Barbara Mikulski

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, ordinarily I would wholeheartedly and enthusiastically agree with the Senator from North Carolina, but here I have to respectfully disagree, not with her intent but where she is getting the money. I rise to oppose this amendment because it would take $75 million from State and local law enforcement that has already been troubled and under siege and give it to the Department of Homeland Security, an agency that has its own appropriations. I acknowledge the work of North Carolina, what they are doing, the fact that they have a unique partnership that has been done. We acknowledge that, and we acknowledge that other law enforcement would also benefit. But she is talking about $75 million. The Department of Homeland Security received billions. The place for the Senator to have made this fight was when Homeland Security was on the floor, and she should have offered that as an amendment on Homeland Security and gotten it through an offset or gotten it in Homeland Security or gotten it by raising the Budget Act under a point of order. Let me tell you where we are. When we received the President's budget in February, I was horrified, as was my colleague. The COPS Program was eliminated. That is the program that actually puts money into the Federal checkbook to put cops on the street to fight violent crime. But it was eliminated. Under President Bill Clinton, who created the program--of course, Congress creates the programs, but working in partnership with the President when we did have the White House, we put on the streets of America 118,000 cops through that program, and we reduced violent crime by 10 percent. But in this President's budget it was eliminated. Then we saw another program called Byrne grants--not B-U-R-N, as if when you are injured in a fire, but B-Y-R-N-E, named after Edward Byrne, a police officer killed in the line of duty--it was President Bush's dad who created that program, again, with money going to local law enforcement to fight local problems, including sheriffs' departments. Now, the Senator from North Carolina is going to gut State and local law enforcement by taking $75 million out of it. We cannot do this. Violent crime in America is on the rise--murder, burglaries, rape, other things so despicable I do not want to speak about it on the Senate floor. When the Senator talks about her sheriffs, I have sheriffs too. But I am going to be one of the posse that helps them shoot straight. That means they need their resources that will come from State and local law enforcement grants we are going to provide for them to either add more police officers, have technology upgrades to maximize their efficiency and help them get real convictions, and have the kinds of things that will help them get the bulletproof vests they need, the other more advanced equipment that our rural communities--as the Presiding Officer from Colorado knows--do not have. So what we did in the Mikulski-Shelby bill is restore $1.5 billion so we could have cops on the beat, so we could have money to fund local law enforcement for technological upgrades, for the equipment they need such as bulletproof vests to protect themselves while they are busy helping us. We have to make sure they have those resources. I do not deny what the Senator is talking about, but I will say what she is trying to do right now would gut the local law enforcement program. She would have a Draconian impact on our ability to put cops on the beat and to also give them the equipment to protect themselves, the technology that is needed to extend their effectiveness and make sure the thin blue line does not get thinner. So I think this $75 million request is inappropriate. It is inappropriate not because of what she wants to accomplish, but it is inappropriate because she is taking money out of a Justice account and putting it in a Homeland Security account, when we had a Homeland Security bill and the Senator could have added it there. That was the place to make this fight. Now, we are afraid that no matter how well intentioned this amendment is--and I know it is very well intentioned and has a lot of intellectual rigor behind it--it is not appropriate to take money out of State and local law enforcement and give it to Homeland Security, when they have their own whole subcommittee, and that was the place to make that fight. It is not about which committee. This is not about committees. But I am telling you, the Senator from Alabama and I have worked hard--really worked hard--to make sure we are helping our local law enforcement--our very first line of defense--with the resources they need with more officers and better equipment. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote in relation to the Dole amendment occur at 5 p.m., with no amendment in order to the amendment prior to the vote and that the time until then be equally divided and controlled in the usual form.

Ms. MIKULSKI. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 3279

Ms. MIKULSKI. I am glad that the subcommittee will include $1.5 million in NOAA funding in the report to address the environmental needs at Suisun Bay and I pledge to carry that funding through conference. juvenile accountability

Ms. MIKULSKI. I, too, thank the Appropriations Committee staff, particularly Charles Kieffer and his able team. Mr. President, I thank the floor staff of both parties, because we worked together and showed that you can actually run a bill and have collegiality and have civility and yet have robust debate where we can disagree without being disagreeable. With that, we are ready to vote.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I will agree to the yeas and nays. First, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to vote on the motion to commit; that no amendments be in order to the motion; that if the motion is defeated, no further amendments or motions be in order and the bill be read a third time, and the Senate proceed to vote on passage of the bill; that upon passage, the Senate insist on its amendments, request a conference with the House on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses, and the Chair be authorized to appoint conferees on the part of the Senate; and that the subcommittee be appointed along with Senators Byrd and Cochran; that following morning business on Wednesday, October 17, the Senate then proceed to the consideration of H.R. 3043, the Labor-HHS appropriations bill; and further, that if the motion is agreed to, then the remaining provisions of this agreement be nullified.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Ms. MIKULSKI. I thank the Senator for his leadership in this area and look forward to working with him on securing funding that is necessary to fight violent crime across the country. I know from our conversations of your concern for your home State of Pennsylvania and your particular concern about the recent rise in violent crime in Philadelphia.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, I yield to the Senator from New Jersey, an outspoken opponent of this amendment, such time as he may consume, reserving for myself the last 5 minutes of my time for my own closing argument.

