Barbara Mikulski

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, as the vice chair of the Committee on Appropriations, I rise to speak on the Homeland Security funding bill. This morning the Senate moves to fulfill its responsibility--its national responsibility--to pass the Homeland Security bill which would fully fund the Department through the fiscal year 2015. This fulfills a constitutional oath we Senators took to protect and defend the Constitution and the people of the United States against all foes, foreign and domestic. The domestic is here today. The domestic is in homeland security. The domestic is in what we need to do to fulfill our responsibility. We take oaths to the Constitution. We say we want a constitutionally driven government. So do I. We need to get off of our press releases and pass this bill. I am really proud of the fact that we on the Committee on Appropriations did our job, and we did it in December. The subcommittee chairs of Homeland Security did their due diligence and came up with an affordable framework for funding the Homeland Security bill. It met the bottom line, met the budget caps, but also met our compelling national security needs. Congressman Hal Rogers in the House, for whom I have nothing but great respect, and I came to a fiscal agreement, but we did not have the ability to move it forward because there were those who wanted to delay putting it in the omnibus because they were having a temper tantrum with the President of the United States over his Executive authority. Could he move his Executive authority on the topic of immigration? So there was a solution to delay the funding so that we could have cooler heads prevail: Oh golly, do it after the election. And once again we punted and delayed and parsed, punted and issued press releases. That is what we got out of the House and somewhat out of the Senate. Where are we today? Thanks to the leadership of the two leaders, Senators McConnell and Reid, we have a path forward. I urge my colleagues to look at this path. The significant part of it is to pass a clean funding bill to make sure Homeland Security is funded the entire year so we can meet the needs of the national programs, such as the Coast Guard, and make sure that grants go out to our first responders, who are truly our boots on the ground, such as volunteer fire departments that right now are out there in some parts of our communities getting sick people out with snowmobiles. Senator Collins of Maine and I have talked about her Maine and my Garrett County, where, when we have had a hurricane, these people go and get elderly people out on Zodiacs, sometimes wading through water and wondering if they are going to step on power lines. We have to get real here. There are those who want to increase defense funding so we can protect America against ISIL. We protect America from ISIL right here in this bill. You want to protect America, vote for the clean funding bill. You want to protect America's border, fight for the funding bill. You want to make sure we don't have illegal aliens in this country, make sure you are funding the Border Patrol-- 23,000 people all in uniform out there on the border manning the best technology we can afford. So whatever we say we want to do, this is the way to do it. This is the way to do it. We understand the Senate would also like to debate immigration. We respect that viewpoint. We also respect that the matter that is of concern about the President's Executive authority is going through the courts. Don't punish the Border Patrol agent, don't punish the person working in the Coast Guard out on an ice cutter, don't punish the volunteer firefighter because you are angry at Obama. I say to my folks on my side of the aisle, make sure we vote to pass a clean funding bill here today. And I say also to the other side of the aisle to do it. I really appreciate the fact that Senator Reid and Senator McConnell have arrived at this parliamentary Senate vote to get us where we need to be going. But I say to my friends in the House, to delay this 3 more weeks is reckless and it is dangerous. What are we going to know? We are waiting for the courts to decide? Who knows when the courts will decide. What we do know is not what the courts will decide, but we know we have a legal process. A judge has made a decision. It will go through the court of appeals, maybe even to the Supreme Court. Let the court follow its process. But in the meantime, while the courts are doing their job, can we at least get around to doing our job so that the men and women who provide for us and fight every day, whether it is the local volunteer fire department or our Secret Service, our Coast Guard, or those working in cyber security--and the Director of National Intelligence, Director Clapper, says cyber security is a bigger threat than ISIL--can do theirs? So let's get on with it, and let's fulfill our constitutional responsibility when we said we take the oath to protect America against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I come to the floor to speak about the issue of funding for Homeland Security. However, I wish to note and acknowledge the comments just made by my colleague from Tennessee, Senator Alexander, the chair of the HELP Committee. I couldn't agree with him more. Hello, America. Two Senators, different parts of the country, different political parties, different political views on some social issues or whatever, but I couldn't agree more with this outstanding report whose original idea came from the gentleman from Tennessee. When we worked on the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act about 5 years ago now, we agreed upon goals to make college more accessible, to make college more affordable, to always insist that that college offer a quality education and that students on the campus be safe and secure so they could be in a true learning environment. I am a student loan/student grant person, so I was focusing on the students. I taught at Loyola University in Baltimore, in the community college, but my colleague, who was the president of a university, said: We ought to look at regs. Regulation could have a tremendous impact. So we put our heads together. Our cochairs came from Tennessee. The Maryland cochair was Dr. Kirwan, a retiring but very able chancellor. And it is a terrific report. It is exactly what we wanted. Where are the regs that, No. 1, are duplicative--the same darned report after report, and then you do a report on the reports so that then they can ask you questions and ask for a followup addendum. Then there are also instances where the requirements are contradictory. So there they are, the administrators of both the colleges and universities themselves or of an individual grant program. So we want to clarify that. Not only under Senator Alexander's leadership did we go for what were the top 10 concerns that were really burdensome, duplicative, or contradictory, they gave us a checklist on what would constitute criteria for a good reg. I think they gave us a great roadmap, and now it is our part to use the report. So we are not like everybody else where we got them to do a report and we don't do anything with it. When we did ``Rising Above the Gathering Storm,'' which I was so excited to be part of, it was truly a bipartisan effort. It led to legislation, and it led to other executive branch input. So I thank my colleague from Tennessee. I think this is the way we should be working together--put our heads together, get the best advice from what is out there in the real world, and then let's put our shoulders to the wheel and get it done. Does the Senator have a sense of when he would like to move or the timetable to implement this?

