the horrors of the Holocaust in mind, I have been deeply committed to the need for a Jewish homeland, the State of Israel, and its inherent ability to defend itself, and for the United States to be an unwavering partner in Israel's defense. I have been and always will be committed to those principles. I took an extensive review of this deal. I took a workman-like approach, covering every aspect of the deal: military, intelligence, diplomatic, economic. I actually read the deal, both the classified and the unclassified annex. I met the U.S. diplomats, nuclear experts and the national security staff who negotiated the deal. I actively participated in every classified and unclassified briefing available to me. I took the additional step of traveling to Vienna to meet with the Director General of the IAEA and his technical staff to evaluate for myself, first hand, the inspection and verification requirements. I have listened to my constituents, including leaders in the Jewish community. I did my homework. Throughout, I asked the tough questions. And I questioned the answers to those questions. These were my key questions: No. 1, does this agreement block the four pathways to a nuclear bomb: highly enriched uranium at Natanz, highly enriched uranium at Fordow, weapons grade plutonium, and covert attempts to produce fissile material? No. 2, is it verifiable? No. 3, do inspections work to detect overt and covert violations of the agreement? No. 4, what is the impact of a 24-day delay to get an inspection? No. 5, does the IAEA have the capacity to implement the agreement? No. 6, what sanctions will be lifted, when and under what conditions? No. 7, do snapback sanctions really have a snap? No. 8, if we reject this deal, what are the alternatives that would be effective and achievable? The answer to my first question--does it block the four pathways to a nuclear bomb?--is yes. This deal sufficiently blocks the four pathways to get to a bomb. There is no shortcut to a nuclear bomb. This deal fundamentally addresses that fact. First, it blocks Iran's ability to have weapons-grade plutonium. The Arak reactor would be redesigned. Spent fuel would be sent out of Iran in perpetuity. Efforts to use Arak for weapons-grade plutonium would be detected. Second, it drastically cuts Iran's uranium enrichment capabilities by reducing Iran's inventory of active centrifuges at Fordow and Natanz. The deal also monitors the uranium supply chain and procurement channel for 25 years. Third, it reduces Iran's uranium stockpile below levels needed to make a single bomb. It cuts the uranium stockpile by 98 percent, to 300 kilograms, for 15 years. It puts uranium enrichment of the remaining stockpile at 3.67 percent. Fourth, by blocking the pathways, it makes it very difficult for Iran to develop a separate covert program. In answering my second and third questions--is it verifiable? do inspections work to detect overt and covert violations of the agreement?--I have found that this deal provides sufficient verification and inspection mechanisms. The IAEA has extensive access to Iran's declared nuclear sites, making the detection of violations and a covert program more likely. The IAEA also has direct access to centrifuge manufacturing sites to conduct inspections on short notice. Under Iran's additional protocol, the verification and inspection process has also been scientifically reviewed and validated by the U.S. Department of Energy's nuclear scientists and endorsed by 29 of the Nation's top scientists, including several Nobel prizewinners who described the inspection process as ``innovative and stringent.'' In answer to my fourth question--what is the impact of a 24-day delay to get inspections?--the IAEA will have daily access to Iran's declared nuclear facilities: Natanz, Arak and Fordo. The 24-day process would apply to undeclared sites only. These would be sites where the IAEA suspects Iran is conducting covert nuclear activities. In answer to my fifth question--does the IAEA have the capacity to implement the agreement?--I would say, yes. After visiting the IAEA in Vienna and delving into the organization, I believe that it has sufficient expertise to implement this deal. But all nations involved in its funding, including but not limited to the United States, have to be aggressively involved in monitoring the resources of the organization. In answer to my sixth question--what sanctions will be lifted, when and under what conditions?--the parts of the agreement that would lift sanctions are among its most complicated and controversial elements. I would have preferred a glidepath over a 3-year period, or longer, for sanctions relief. Under the agreement, however, no sanctions will be lifted until Iran takes key steps: limits its uranium enrichment program, resolves issues with possible military dimensions, converts the Arak facility, and allows for proper inspections. And these steps must be certified by the IAEA, which will deliver its key assessment of possible military dimensions on December 15. When these requirements are met, the U.S. will lift sanctions in key sectors: oil and gas; banking and financial services; insurance related; shipping, ship building and transport; gold and precious metals; software; and people, including international travel visas. That process will take 6 months to 1 year. The sanctions are lifted, not terminated, and can be snapped back, per the agreement. Which takes us to my seventh question--do snapback sanctions really have a snap? Russia, China, India, and our European partners were very active members of the negotiations with a common interest in Iran not having a nuclear weapon. I believe they would support a snapback in sanctions if a violation was identified and verified. But the snapback sanctions mechanism, while innovative, is untested. Finally, I have asked if we reject this deal what the alternatives are that would be effective and achievable. I have considered the alternatives very closely, but in the end, they don't present a more viable option to this deal. The two alternatives are more sanctions or military action. Some have suggested we reject this deal and impose unilateral sanctions to force Iran back to the table, but maintaining or stepping up sanctions will only work if the sanction coalition holds together. It is unclear if the European Union, Russia, China, India, and others would continue sanctions if Congress rejects this deal. At best, sanctions would be porous or limited to unilateral sanctions by the U.S., but these