Ms. MIKULSKI. I appreciate the Senator's remarks and I look forward to working with him whenever the opportunity arises to strengthen our capacity to fight crime through increased funding for both law enforcement and prevention and intervention strategies for youthful offenders.

Ms. MIKULSKI. The reduction in funding for this program has been an unfortunate result of overall budget cuts in recent years. We have worked hard to maintain funding and restore cuts that impact State and local law enforcement. It is our duty first and foremost to protect the American public. I share your support for the JABG Program and would support your amendment if it were possible to find funding for an additional $30 million. I regret to say that is not the case.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, we are now coming to the closing hour of this debate. As we get ready for the Republican leadership to offer an amendment, then Senator Shelby and I will be making the appropriate motion to move to final passage.

Ms. MIKULSKI. I ask unanimous consent that at 6 p.m. today, the Senate proceed to vote in relation to the Vitter amendment, No. 3277, with no amendment in order to the amendment prior to the vote, and that the time from 5:30 to 6 be equally divided and controlled between Senators Mikulski and Vitter or their designees.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on final passage on the Commerce-Justice-Science bill. I thank my colleagues and staff for their cooperation.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Certainly.

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

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to hold a hearing during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, October 16, 2007, at 10 a.m., in room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building. The purpose of this hearing is to review the efforts of the Transportation Security Administration, to meet the requirements in the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007, and other plans the agency has to strengthen transportation security in the U.S.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Change Of Vote

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I further ask unanimous consent that amendment No. 3214 be withdrawn.

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

Ms. MIKULSKI. I yield the floor.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that now, at 2:15, Senator Murray of Washington State be recognized for up to 7 minutes; that following those remarks there be 30 minutes of debate with respect to the Thune amendment, No. 3317, with the time equally divided and controlled between Senators Thune and Harkin or their designees, that no amendment be in order to the amendment prior to the vote, and that the vote in relation to this amendment occur upon the disposition of the Ensign amendment No. 3295, with 2 minutes of debate prior to the vote; and that after the first vote in the sequence the vote time be limited to 10 minutes each.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, in about 15 minutes we will be voting on a series of amendments, and I wish to comment now on one of them, the Ensign amendment No. 3295. I want my colleagues to know I oppose the Ensign amendment No. 3295. What the Senator from Nevada is proposing is to reduce the NASA funding in this bill by $150 million and to put it into something called the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program. Again, we are pitting good ideas against each other. That is why you have to really rely upon the chairman and ranking member, who kind of strike a balance with this bill. In the CJS bill, we did want to fund the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program. We know how important it is because it reimbursed the States for detaining illegal immigrants. This is a priority for this subcommittee, and we provided $400 million to do that. We are very aware that State budgets are stretched thin, that they should not bear the cost of paying the bill for detaining illegal immigrants. We do not want to create another unfunded Federal mandate there. So working with my colleague on the other side of the aisle, we made sure there was $400 million in it. Now, we acknowledge that the Senator from Nevada would like to increase it. We would like to increase it as well. But already the President is threatening a veto because we restored the funding for the COPS Program. Now, the cut to NASA is not a benign cut. It would be a devastating blow to NASA. It would be a major setback to the exploration programs and a devastating blow to the science programs. It would harm our effort to do very important things, one of which is a key priority for funding the next-generation shuttle. The shuttle, as we now know it, will retire in 2010. It is getting older, it has fewer flights that it can continue, and we need to be returning to space with a new vehicle. It is the No. 1 priority, on a bipartisan basis, for Senators Kay Bailey Hutchison, Richard Shelby, Bill Nelson, and Barbara Mikulski, who kind have been the space Senators here. Also, it is the No. 1 priority for the administration, and it is the No. 1 priority for the director of NASA that we need not delay in getting ready for that vehicle that returns us to space. From 2010, for another 3 to 5 years, we will have no access in space. We are going to rely on the kindness of allies to go back. We cannot lose time or ground. Our national security and our national honor depend upon it. Also, this would have a tremendous impact on the state of science, which goes to major efforts in terms of better understanding our planet Earth, where we do suspect intelligent life, and also the impact of climate changes. It is wonderful that we win the Nobel Prize on climate change--and we support our former colleague, Vice President Gore--but we have to keep winning those. Remember, the Nobel Prize not only went to Gore but to the scientists studying this. Regardless how you feel about the climate crisis, I think we need sound science and sensible solutions. So please, while we are looking at how are we going to pay the bills for the detention of illegal aliens in State facilities, don't penalize NASA. That would be an incredible setback to national security, to national honor, to national innovation, and a key administration priority. So I hope that when the Ensign amendment No. 3295 comes up for a vote, my colleagues will join me in tabling this amendment. I cannot say enough about the cooperation of Senator Shelby and his staff and about finding a balance in this bill, because we had so many competing needs, and in each one we tried to strike the balance. We had the will, but we didn't quite have the wallet to do what we needed to do. But we certainly have made significant progress and went well beyond downpayments in meeting our responsibility. I yield the floor.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I too oppose the Ensign amendment. We have met our responsibility to the State Criminal Alien Program. We have put $400 million in it. I believe the amendment is unnecessary. I oppose it, and I move to table the amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.