Ms. MIKULSKI. I thank the Senator from Tennessee and look forward to working with him. Mr. President, this is the way it ought to be, where Senators come together and bring our best ideas. We also bring our concerns and we put them all on the table. But we began with civility, we began with respect, and we established what were agreed-upon goals and how each one of us thought we could get to the roadmap to do that. This is the way I would hope we would work. Now, as we come to almost a crisis with the funding for Homeland Security running out on Friday, this is the time for us to put our party differences aside, put our pet projects aside, and focus not on what is good for our politics but what is good for America. I understand that our leadership on both sides of the aisle--Senator McConnell and Senator Reid--have arrived now at a framework where we will go through a set of parliamentary procedures, which is our way, to then arrive at a point where we could be voting on a full year's funding for Homeland Security without any additional riders that could derail the bill placed on it. I wish to compliment the leadership for beginning a communication and establishing a parliamentary choreography where we could actually get the job done. The leaders have been working on this. We know they will be coming here on the floor in a few minutes to share with us that idea and begin the procedures where every Senator can exercise their will and their judgment. But I just want to say this as the ranking member or the vice chair of the Appropriations Committee: We have to fund the Department of Homeland Security. We just have to do it. We have to do it, and we have to do it now. I hope we can do it in the Senate this afternoon and that the House really follows what we are doing here. This is so crucial because of the very nature of what the bill is-- homeland security. This isn't about a new agency that might be duplicative of another. This isn't about new programs. It is not even about great big new sums of money. This Appropriations Committee arrived at its recommendations when we were working on the omnibus. The Presiding Officer is the chair of the Subcommittee on Homeland Security. I know that in the way he does his due diligence, he has reviewed this bill. So the money part I don't think is controversial and it actually does the job. And the job is to do the full funding to protect the homeland. I really worry about our country. Here we are, and we have ISIL making additional threats to the United States about the security of our malls. While we were all pondering what our strategy would be and parsing what the politics would be, our great Federal agents were on the scene making sure that four Americans didn't go to join ISIL to fight against us and perhaps organize predatory attacks against us. Our people are on the job, and now it is time that we do our job and fully fund this agency. America is at risk. We face terrorism. We face the consequences of natural disasters, which FEMA and the Coast Guard are really helping us with right now. We face cyber threats. We need the Department of Homeland Security funded in a way to prevent and respond to these situations. When I look at this, it is really standing sentry in terms of all we need to do in terms of port security, airport security, guarding our borders through our Border Patrol agents, 23,000 Border Patrol agents. But I also look at the first responders. If anything happens in our country, it is local law enforcement and local firefighters who are the first to respond. We have helped them with this response by providing them with Federal funds. I am really proud of what we have done on this. I want to speak particularly about the Fire Grant Program. Now think about what they do. Every day when they report to duty, our first responders don't know what they will face. In my own home State of Maryland, will they face a train derailment? We have had those. Will they face a Metro fire? We have had that. Will we have a multiple- vehicle accident on 95 that could involve a horrific accident that requires rescue from hazardous and toxic waste? Because of who we are, with our airports and our seaports, we also are a big threat for a terrorist attack. Our first responders are asking us to give them the money they need to pay the bills and also help them with these necessities. Over 10 years ago I joined with one of my Republican counterparts, Senator Kit Bond of Missouri. We were both concerned with what was happening to our volunteer fire departments. As he crisscrossed Missouri and I crisscrossed Maryland, we were shocked to find out that a new firetruck could cost as much as $1 million, that wonderful SCBA protective gear that would be fire retardant or fire resistant could cost $2,000, that the special breathing apparatus that is being developed can cost over $5,000. When we put our heads together and listened to our firefighters, we realized you could not fund that on tip jars, pancake breakfasts, crabcake dinners, or oyster fries in my own State. We wanted to help them. We wanted to make sure we helped them so they could protect us. So we looked at the Fire Grant Program. It has been a tremendous success in my own State in the decades since we passed it. Over 600 fire departments have been helped with the new equipment they need. When I travel my State, I have people who defend and protect me in my community shake my hand. The Presiding Officer knows what the volunteer firefighters do. I am sure it is the same situation in North Dakota as it is western Maryland. They say: You have helped me be able to do the job. Volunteer fire departments do all of this on their own time and on their own dime. So what happens if we don't fund Homeland Security? It means that those $2 billion grants for emergency firefighters, port security, for local efforts and so on will not be funded. Make no mistake. For those people perhaps in the Senate or in the House that say that we just do a continuing resolution, a continuing resolution means that grants cannot be funded. Under current law, for any program with an agency that is on a CR, it cannot issue grant money at all. So that means right now they are getting ready to take the Fire Grant Program proposals. Secretary Jeh Johnson can't put out communication to say it is now the annual time for fire chiefs to come in with their requests. So we are placing America at risk--not only with the really big picture stuff. Often the big picture comes back home. On that terrible, terrible day of 9/11, who ran up into those burning buildings? Who ran up those steps of the World Trade Center? It was our firefighters. I am flinching, flagging, abashed at their heroism and their desire to rescue. And every day--right this minute--one of them somewhere is doing something. Certainly we can fund the grant program so they can have the truck they need, so they have the breathing apparatus they need, so they have the protective gear they need, so we can protect them while they are protecting us--rather than protecting our political butts. We have got to get off our butts and fund this bill. I look forward to the leadership on both sides of the aisle coming forward with a program to do it. I hope we have a sense of urgency. There is a saying from Tip O'Neill that ``all politics is local,'' but ultimately, all homeland security is local. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, today the Senate will vote for the fourth time on a procedural vote to take up the House Homeland Security funding bill. We are going to be voting on the cloture of the motion to proceed because it is a parliamentary way of dealing with the funding for the Homeland Security Department, which runs out on Friday. The Presiding Officer is the ranking member on the homeland subcommittee. The Presiding Officer did a fantastic job, working with Senator Landrieu, creating a funding framework that had bipartisan and bicameral support. I congratulate the Presiding Officer and the way the committee worked. We should be voting on the final passage for a clean Homeland Security bill. The bill--when we say ``clean,'' this is Washington speak. People do not know what a clean bill is. Is there a dirty bill? Is there a dusty bill? Is there a muddy bill? No. What we are talking about is meaning no riders on the bill. In this case, no poison pill riders. There was no disagreement, finally, because of the excellent bipartisan work on the funding of the bill, but the Senate is locked in a game of parliamentary ping-pong on moving this legislation forward, where the losers are the American people. Look at what is going on in our country right now. We are absolutely relying on Homeland Security for some of the biggest challenges--not facing in the abstract but facing us right now. There are the terrorists and there is cold weather and there are other issues. Right now in my Chesapeake Bay there is a Coast Guard cutter called Chock. It is out there breaking the Maryland icy conditions--frigid and windy. What is it they are doing? This enables commerce to get up and down the Bay so people are working and getting important supplies. They even work--because the Bay is in both Maryland and Virginia. They went out to the famous Tangier Island to free residents that were iced in, to take food and fuel. The Coast Guard is on the job. They are working in the cold. They are working in the wind. They are breaking up ice not only in Maryland but all over--to these frozen ports. What do we say? Good job, guys. There they are on TV. We love you, but we might not pay you. What is this? They are out there saving lives. We are playing parliamentary ping-pong. Then there is this whole issue of this despicable, barbaric group called ISIL who essentially says: We are out to get you. Not only are they out to get us, but then they threatened that there could be attacks on malls, the shopping malls in the United States. We need then additional security from Homeland Security. We also need to be able to work with our local and State partners. What is Congress's response? We are going to talk about increasing that defense budget in 2016, but we are not going to fund the appropriations from 2015 on Homeland Security. What is wrong with that picture? I am for a strong national defense and having the muscular way of dealing with the threat of ISIL and any other terrorist group, but they are talking about our malls. They also go on their Web--I hate to even say this in public. They say attack anybody who is in uniform. Well, that is my firefighter, that is my police officer, that is my EMT person. I mean, really. We are worried about lone wolves? Well, I am worried too. We need to be able to protect them. One way to do it is we need to fund the Homeland Security Department so people who are on the job protecting us can get paid. There are Members on the other side of the aisle who continually ask the President what he is doing to defend America. Let's put boots on the ground. Let's put more missiles in the air. Let's put more flights for airplanes. Right here in America we have boots on the ground. They are called Border Patrol agents, Customs officers, TSA personnel, intelligence analysts. We have to fund our own Homeland Security boots on the ground. I want to make sure we do it now, so we do not have some big crisis at midnight on Friday. Where we are is this: We have agreed on the funding on both sides of the aisle and both sides of the dome. The House has added five riders on immigration. Immigration is an important topic. I do not minimize it. I do not dismiss it. It should be debated but not on this bill. The other issue is that the courts have now made a decision--the Texas court--on the Obama action on Executive orders and immigration. It is now going to go through the courts. The Texas judge made a decision. That is America. It will go to the Fifth Circuit for an appeal and maybe even higher. While it is working its way through, we are debating it. Let the courts decide whether the President exceeded his Executive authority. Whatever the courts decide, I think we will be able to accept it. We cannot hold up the bill waiting for the courts to decide. We should not hold up the Homeland Security bill waiting for the courts to decide. So with the court decision pending, I say to my friends on the other side of the aisle--who I know are patriotic, who I know want to protect the homeland--put immigration aside on the Executive orders and all of those others, let the courts decide on the Executive authority, but between now and, say, Wednesday let's pass this Homeland Security bill. We can pass it, send it to the House, and we can get on with the protecting America rather than what we think about President Obama. I respect what other people think about President Obama. I do not also respect what some people say in their attacks on him: Is he American? Is he patriotic? I think that is despicable to attack our President. But if you think this is a constitutional question on Executive authority, it is now in the courts. That can be a valid consideration. But right now we have a Homeland Security funding problem. I want to fund the Coast Guard. I want to fund Border Patrol. I want to fund Customs. I want to fund the TSA at the airports. I want to protect us on threats related to cyber security. This is for the 22 subagencies that make up Homeland Security. So I would hope, for the 162,000 people who work for that agency, they do not get IOUs. Given what they are doing in this cold weather and on this incredible intensity and escalation of chatter and threats to the United States, we have to help them be them. We have to give them respect. We have to pay their salaries. We have to give them the right technology to be able to do their jobs to protect us. I say to the Presiding Officer and to all of my colleagues on the floor: Let's stop playing parliamentary ping-pong with the Homeland Security bill. The politics in that are over. The issue is going to be resolved in the courts, but what cannot be resolved is the fact that on February 27 the money to fund the salaries for every single man and woman who works at Homeland Security will run out. The time is running out. The money is running out. We cannot run out on Homeland Security. We have to help them make us a safe country, protect our country, and do their job. I yield the floor.