are the same reasons that the efficacy of the snapback provision is questioned. If you don't think snapback works, enhanced sanctions won't work either. There are also those who have proposed military action as an alternative to end Iran's nuclear program, but taking military airstrikes against Iran would only set the program back for 3 years. It would not terminate the program. Iran would continue to possess the knowledge of how to build a bomb and could redouble its resolve to obtain a weapon, completely unchecked. Iran would almost certainly use Hezbollah or other proxies to attack Israel or conduct terrorist or cyber attacks against U.S. interests. The military option is always on the table for the United States. We are not afraid to use it. But military action should be the last resort, since it will have only temporary effects versus the longer term effects of this deal. No deal is perfect, especially one negotiated with the Iranian regime. I have concluded that this Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action is the best option available to block Iran from having a nuclear bomb. For these reasons, I will vote in favor of this deal. However, Congress must also reaffirm our commitment to the safety and security of Israel.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, Sunday, September 13 marks the 21st anniversary of the Violence Against Women Act, VAWA. I have zero tolerance for domestic violence. No woman in this Nation should live in fear for her safety or the safety of her children. These victims need to have access to resources that can provide them with help. That is why I was proud to cosponsor this legislation when it was first enacted in 1994, and I am proud to have fought for every single one of its reauthorizations since. The far-reaching impact of this legislation cannot be stressed enough. It has impacted the lives of millions of people--playing a crucial role in our communities by providing important services to those who are most vulnerable. Since the original VAWA legislation, millions of women have called the National Domestic Violence hotline who were desperate, who were fearful for their lives. When they called that number, they got help. I know that it saved lives. As vice chairwoman of the Senate Appropriations Committee and the Commerce, Justice, Science, CJS, Appropriations Subcommittee, I fought to include $479 million in funding in the fiscal year 2016 CJS bill for the U.S. Department of Justice's Office on Violence Against Women--the highest funding level ever for these programs. What is it that these programs do? They coordinate community approaches to end violence and sexual assault. They fund victims' services like shelters and a national toll-free crisis hotline. They provide counseling to victims of rape and sexual assault. They help prevent sexual assaults from happening on college campuses. They also fund legal assistance to victims to be able to get court orders to be able to protect themselves from the abuser or from the stalker. Domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking are crimes of epidemic proportions, exacting terrible costs on individual lives and our communities. Twenty-five percent of U.S. women report that they have been physically assaulted by an intimate partner during their lifetimes, one in six have been the victims of rape or attempted rape, and the cost of domestic violence exceeds $8 billion each year. These are numbers and statistics, but they also represent real people. In my home State of Maryland, VAWA programs have personally impacted people's lives. For example, ``Rita'' who was married to ``Jamie''--who was physically abusive to her, and then sadly to their four-year-old son, and had been arrested on several occasions for dealing drugs--was able to get important legal assistance through a VAWA-funded program. Rita obtained a protective order against Jamie, pressed criminal charges against him, and he was found guilty of assault. Jamie is now where he belongs, locked behind bars. The Sexual Assault Legal Institute, SALI, a program of the Maryland Coalition Against Sexual Assault, was able to represent Rita in her divorce proceedings and custody case. Although this case remains ongoing, through VAWA, the SALI program made it possible for Rita to get the important legal services she needed to protect herself and her son. This story is just one of the many reasons why it is so important that we continue to invest in programs to combat domestic abuse and sexual assault, and help enable victims to rebuild their lives. This is why I want to recognize 21 years of VAWA as law today, and remember the countless number of lives it has impacted throughout the country. VAWA has put into place so many invaluable programs that are effective and relied upon by so many women and their families in Maryland and across the nation. That is the reason why I will continue to fight for it.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to commemorate the 25th anniversary of the NIH's Office of Research on Women's Health, which was established on September 10, 1990, to end gender bias in medical research. It is hard to believe that 25 years ago, women were not included in protocols at the NIH. Faux science said that our reproductive systems got in the way or that we had ``raging hormones.'' I was here 25 years ago, as a young Senator representing the great State of Maryland. I remember this big ``landmark'' study coming out. It showed that aspirin could help prevent heart attacks and save lives. Everyone was so excited. A relatively cheap and widely available medication that could improve cardiovascular health--this was a huge discovery. But then we looked closer at the study, and what did we find? We found that the study tested the effects of aspirin on more than 22,000 men, but zero women. Zero women. This big, landmark study enrolled only men. How could that be? So we took a closer look, and we found that this study--and the exclusion of women from clinical trials--was not an aberration. We found that prior to 1989 clinical trials of new drugs were routinely conducted predominantly on men, even though women consume approximately 80 percent of pharmaceuticals in the United States and make up half the population. To add fuel to the fire, a 1992 report by the U.S. General Accounting Office found that less than half of prescription drugs on the market had been analyzed for gender- related response differences. So what we had was a system where medical research was done