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise to talk about the Department of Homeland Security and the necessity to fund it. Earlier today the President submitted a document for the authorization of use of military force to the Congress. I take the President's request very seriously. I look forward to the analysis that will be done by the Foreign Relations Committee, the Armed Services Committee, and debate on the floor. Why did the President send it and why did so many in the Congress call for it? It is because everybody says that we have to do something about ISIL. You know what. I think we do have to do something about ISIL. What a ghoulish, barbaric terrorist group. There is no doubt there has to be an international effort to strike them from the planet and that the United States has to be a part of it. But what comes out when we talk about ISIL is the need to have a strong, robust counterterrorism effort. If we are going to fight counterterrorism, we must fund the agency that has the principal responsibility for protecting the homeland. The Department of Defense protects us against foreign invaders, but we have to also protect the homeland--whether it is against cyber security threats or other terrorist activity or other dangers that come to our country. So why after 2 weeks do we have the Department of Homeland Security appropriations for fiscal year 2015? We are ready to vote on it. We have a clean bill. I am speaking now as the ranking or vice chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee. During fiscal year 2014, I chaired the committee. At the end of the year, when we worked on our omnibus, it was the will of the Congress that we would fund all government agencies except Homeland Security and instead put it on a continuing resolution until February 27 because there were those in both Houses who were cranky about the fact that President Obama exercised Executive authority in certain matters related to immigration. So now we are holding up the entire funding for the Department of Homeland Security because some people are cranky with President Obama over him using an Executive order on immigration. These very people who are so cranky are criticizing him for being a weak leader. Oh, where is President Obama? Why doesn't he take strong and decisive action? When the President takes strong and decisive action, they not only don't like it, they are willing to hold up the entire funding for the Department of Homeland Security over this. What is this? Do we have a new math where 1 and 1 makes 14 or 5? We created the Department of Homeland Security after the horrific attack of 9/11, and they need to be funded. I am here to urge that we pass a clean funding bill to protect the Nation from terrorism, cyber security threats which are mounting every day, and so we can also help our communities respond to other threats. I believe immigration does deserve a debate. I am not arguing about that, nor would I ever want to stifle a Senator's ability to speak on topics where they have strong beliefs and deeply held views, but let's move immigration to a different forum to talk about it. In the last Congress the Senate passed a comprehensive immigration bill. It went to the House, and it sat there. Gee, it sat there. After a while it kind of sat there some more, and then it died as that session came to an end. The President, frustrated that the House of Representatives refused to take up a bill and debate it through its committees and on the floor, acted through Executive order. So my view is let's bring up immigration, let's move our comprehensive bill again with a full and ample debate, full and ample amendments. Maybe the House will finally get around to talking about immigration instead of talking about President Obama, and then we can pass the Homeland Security bill. Three times last week the Senate rejected a procedural vote to take up Homeland Security. People can ask: Senator Barb, why did you do that? I voted not to delay but to move on. We Senate Democrats tried to move a clean Homeland Security funding bill. What does that mean? We focused only on the money. We said we did not want to have the five poison pill immigration riders that are in the House bill. We wanted to be able to take that out. The President has been very clear. If we send him a bill that includes funding plus five poison pill riders on immigration, he will veto it. What is the consequence? We become a public spectacle in the world's eyes. We play parliamentary ping-pong with the President of the United States. We pass a bill because we want to have a temper tantrum. He vetoes it. It comes back. We have another debate where we huff and puff and hope problems will go away. We then try to override a veto and all the while we are eating up time. The world is watching us. Our treasured allies are not the only ones asking about what is going on with the United States and how the greatest deliberative body has become the greatest delaying body. Our enemies say we can't get our act together internally to pass the very money to take them on, so they are going to try to bring it to us. In the end, when all is said and done, more is getting said than done. Before we go out for the Presidents Day recess, I urge the Senate to pass this bill. Tomorrow we are going to vote to confirm the Secretary of Defense, Dr. Ashton Carter. He has gone through the process and was reported out of committee. I look forward to voting for him. Why are we going to move so fast to confirm Dr. Carter? Because we need a Secretary of Defense. We have to fight for America. We have to stand up for America. We have to be muscular and ready to deal with those bad guys. I agree with that. I salute our military every day and in every way. They are out there on the frontlines, and their families are there to lovingly support them. We are going to have a Secretary of Defense. Let's not forget we also have a Secretary of Homeland Security, Mr. Jeh Johnson. Instead of America having deep pockets to fight terrorism, the Secretary of Homeland Security will have empty pockets. What is this? We are going to rush to confirm Dr. Carter, and I think we ought to. There is no dispute from me on that. Shouldn't we also rush to complete our work and fund Homeland Security? I think we should. We could do it tomorrow. We could do it tomorrow and pass this clean bill. The Department of Homeland Security's mission is to protect America from terrorism and help communities respond to all threats, from terrorism to natural disasters. We are talking about the TSA, which protects our airports. We are talking about the Border Patrol and ICE, so if we are talking about immigration, don't we want to fund the agents out there protecting our borders? Don't we want to continue to have cyber warriors securing our networks? We need to support the people who are dealing with bio and nuclear threats. We need to also continue supporting State and local first responders, firefighters, and EMS personnel in the different States so they can be ready--whether they are responding to a local disaster or something that has been caused by a despicable attack. We need to be able to pass this bill. The Department of Homeland Security funding runs out on February 27, and my view is that instead of running the clock we should move this bill. I believe it could pass tomorrow and that we could get our job done. But, no, we are all going to go back to our home States and tell everybody how they have a government on their side and how they can count on us to fight for America. But the way to fight for America is to stop fighting with each other. Let's try to find a sensible Senator and move this bill forward. I believe people on both sides of the aisle are patriots. I believe people on both sides of the aisle want to defend America. Let's come together on both sides of the aisle, right down the middle, and let's find a way to move this bill forward and have a debate on immigration. I don't want to stifle or stiff-arm it, but let's move this forward, and let's stand shoulder to shoulder doing our job to fund the agency that has the principal responsibility for protecting the homeland. I yield the floor.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, today, I rise to honor Ed Hunter, on the occasion of his retirement as the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Washington office. Ed has had a long career in public service. He has served the Nation for over 40 years at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC. He began his career at the CDC's National Center for Health Statistics in 1975 while he was still a student at the University of Maryland. In this role, Ed helped establish a national health information infrastructure that is critical to making evidence-based public health policy. He, along with two of his colleagues, conceived and edited ``Health Statistics: Shaping Policy and Practice to Improve the Population's Health,'' the first textbook to cover the development, use, and improvement of health statistics. In his work on data policy, Ed created and led a cross agency committee to develop recommendations on the health data collection program of the entire Federal Government. His efforts have led to greater efficiency, increased emphasis on statistical rigor, and greater data usability. When you read a health statistic in a newspaper article, it is more trustworthy because of Ed Hunter. Most recently, as the Director of the CDC's Washington office, Ed has been essential in keeping Members of Congress and their staffs informed about urgent public health crises and communicating critical public health information. From ricin in the halls of Congress to Ebola on the other side of the world, Ed helped us make policy decisions based on sound science. Today, I want to recognize Ed for his 40 years at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, for his dedication to public service, and for a lifetime of work that has truly made a difference in the health of our Nation and around the world. On behalf of the U.S. Congress, your fellow statesmen in Maryland, and a grateful nation, I want to thank Ed for all of the important work he has done and wish him the very best in his next phase of life.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the time until 2:45 p.m. be equally divided in the usual form, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, I come to the floor in my position as the vice chair of the Appropriations Committee to urge the Senate to pass a clean Homeland Security appropriations bill. Yesterday the Senate rejected a procedural vote to take up the House Homeland Security funding bill. This is not about debating the weeds over this bill versus that bill. There are two distinct differences. The House bill has the funding for fiscal year 2015 in it that would take care of every single agency under the Department of Homeland Security to defend and protect the Nation, but at the same time it is loaded with five immigration riders that we call poison pill riders because the President said if legislation to fund Homeland Security passes with these five immigration riders, he will veto the bill. The President wants to fund an appropriations bill, and so do I. The House Homeland Security bill, if taken up by the Senate, would simply be a delaying tactic. We would talk, we would debate, we would offer lots of amendments on immigration, and after we got lots of amendments on immigration it might go to the President. The President would veto it, and it would come back, and after all is said and done, more would get said than gets done. We have to pass the funding for the protecting of the homeland. Yesterday the entire world was gripped with poignancy and sorrow about the ghoulish murder of a Jordanian pilot. The threat of terrorism is in the world--attacks by ISIL on people, the possibility of a lone wolf in our own country, a cyber attack in retaliation because we dare fight back against ISIL or because we are willing to challenge some of the other international predators directed at us. We have to protect the United States of America. That is what the Department of Homeland Security does. The Department of Defense protects us over there; the Department of Homeland Security protects us here. After 9/11--one of the worst days in our country's history--the Congress came together, and we passed legislation to create the Department of Homeland Security so we could take every agency that was involved in protecting the homeland and put them under one umbrella so they could look out for us. Now we need to look out for them. Every day we ask men and women to serve in the Coast Guard, in the Secret Service, in the Border Patrol protecting our borders, in Customs making sure fraudulent products such as counterfeit drugs are not crossing our borders into our country. Now we need to pass that bill. We need to make sure we do not have a shutdown or a slamdown when the funding expires on February 27. In December when I chaired the committee, in the closing hours of the past Congress, I worked with my subcommittee chairman, Senator Landrieu, the vice chairman of homeland security, Senator Coats, and we put together a crucial funding bill that totalled $46 billion to invest in agencies that protect us. It was $1 billion more--$1 billion--than the continuing resolution. We could have taken up that bill then, but there was a desire, because of controversy over the President taking Executive actions on immigration, not to do it. So now here we are in February. Now it is our time to fund a clean Homeland Security bill. Immigration is a serious policy issue. I don't dispute that. It deserves serious debate. But don't add it as a series of riders on the funding bill; rather, let's take up immigration separately. I remind our colleagues that in the last Congress this Senate passed a comprehensive immigration bill, only to have it die in the House. So we say let's pass our bill again, let's have the House take it up, and let's have a real debate on it, but in the meantime, we will have funded the Homeland Security bill. This isn't Barb Mikulski talking about more government spending. Every past head of the Department of Homeland Security has urged the Senate to pass a separate bill. Tom Ridge, the original chief executive of this agency; Michael Chertoff, who also served under President Bush; and Janet Napolitano are calling for it, and so am I. Right now our Coast Guard is out there safeguarding our waterways. We in Maryland just love our Coast Guard. We love them because, No. 1, they are always there for search and rescue; No. 2, they are always there to protect our bay. Whether it is against a possible oilspill or drug dealers trying to sneak up the bay, they are there. We also know how brave they were. We all recall how, with helicopters, they went in and rescued people during the horrific Hurricane Katrina, and they do it every day. Then there is the Secret Service. The Secret Service is in the process of reforming itself. They need to protect the President, the Vice President, the First Families. But you know what--they are also out there being the government G-men, fighting things such as credit card fraud. Then there are the cyber warriors protecting our critical infrastructure--our banking, our power grid. Then there is FEMA, which right now is responding to disasters, whether it is a blizzard or a hurricane. Then there are State and local responders. One of the programs I am so proud of in the Department of Homeland Security is the Fire Grant Program. The Fire Grant Program is a competitive grant program--not an earmarked program, a competitive grant program--where local fire departments, particularly those in our rural communities, can apply for a grant to buy the necessary equipment they need to protect them so they can protect us. I know the Presiding Officer is familiar with this in Nebraska. Turnout gear for a firefighter--the respiratory equipment to protect their breathing, the telecommunications, the fire-retardant/repellent material--can cost as much as $1,000 to $2,000 per firefighter. They cannot do this with pancake breakfasts. They cannot do it with fish fries and chicken dinners. They need the help of their own government to help them. So I say let's pass a clean Homeland Security bill. Let's stop terrorist threats. Let's secure our borders. Let's safeguard our waterways. Let's make sure we are protecting our homeland and move to a clean bill.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask unanimous consent that the time be equally divided between the parties.