based on male-only clinical trials, which led to the development of diagnoses, preventive measures, and treatments that were commonly used in women, despite never having been studied on women. As you might imagine, this didn't sit well with the women in Congress. It certainly didn't sit well with me. At that time--in 1990--a lot was going on. George Bush the elder was in the White House. The gulf war was about to begin. The Hubble Space Telescope had just been launched. We didn't have a confirmed NIH Director, and the Human Genome Project had just begun. There was a lot going on in the world. But the women of Congress knew that we had a real problem to solve. At the time, the Congressional Caucus for Women's Issues was comprised of myself and then- Representatives Pat Schroeder, Olympia Snowe, Connie Morella, and many others. On Aug. 22, 1990, Pat, Olympia, Connie, and I sent a landmark letter to the Acting Director of NIH, Dr. William Raub, requesting a public meeting to discuss how best to improve Federal research on women's health. We wanted all the key health people there: all 12 NIH Institute Directors, then-HHS Secretary Louis Sullivan, then-Surgeon General Antonia Novello, and the beloved Dr. Ruth Kirschstein. Let me speak a moment about Dr. Ruth Kirschstein, a woman who provided direction and leadership to NIH through much of the second half of the 20th century. She was a daughter of immigrant parents. She weathered disgraceful prejudice and stereotyping of women and Jews. But that didn't stop her. Thanks to hard work and perseverance, she went on to become a key player in the development of the polio vaccine, the first woman Director of a major Institute at NIH, and a lifelong champion of the importance of basic biomedical research and training programs that provided opportunity to all talented students. The contributions made by Dr. Ruth Kirschstein to the NIH, to women's health, and to better health for all are invaluable. But back to September 1990. On Sept. 10, 1990, the women of Congress got our meeting. We drove out to the NIH's Bethesda campus--Connie Morella, Olympia Snowe, Pat Schroeder, and Barb all showed up. So did Time magazine and the TV cameras. And what do you know. President Bush announced Dr. Bernadine Healy as the first female Director of the NIH. Dr. Healy was a friend, a colleague, and an adviser. She was a gifted physician and a brilliant researcher and administrator. She was also a very special advocate for women. She was deeply committed to the advancement of women in science and biomedical research. It is hard to believe that meeting at NIH happened 25 years ago today. And it marked the official establishment of the NIH's Office of Research on Women's Health. The NIH Office of Research on Women's Health was established to do three things: ensure that women are included in NIH-funded clinical research; set research priorities to address gaps in scientific knowledge; and promote biomedical research careers for women. Under Dr. Healy, the NIH's Office of Research on Women's Health really came alive. She appointed Dr. Vivian Pinn as its first Director. And today the Office works in partnership with NIH's Institutes and Centers to ensure that women's health research is part of the scientific framework at NIH and throughout the scientific community. I am so proud of what they have accomplished over the past 25 years. Thanks to the Office of Research on Women's Health, the Women's Health Initiative was conducted. I remember when Dr. Healy came to me with the idea for this study. She needed money to get a study underway looking at post-menopausal hormone therapy. I was so proud to work on the Appropriations Committee to get Dr. Healy and NIH the money they needed. I worked hand-in-hand with Senators Kennedy, Harkin, and Specter. The Women's Health Initiative had groundbreaking findings that led to big changes in hormone replacement treatment protocols. As a result, we have seen significant reductions in breast cancer rates. We have reduced the incidence of breast cancer by 10,000 to 15,000 cases per year. Just think, this study alone--the brainchild of Dr. Healy--has helped save 375,000 lives over the past 25 years. But the Office of Research on Women's Health has done so much more. Today, more than half of participants in NIH-funded clinical trials are women. The office worked with the National Cancer Institute to develop a vaccine that prevents the transmission of Human Papilloma Virus, HPV, resulting in fewer cervical cancer cases. The office worked with the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases on a landmark study which showed that giving the drug AZT to certain HIV-infected women reduced risk of mother-to-child transmission of HIV by two- thirds. The office has supported major advances in knowledge about genetic risk for breast cancer and discovery of BRCA1 and BRCA2 genetic risk markers. The office codirects the NIH Working Group on Women in Biomedical Careers, which develops and evaluates policies to promote recruitment, retention, and sustained advancement of women scientists. We have come so far over the past 25 years, but we still have a long way to go. There remain striking gender differences in many diseases and conditions, including autoimmune diseases, cancer, cardiovascular diseases, depression and brain disorders, Alzheimer's disease, diabetes, and addictive disorders. We still don't have enough information on the involvement of women in clinical research and trials. We still don't have reliable data on how drugs currently on the market affect women differently than men. And still to this day, women are often prescribed dosages devised for men's average weights and metabolisms. As you can see, there remains work to be done. But that doesn't mean we can't take a moment to commemorate how far we have come over the past quarter century. I am immensely proud of the work done by the NIH's Office of Research on Women's Health and all those who have worked day-in and day-out to end gender bias in medical research, including Dr. Ruth Kirschstein, Dr. Bernadine Healy, Dr. Vivian Pinn, and Dr. Janine Clayton, current Director of the office. I very much look forward to what the next 25 years will bring. Thank you.