Ms. MIKULSKI. First of all, I thank the Senator for bringing Representative Carter's comments to my attention. I absolutely agree with the Senator's analysis and also with the comments by Representative Carter. We should have a sense of urgency in passing the Homeland Security bill. The terrorists and the bad guys--whether they are organized crime trying to get across our borders, whether they are the terrorists watching us--they are saying: Hey, they are so busy fighting each other, they don't have time to think about fighting us. They are watching us and laughing at us because while we squabble and quibble and dribble, they are out there plotting against us. I say to the ranking member of the subcommittee, I do think there is a sense of urgency. I also wish to comment on the House. When we were working in the closing hours on the actual money part of the bill, I found remarkable bipartisan consensus. Left to our own analysis about how to be wise stewards of the taxpayer dollars for important security investments, there was wide bipartisan agreement. There may have been a different priority here or there, but by and large we knew exactly which public investments to make. And you know what--we did it within the caps, we did it within the allocation, and we got the job done. We could do this job this afternoon. I feel a great sense of urgency because while the bad guys are plotting against us, we are busy plotting how we can fight each other.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, before the Democratic leader leaves, in the warmest and most enthusiastic way, I want to welcome him back. He looks like he has been in a big fight. I am sure he won. It is wonderful to have him back in his leadership role, here right at his duty station. We look forward to following him and to working with him to try to forge these bipartisan relationships.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I come to the floor to call for a vote against the motion to proceed to H.R. 240, the House Homeland Security funding bill. Now, this is a shock--for Senator Barbara Mikulski to call for a vote against a motion to proceed on an appropriations bill. For the past 2 years, I have been on the floor speaking out, pounding the table, saying: Let's bring up bills; let's bring them up one at a time. So now why am I on the floor asking for a vote against the motion to proceed on the Department of Homeland Security funding bill? Well, I can tell us it is because the Homeland Security bill has two parts. One is an essential bill, the funding for the Department of Homeland Security--which I hope we get to and we get to as expeditiously as possible. But they have another component to it-- poison pill riders--five riders from the House of Representatives designed to attack the President on immigration. These riders, if passed, will guarantee the President will veto the bill, and we are going to be back to parliamentary ping-pong. We posture and pomp and vote. Send it to the President; he will veto it. We will get into more posturing, pomp, and partisan points. For what? We need to fund the Department of Homeland Security. Yes, we do need to deal with immigration, but the Senate passed an immigration bill. Rather than attacking the President, let's attack the problems from immigration. Let's deal with the DREAMers. Let's deal with getting people into the sunshine. This institution, both the House and the Senate under Republican control, criticized the President for not acting. Where is leadership? Where is leadership? When the President acts, as he did on immigration, they want to punish him by adding poison pill riders to an essential--essential--national security bill. Colleagues on the other side say: Why are you seeking to delay the funding bill? I am not seeking to delay the funding bill. I am asking that we put in a clean bill and just vote on the money part. All of my Democratic colleagues and I wrote a letter to Senator McConnell asking him to schedule a vote on a clean Homeland Security bill. Senator Jeanne Shaheen, the ranking member on the Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security, and I put in a clean bill the other day. We could do it now. We could pass that funding today and reserve the debate on immigration for another day, calling upon the House to do their job. But right now I want all of the wonderful men and women who work at the Department of Homeland Security to be paid for the work they do. We need them. We need them in cyber security. We need them searching out the lone-wolf attacks. Weren't we proud of the brilliant job our Homeland Security leadership provided to protect all the people who so enjoyed the Super Bowl? We have a lot of work to do. In my own home State we are dependent on the Coast Guard, but so is every other State with a coastal area, protecting us in terms of search and rescue, against drug dealers. What about our Border Patrol, which is there every single day in dangerous circumstances; don't they deserve our respect, the resources they need, and the pay they have earned? Let's get with the program. The program is to protect America, not to protect a political party and its partisan points on immigration. Our job is to protect the homeland security of the United States of America. I am adamant about this. We are now 4 months into the fiscal year. We could be heading for--I hope not--another continuing resolution. We need to stand for America. Americans are in danger at home and abroad. I know my other colleagues are waiting to speak. But we do face terrorist threats. We do face cyber criminals. The Secret Service is reforming itself. We have fence jumpers at the White House, we have drones over the White House, and yet we are going to dicker, dicker, dicker, and dicker against five poison pill amendments. Let's clean this up and vote against the motion to proceed today. Let's come back with the clean bill that Senator Shaheen and I introduced. The money has been agreed upon on both sides of the aisle and both sides of the dome in the closing hours of the fiscal year 2015 debate. Working hand-in-hand with Senator Dan Coats we fashioned a bill in the Senate, and we have it agreed to over in the House. So we could do our job so that Homeland Security can do their job. Defeat this ill-conceived motion to proceed. Let's proceed to a clean bill. Let's protect America and then get on with other important debates. I yield the floor.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask to speak in morning business as agreed upon.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Accelerating Biomedical Research Act. The bill allows more funding for the National Institutes of Health by allowing NIH funding to grow even while we continue to live under austere funding caps. NIH funding has been a bipartisan effort working with Democrats-- Senators Kennedy and Harkin, as well as Republicans--Senators Hatfield and Specter. We successfully fought to double NIH's budget from $13.6 billion in 1998 to over $30 billion today. We supported it to speed the transition of discoveries from science to treatment and maintain America's global competitiveness. But the NIH budget hasn't kept up with inflation. Its budget has been growing, but slowly. That means the NIH budget buys 20 percent less than what it did when the doubling was completed in 2003. Which means we are missing out. Missing out on potential treatments, potential breakthroughs, potential cures. We have no shortage of ideas. Scientists have ideas but they cannot test them without funding. What is the solution? We need to redouble our commitment to medical research. This bill creates a 6-year plan to put NIH back on stable ground. It is steady growth, it is predictable, and it is fiscally sound. The bill allows for new spending for NIH that does not count against the strict budget caps. So we can put more money into cures without taking it away from other compelling human needs funded within the Labor-HHS Appropriations bill. Why NIH? Why should we have new spending for NIH when other spending is stagnant or being cut? Personally, I would lift the sequester caps. I think they are doing real harm, but I recognize we do not all agree on that. I think we do all agree that NIH research is worth increasing because it both helps the economy and saves lives. First, let me talk about how NIH helps the economy. The NIH is a world-class institution. I call it the National Institutes of Hope, serving as the foundation for U.S. medical innovation which employs 1 million U.S. citizens, including 19,000 at NIH and 14,000 NIH employees who live in Maryland. NIH generates $84 billion in wages and salaries, exports $90 billion in goods and services. Every dollar we invest in NIH generates $2-$3 in economic activity. Every patent NIH generates provides the foundation for 8 private sector patents. In 2013, products built on licensed NIH and FDA inventions reported a total of $7 billion in sales. Investing in NIH is good for our economy But I do not call NIH the National Institutes of Hope because of its economic impact. NIH gives hope because of its human impact. Just look at what we have done with Federal investments in NIH, cutting the cancer death rate by 11 percent in women and 19 percent in men. HIV/ AIDS is no longer a death sentence. Polio and small pox are essentially eradicated in this country. These medical breakthroughs did not just happen. They occurred because our government supported the NIH. And because the NIH supported dedicated scientists seeking knowledge and medical breakthroughs. And now, that support is being eroded. I have heard the American people say, they want Congress to be frugal. But I haven't heard anyone say: ``Let's delay finding a way to prevent Alzheimer's'' or ``Let's encourage our young scientists to work abroad'' or ``Let's put a hold on finding a cure for cancer'' or ``Let's discourage our universities from researching treatments for rare pediatric tumors''. I am for being frugal but we must not jeopardize or hamper America as the gold standard, as the worldwide leader in medical research and innovation. I am for being frugal but not at the expense of the next generation of scientists and the health of American families. Discovery is the genius of our country. When President Jefferson commissioned Lewis and Clark to find water route to the Pacific, the mission was called discovery. Discovery is part of our Nation's DNA. It is what makes this Nation great. To have innovation we must have discovery. This requires: Investing in our human capital, educating our people, and funding their research. That is why I support funding for NIH. And that is why I am introducing the Accelerating Biomedical Research Act today. I hope my colleagues will agree and support this bill.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise first to thank my colleague from Maryland for his eloquent words on the Holocaust and the survivors of the Holocaust and the compelling voices that came out of those death camps. In addition, my colleague has always been a champion for human rights, whether it is on the Helsinki Commission, whether it is his advocacy to let Soviet Jews get out of the Soviet Union. Where people are repressed or facing attacks or persecution, he has always been on their side, and also actually meeting with the Holocaust survivors in our own community to bring a lot of attention to what we can do and to actually putting money in the Federal checkbook. With all that effort at survival and making it to the United States, the survivors of the Holocaust, who were children then and would now be in their eighties and nineties--imagine that--should not live in poverty, they should not fear institutionalization, and they should not fear destitution. So I thank my colleague for his advocacy, and I look forward to working with him on this and also say ``never again.''