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise to speak about the urgent need to authorize the Sewall-Belmont House & Museum as part of the National Park Service. Sewall-Belmont is a critical piece of our Nation's history. It was the home of Alice Paul and the National Woman's Party, whose perseverance brought the movement for women's suffrage over the finish line with the enactment of the 19th Amendment to the Constitution. Today it helps tell the story of one of the most important chapters in our Nation's history by highlighting the political strategies and techniques of Alice Paul and the National Woman's Party, which became the blueprint for civil rights organizations throughout the 20th century. The Sewall-Belmont House was more than a house--it was a home to great minds and leaders, thanks to the generosity of women like Alva Belmont. It was a place where women could live, rest, and work without fear of harassment while they fought boldly for the ballot. In the 1970s, when they were threatening to tear down this building to make way for the Senate offices, Pat Schroeder and the women of the House rallied to save it. Now it is a museum where today's generation can learn about the courageous women who came before them. This house has always been the scene of making history, and has always stood for women's empowerment. However, today Sewall-Belmont is in dire need of federal support if it is to continue to serve the public. While the National Woman's Party has been successfully operating the House and managing its historic collection, it has been forced to cut back on public tours, research requests, and educational programs due to the growing capital needs of managing an aging building. Sewall-Belmont is a National Historic Landmark, listed on the National Register of Historic Places, and one of four designations supported by the Save America's Treasures legislation. The National Park Service recently completed a feasibility study which concluded that Sewall-Belmont's deep historical significance and unique contribution to our Nation's history warrants its full inclusion into the National Park Service. This would not only give it the resources it needs to continue to educate the public, but would send a powerful message that women's history is an important part of our Nation's history. Women fought for decades against great onslaught to secure the right to vote. One hundred and sixty-seven years ago, in July 1848, the first-ever women's rights convention was held in Seneca Falls. This convention was the beginning of one of the greatest social movements of all time, kicking off the actions of the first generation of suffragists and making women's suffrage a national topic. At this convention, Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Lucretia Mott stood up to meet the challenges of their time. They mobilized and they organized the American women's rights movement. They called for a convention; they called for action; they made history; they changed history. And that revolution keeps on going. In the 20th century, Alice Paul took the lead in the women's suffrage movement. In 1916, she formed the National Woman's Party which would fight for suffrage until the 19th Amendment to the Constitution was finally enacted in 1920--long overdue. Alice Paul was a groundbreaker and a changemaker, risking arrest and inhumane treatment so the women of America could be part of a true democracy. With their banners and sashes, Alice Paul led the Iron Jawed Angels marching on Washington to President Wilson's White House. Her Silent Sentinels stood in rain, sleet, and snow as daily reminders of America's conscience. They called for women's right to vote at a time when women didn't have a voice. Their cause captivated the nation! With each step they took, they marched toward a future where women weren't just able to vote, but were on the ballot. Wouldn't Alice Paul be so proud to see twenty women in the United States Senate? I'm so proud to be one of them. The women of the Senate are changing history by changing the tide and changing the tone. When I arrived in the Senate in 1986, I was the first Democratic woman elected in her own right, and the sixteenth woman to serve. There are more women serving right this minute, today--fourteen Democrats and six Republicans--than had served in all of American history when I arrived. I am so proud of all of the accomplishments made by the women of the Senate. But we didn't get here by ourselves. Not a single one of us would be here without Alice Paul and the National Woman's Party. That is why it is so important that we not only preserve the place where they fought for women's full inclusion in society, the Sewall-Belmont House, but elevate it to its rightful spot among our Nation's most important national treasures. There are very few sites in the National Park System that celebrate women's history. I am proud that Maryland is home to one of those sites with the newly authorized Harriet Tubman Underground Railroad National Historical Park in Cambridge. But it is not enough. Today, women have the right to vote and the right to be on the ballot. But we have so much more to accomplish to become fully equal members of society. It is critical that we remind today's generation of women and men of this long and important history so that we can keep in mind the lessons learned from these movements as we march toward full equality. As I serve my last term in the United States Senate, there is nothing more important to me than preserving the legacy of this fight.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, this month the Senate Appropriations Committee completed its work on 12 bills to fund the government for fiscal year 2016, which begins October 1, 2015. I congratulate Chairman Cochran and his subcommittee chairs for a full and open process. They worked hand in hand with me and my ranking Democratic members. But their bills are based on the postsequester levels of the Republican budget resolution. The bills reported by the committee are too spartan to meet the needs of the American people. The difference between the Republican budget and the President's budget request is $74 billion. That is a lot. But even with that increase, the discretionary top line will be equal to what we spent in 2010, 6 years ago. I would like to talk about one example of the real impact of the Republican sequester level budget--failing our veterans. Veterans deserve promises made and promises kept. Instead, the Senate fiscal year 2016 Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies bill is at least $857 million short of what is needed for veteran health care. And the House is even worse, at least $1.4 billion below what is needed. At those levels, about 70,000 fewer veterans will receive medical care. Despite record demand for services, our veterans are still waiting to get appointments at hospitals and clinics. In fact, the electronic wait list has grown by almost 10,000 over the past 2 months. Sequester will result in waitlists growing exponentially. Sequester budgeting for veterans' medical care means almost 150,000 veterans living with hepatitis C will be in limbo, not receiving new, lifesaving drugs. It is not just care that is shortchanged. Sequester budgeting means hospitals and clinics continue to deteriorate. The VA has identified between $10 billion and $12 billion of backlogged code violations and deficiencies at hospitals and clinics across the country. In fiscal year 2013, the VA spent $1.3 billion repairing clinics, but for fiscal year 2016 the Republican bills cut funding in half, even as the backlog grows. Yesterday, the Republican leader stated that he did not want a government shutdown. Encouragingly, he added, ``At some point we'll negotiate the way forward.'' Democrats are ready. Since May, we have been asking to negotiate to eliminate sequester with a sequel to Murray-Ryan. The only way we will have shutdown, showdown, and government by self-made crisis is if the Republican majority refuses to send the President bills he can sign and instead sends bills that are too spartan or contain poison pill riders like prohibiting funding for Planned Parenthood or signature initiatives like the Affordable Care Act and climate pollution rules. Whether it is funding our troops or keeping our promises to veterans, we can't do it without a new budget deal. Freezing Federal spending doesn't meet the growing, complex needs of the Nation. None of us were elected to make America weaker. Yet sequester makes us weaker and sequester hollows out America. America deserves better, but we need a new budget deal to do it. Democrats are ready to get serious and get to the table. We need to end sequester for defense with no more gimmicks and end sequester for programs not funded in the defense bill that protect our country and make it great.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, today marks the 50th anniversary of one of the most important civil rights bills we have ever come together as a nation to pass: the Voting Rights Act of 1965. I am proud to commemorate this anniversary as the Senator for Maryland. Marylanders have a rich history of battling discrimination, going back to the darkest days of slavery. The brilliant Frederick Douglass was the voice of the voiceless in the struggle against slavery. The courageous Harriet Tubman delivered 300 slaves to freedom on her Underground Railroad. And the great Thurgood Marshall went from arguing Brown v. Board of Education to serving as a Supreme Court Justice. All were Marylanders. Not just Marylanders but civil rights leaders and activists from all over this country fought hard for the right to vote. Over 600 people marched from Selma to Montgomery. They were stopped and beaten but not defeated. These brave men and women continued to march, continued to fight until they got the right to vote. They had to challenge the establishment and to say ``now'' when others told them to ``wait''. Their fight and their struggle culminated in the passage of the Voting Rights Act. This legislation guaranteed one of our most important civil rights and reflected one of our most fundamental values: that all men and women have the right to vote. The struggle to truly fulfill this fundamental value--this fundamental right--is far from over. There are too many neighborhoods in this country, particularly in minority communities, that are the target of voter intimidation, barriers to access, and ever-changing requirements. The Supreme Court's decision in Shelby County v. Holder only made this problem worse by stripping the Federal Government of its ability to protect voters from this kind of disenfranchisement--whether it was the old-fashioned kind or the new-fashioned kind. The fight for equal access to the ballot continues today, and like those who came before us, we cannot take ``no'' for an answer. We must ensure that any and all undue barriers to participation in our democracy are broken down. We must restore the protections of the Voting Rights Act that were struck down by the Supreme Court so that the promise of the right to vote is extended to all men and women. So while we look back proudly on the passage of the Voting Rights Act, we must recognize that the need for its protections is as great today as it was 50 years ago. The words of Justice Thurgood Marshall still ring true: ``I wish I could say that racism and prejudice were only distant memories. We must dissent from the indifference. We must dissent from the apathy. We must dissent from the fear, the hatred and the mistrust. . . . We must dissent because America can do better, because America has no choice but to do better.'' Today marks an important milestone in our history. As we come together to celebrate this anniversary, we must come together to defend the rights that this legislation was enacted to protect because if discrimination of any kind exists anywhere in America, we can and we must do better.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise to speak about the urgent need to authorize the Sewall-Belmont House & Museum as part of the National Park Service. Sewall-Belmont is a critical piece of our Nation's history. It was the home of Alice Paul and the National Woman's Party, whose perseverance brought the movement for women's suffrage over the finish line with the enactment of the 19th Amendment to the Constitution. Today it helps tell the story of one of the most important chapters in our Nation's history by highlighting the political strategies and techniques of Alice Paul and the National Woman's Party, which became the blueprint for civil rights organizations throughout the 20th century. The Sewall-Belmont House was more than a house--it was a home to great minds and leaders, thanks to the generosity of women like Alva Belmont. It was a place where women could live, rest, and work without fear of harassment while they fought boldly for the ballot. In the 1970s, when they were threatening to tear down this building to make way for the Senate offices, Pat Schroeder and the women of the House rallied to save it. Now it is a museum where today's generation can learn about the courageous women who came before them. This house has always been the scene of making history, and has always stood for women's empowerment. However, today Sewall-Belmont is in dire need of federal support if it is to continue to serve the public. While the National Woman's Party has been successfully operating the House and managing its historic collection, it has been forced to cut back on public tours, research requests, and educational programs due to the growing capital needs of managing an aging building. Sewall-Belmont is a National Historic Landmark, listed on the National Register of Historic Places, and one of four designations supported by the Save America's Treasures legislation. The National Park Service recently completed a feasibility study which concluded that Sewall-Belmont's deep historical significance and unique contribution to our Nation's history warrants its full inclusion into the National Park Service. This would not only give it the resources it needs to continue to educate the public, but would send a powerful message that women's history is an important part of our Nation's history. Women fought for decades against great onslaught to secure the right to vote. One hundred and sixty-seven years ago, in July 1848, the first-ever women's rights convention was held in Seneca Falls. This convention was the beginning of one of the greatest social movements of all time, kicking off the actions of the first generation of suffragists and making women's suffrage a national topic. At this convention, Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Lucretia Mott stood up to meet the challenges of their time. They mobilized and they organized the American women's rights movement. They called for a convention; they called for action; they made history; they changed history. And that revolution keeps on going. In the 20th century, Alice Paul took the lead in the women's suffrage movement. In 1916, she formed the National Woman's Party which would fight for suffrage until the 19th Amendment to the Constitution was finally enacted in 1920--long overdue. Alice Paul was a groundbreaker and a changemaker, risking arrest and inhumane treatment so the women of America could be part of a true democracy. With their banners and sashes, Alice Paul led the Iron Jawed Angels marching on Washington to President Wilson's White House. Her Silent Sentinels stood in rain, sleet, and snow as daily reminders of America's conscience. They called for women's right to vote at a time when women didn't have a voice. Their cause captivated the nation! With each step they took, they marched toward a future where women weren't just able to vote, but were on the ballot. Wouldn't Alice Paul be so proud to see twenty women in the United States Senate? I'm so proud to be one of them. The women of the Senate are changing history by changing the tide and changing the tone. When I arrived in the Senate in 1986, I was the first Democratic woman elected in her own right, and the sixteenth woman to serve. There are more women serving right this minute, today--fourteen Democrats and six Republicans--than had served in all of American history when I arrived. I am so proud of all of the accomplishments made by the women of the Senate. But we didn't get here by ourselves. Not a single one of us would be here without Alice Paul and the National Woman's Party. That is why it is so important that we not only preserve the place where they fought for women's full inclusion in society, the Sewall-Belmont House, but elevate it to its rightful spot among our Nation's most important national treasures. There are very few sites in the National Park System that celebrate women's history. I am proud that Maryland is home to one of those sites with the newly authorized Harriet Tubman Underground Railroad National Historical Park in Cambridge. But it is not enough. Today, women have the right to vote and the right to be on the ballot. But we have so much more to accomplish to become fully equal members of society. It is critical that we remind today's generation of women and men of this long and important history so that we can keep in mind the lessons learned from these movements as we march toward full equality. As I serve my last term in the United States Senate, there is nothing more important to me than preserving the legacy of this fight.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, I am strongly opposed to the bill before us today, S. 1881, introduced by Senator Ernst. I stand in strong support of Planned Parenthood, which every year provides 2.7 million people--including over 30,000 Marylanders and one in five women--with important health care services, such as breast and cervical cancer screenings, sexually transmitted disease, STD, testing and counseling, and birth control. The bill before us today does one thing. It defunds Planned Parenthood. Every year Planned Parenthood health centers receive approximately $520 million in Federal funds to provide preventive health services to 2.7 million people in the United States, including one in five women. These services include cancer screenings, STD testing and counseling, and birth control. If the Ernst bill passes, Planned Parenthood would lose that money and could no longer provide those services to women and men in need. For decades, anti-choice activists have looked for any excuse to eliminate funding to Planned Parenthood health centers because they use non-Federal funds to provide legal abortions. This time around, the excuse is that we should defund Planned Parenthood because of some misleading videos. Videos that, while uncomfortable in nature, have shown nothing illegal to date. Let us talk about what Planned Parenthood means to Maryland. In my State, Planned Parenthood is a leading provider of high-quality and affordable health care for so many women, men, and young people. Every year in MD, more than 33,000 patients receive health care from Planned Parenthood health centers. And what types of health care are Marylanders getting from these health centers? Approximately 5,000 breast exams every year. Nearly 4,000 cervical cancer screenings and Pap tests. More than 34,000 STD tests and counseling sessions. And more than 26,000 Marylanders rely on Planned Parenthood health centers for birth control. The bill before us today is just the latest in a series of unrelenting attacks on Planned Parenthood. Those supporting this bill are simply latching on to yet another misguided attempt to try and eliminate Planned Parenthood in an effort to undermine women's reproductive rights. I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill on behalf of the 2.7 million people, and 1 in 5 American women, who rely on Planned Parenthood for their health care.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak as in morning business for no more than 10 minutes.

Ms. MIKULSKI. I thank the Presiding Officer. 50th Anniversary of Medicare Mr. President, I rise today to commemorate the 50th anniversary of Medicare. Fifty years ago, on July 30, 1965, President Lyndon Johnson signed into law the legislation to create Medicare. I say thank God for Medicare. It was a great idea 50 years ago, 50 months ago, 50 weeks ago, and 50 minutes ago. I stand on the Senate floor to say that we must keep Medicare as Medicare and keep the integrity and solvency of Medicare. We cannot turn Medicare into a voucher; we cannot dilute it, phase it out, or eliminate it. And until my last vote is cast in the Senate, I will defend Medicare. I saw what it meant. In the summer of 1965, I had just graduated from the University of Maryland School of Social Work. Change was in the air. The civil rights movement was making its progress toward history and moving forward. There were beginning doubts about the Vietnam war, and the Nation was recovering from the assassination of President Kennedy. President Johnson wanted to lead in a bold way, having had a landslide victory, and he said he wanted to create a great society. He knew that a great society meant that we had to have a great heart. What we knew then, as we know today, is that people feared financial bankruptcy because of health care costs. They were terrified that a heart attack that resulted in hospitalization would bankrupt the family. They delayed the idea of getting cataract surgery, which then needed to be done in the hospital, not because they were afraid of the surgery but because they were afraid of the cost of surgery. If you were a small, independent business person over 65, you often had no health insurance. It didn't matter whether you were in agriculture or an urban small business. Medicare changed all of that. Medicare protected people from two things. No. 1, it protected them so that they could go to a doctor when they needed to and have health care when they needed it. No. 2, it protected them from financial disaster. Today, 55 million Americans--nearly every senior--have access to Medicare, including 1 million seniors. What was so significant about that bill is that it provided universal access to doctors. No. 2, it had no barriers because of preexisting conditions. No. 3, it was portable because it was national. Whether a person was in Maryland or Utah or whatever State, Medicare was the national program, and it was viewed as an earned benefit. America at that time had many things going for it. One was that we had a sense of self-confidence that we could really solve problems and meet the compelling needs of our country, and the other was that we had compassion. One of my guiding principles, which I believed then as well, and that guided the Nation at that time was the guiding principle of honor thy father and mother. We knew that it was not only a great commandment to live by, but it was a good policy to live by. Therefore, we ensured that all Americans had access to health care, regardless of their income. As I said, in the 1960s--1965 was the year that I actually graduated from the school of social work. I worked for a program called ``responding to the elderly's abilities and sicknesses otherwise neglected.'' It was called Operation Reason. Our job--a social worker and a nurse, one of my oldest friends from school--was to help elderly people know about the program and sign up for the program and help them use the program. It was the joy--the sheer joy--people experienced when they heard about this program, knowing that simply because they were American citizens, their needs would be taken care of, with a modest premium. Part A was hospitalization--a safety net. In those days, care for significant illnesses had to be done in the hospital. The advances of medicine and medical technology has allowed us now to do less in the hospital, such as cataract surgery and other surgeries being done on an outpatient basis. Those advances weren't there in the 1960s. So people no longer had to fear the cost of hospitalization. Then there was this program called Part B. That meant seniors had access to see a doctor, to see if they had diabetes, to see if they had high blood pressure, to see why they couldn't see those grandchildren or do their work on the family farm, the small business or in the factories that we had in those days. What they needed was maybe better eyesight--that cataract surgery. Maybe they were feeling old and slow not because of age but because they had diabetes or other issues. Then, of course, there was the cost of the dreaded ``c'' word--cancer. My colleague and I worked in the neighborhoods to make sure we took care of how people could get to the facilities, know about those services, and know about those barriers. In those days, Baltimore seniors were struggling. When they retired, it was often the end of health insurance. It meant nearly half of the seniors were uninsured. They went to clinics, standing in very long lines, often shuttled back and forth from one clinic to another. They got their blood work here, they looked at their kidneys there, and they looked at their eyes here. Their concept of primary care was fragmented. Before Medicare, millions of seniors, as I have said, were just one heart attack away from bankruptcy or one cancer diagnosis away from destitution. That was before Medicare. Many were skeptical about Medicare. Once again, the other party fought it. They were wondering what it would mean. People were skeptical. Was this a big government move or was it a big opportunity? My job was to show them that this program was not about big government, but about government with a big heart. After four months of operation, we had enrolled hundreds of people into this much needed program. And what has it meant? Before Medicare, 48 percent of seniors had no health insurance. Today, only 2 percent are uninsured. Out-of-pocket costs have decreased. Before Medicare, seniors paid 56 percent of health care costs out of their pocket. Imagine what that meant if you were hospitalized in those days. Life expectancy is now 5 years longer. Death from heart disease has dropped. Our elderly poverty rate has declined. Seniors have access to more affordable drugs. This isn't about numbers, and it isn't about statistics. It is about people. It is about the compelling needs of human beings. It is about government that says: I am on your side and at your side, and we are going to use our national resources, our national brain power, our national know-how to be able to create a program that you can participate in and that at the end of the day, your life will be better and our society will be improved. I am really proud of what the Congress and the President did 50 years ago. I hope we have that same attitude again. It is not about big government; it is about government with a big heart. I will say this: There are those who continue to talk about ending Medicare. Most recently, a Presidential candidate who I think has incredible ability--Jeb Bush--said he wanted to phase out Medicare. I don't get it. How do we phase out Medicare? Do we start first with age? Do we phase out 90-year-olds, and then the next year we phase out 80- year-olds? How do we phase it out? Do we phase it out by disease? OK, this year, no more diabetics; OK, this year, no more cancer patients-- they really cost a lot of money. What does it mean to phase it out, and what are we phasing it out to? Medicare cannot be privatized. We must continue it as a guaranteed benefit. Do we need to reform it, take a look at it, refresh it? The answer is yes. We have done that, such as when we added Part B. But I will say this: No matter what, thank God for Medicare. When we go around this country, no matter how they feel about government or about Congress, people love Social Security and they love Medicare. We have to defend it. We have to make sure it is there as we need it. So on this 50th anniversary of Medicare, let's come together to make sure we continue to be focused not on big government but on a sense of self-confidence and a belief in our country to solve big problems and that we continue to act like a country with a big heart. We can do it because we have done it in the past. I will conclude by saying: Thank God for Medicare, and I thank God for the ability to be here on the floor of the Senate to defend it. I yield the floor.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I support the bipartisan DRIVE Act because we can't make the perfect the enemy of the good. This bill will provide 3 years of funding and stability to States that want to plan major multiyear construction projects. This means badly needed jobs in construction for labor unions, contractors, engineers, and manufacturers of transportation materials. This is good news. According to the American Society of Civil Engineers, Maryland's infrastructure has a C- rating. Our roads and transit have a C- rating and our bridges a B- rating. Nearly a quarter of Maryland's major roadways are in poor condition and 317 of our 5,291 bridges are structurally deficient. In addition, Marylanders face some of the worst traffic congestion in the Nation. I commute every day from Baltimore to Washington and know how bad it has become. The Washington region is the No. 1 most congested area in the Nation and the Baltimore region is the fifth. These conditions cost Maryland's commuters between $1,200 and $1,500 per year. We need at least $4 billion to replace the B&P and Howard Street tunnels in Baltimore. If we want to double stack these major rail arteries for the Port of Baltimore, we need $8 billion. In 2013, the State of Maryland was forced to pass a gas tax. Sadly, today our statewide transportation needs still remain unmet. If we add up every Maryland county's No. 1 transportation priority, it equals $20 billion. Yet, we still have competing job corridor needs in the urban and rural parts of the State. That is why I was hoping for a more substantial bill--a true shot in the arm to tackle our aging infrastructure and ease congestion. But I will vote for the DRIVE Act because doing nothing is unacceptable and short-term extensions do not provide the planning and funding certainty States need to put millions of workers on the job. These are jobs in construction, engineering, and manufacturing right here in the United States. Bright spots in this bill for Maryland include the new formula-based freight program. These additional dollars will help the class I railroads in Maryland, CSX and Norfolk Southern, and our short line railroads. It also is good news for the operations at the Port of Baltimore. I also appreciate the strengthened transit safety oversight role of the U.S. Department of Transportation for the Nation's metro systems. While I would have liked the Metro Senators' stronger amendment to be debated and adopted, the underlying bill is a good step in the right direction for safety. Safety is our collective No. 1 priority for the riders and workers of the Washington Metro system. The bill gives the Secretary of Transportation the authority to establish minimum safety standards for the safe operations of metro systems. This builds upon what I was able to accomplish in MAP-21 working with Senators Dodd, Shelby, and Menendez. We gave the department new authority to establish and enforce Federal safety standards focusing on railcars. The bill also requires the Secretary to review the existing safety standards and protocols of metro systems. It requires a report to Congress with the findings, list of recommendations, needed legislative changes, and the action the Secretary will take to establish Federal safety standards. Before I conclude, I would like to voice my disappointment that the DRIVE Act is not stronger on safety. I am a cosponsor of the Feinstein- Wicker amendment on double 33 truck trailers. Because of the parliamentary procedures to prevent consideration of amendments, including germane amendments, this amendment was not considered. I am opposed to extending the length of double truck trailers. The State of Maryland prohibits operation of these trucks. I have heard from Maryland families who have lost loved ones in truck crashes. The Slattery family lost Mrs. Slattery and the crash left their son, Matthew, with severe brain damage. Mr. Slattery and Matthew came to the Appropriations Committee markup of the fiscal year 2016 Transportation, Housing and Urban Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill. Sadly, this same amendment failed by a tie vote of 15 to 15. I also heard from Don Bowman, owner of D.M. Bowman, Incorporated, a family-owned trucking company in Williamsport, MD, and our State's fire service community. They all think double 33 truck trailers are a dangerous idea. I commend Senator Boxer for her hard work on this bill. Passing this bill is the right thing to do for jobs and our economy.