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I would say to the Senator from Arkansas, my time was delayed. I hope I have not slowed the Senator down this morning. I didn't realize you were here.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I come to the floor as the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee, and I come to ask my colleagues to bring to the floor and pass a clean Homeland Security appropriations bill for fiscal year 2015. This isn't just Senator Barb Mikulski calling for this but also the former heads of Homeland Security under President Bush and also under President Obama. The very first head of that agency, Gov. Tom Ridge, along with Mr. Chertoff and Janet Napolitano, have written to Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell and said: Please, as former Secretaries of Homeland Security, we write to you today to respectfully request that you consider decoupling critical legislation to fund the Department of Homeland Security for fiscal year 2015 from a legislative response to President Obama's actions on immigration. They feel that: . . . by tethering a bill to fund DHS in FY 2015 to a legislative response to the President's executive actions on immigration . . . --it could lead to a shutdown of Homeland Security. We don't want a shutdown. I won't go through the entire letter. They conclude with: It is imperative that we ensure that DHS is ready, willing, and able to protect the American people. To that end, we urge you not to risk the funding for the operations that protect every American and to pass a clean DHS funding bill. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the letter be printed in the Record.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, the Department of Homeland Security was established right after the terrible attack on the United States of America on September 11, 2001. The Department of Homeland Security is a big agency, but protecting the homeland is a big job, and DHS employees are on the job every day: the Coast Guard safeguarding our waterways; Secret Service, not only protecting the President, the First Family, the Vice President, but also doing other important tasks; the Border Patrol and ICE-- Immigration and Customs Enforcement--securing our borders against smugglers, traffickers, and other illegal immigrants; cyber warriors-- people protecting us against bio and nuclear threats, and then also working with the first responders; FEMA--everything to protecting us in the event of an attack on the homeland, to having readiness and response and shelters and so on, to helping us now in hurricanes and blizzards such as we are facing in the northeast. It all helps State and local responders to have the resources they need to be able to respond at the local level. The Firefighters Grant Program is so beloved in our communities where, through competitive exercise, they can go for grants to buy respiratory equipment, the new firetrucks and so on that they need. In my community, they can't come up with this equipment on just fish fries and pancake breakfasts. We need a government on our side. Unfortunately, the Department of Homeland Security funding runs out on February 27. Now let me give the background. When we came back in September, facing the fact we had to have a continuing resolution to get us through the fiscal year and the election cycle, the Congress passed legislation, and then on December 13 when we did the omnibus, we passed an omnibus bill for every single agency with the exception of Homeland Security. So every single agency, from the Department of Defense to the Department of Health and Human Services, Education, the weather services, all of these important programs, NIH, were funded through the fiscal year. But we put Homeland Security on a CR because there was an intense and actually very prickly concern over the President's Executive action on immigration. So rather than hold up the whole funding of the United States of America over temper-tantrum politics over Obama's Executive action on immigration, we went to a CR, a continuing resolution, on Homeland Security. The Homeland Security was to take us to February 27, where wiser heads--and now complete control by the Republican Party--would be able to move this for full funding. So where are we? Well, during that time in December, as the chair of the Committee on Appropriations, with my vice chairman Senator Richard Shelby, Senator Dan Coats, and the Subcommittee on Homeland Security, Senator Dan Coats and Senator Mary Landrieu, we came up with a fiscal framework. So did the House. They came up with it. So the very money that we put into the CR and the clean bill that Senator Shaheen--now the ranking member--and I had, has the funding for Homeland Security that Homeland Security says it needs and we have arrived at on a bipartisan basis. If in fact we are allowed to bring up a clean bill, we have agreed on the money. There is no dispute over the money. We have looked very carefully at it. We worked on a bipartisan basis. We worked on a bicameral basis. We are ready to go. What will slow us down is if we get into an intense debate on immigration and riders to try to stop the activities of President Obama. I strongly recommend to my colleagues: Do not play politics with the security of the United States of America. We were all horror stricken at what happened in Paris. We are repulsed at what is going on with ISIL. We are very concerned about lone-wolf attacks. We worry--and the chair of the authorizing committee on Homeland Security in the House has said: They are coming here, they are coming here, they are on their way. We have got to be ready. Well, one of the ways we have got to be ready is to make sure the resources in Homeland Security are funded and that they are not worried about a shutdown, showdown, slamdown politics over a fight on immigration. Should we have a discussion on immigration? You bet. Should we even have an outright robust debate on it? I am all for it. But leave Homeland Security alone. Pass the money bill. If you disagree with the money, argue over that. But if you want to fight over immigration policy, that is another debate for another day in another way. The Nation faces growing threats where Americans are endangered at home and abroad. Terrorists are threatening us with bombs and guns, and lone wolves in Ottawa, organized radicals in Paris, cyber criminals with backing from nation states and organized crime. In terms of the Secret Service, we have the need to reform the Secret Service. We have fence jumpers at the White House, drones landing on the White House lawn. In the face of these threats, the Republican majority's response is to hold the funding of Homeland Security up to pick a fight with the President over immigration. Uncertainty undermines security. Let's give the Agency certainty of funding. We are 4 months into the fiscal year. Another continuing funding resolution would be the fifth continuing resolution. That is no way to run an agency so big, so complicated. Senator Coats and Senator Landrieu and our House colleagues worked so well to come up with the bill. They provide resources for DHS, with the total funding of $39.7 billion, an increase of over $400 million above the fiscal year 2014. We could pass that today. We could pass it on Monday, we could pass it on Tuesday. All of my Democratic colleagues and I wrote a letter to Senator McConnell asking him to schedule an immediate vote on a clean vote on Homeland Security. Well, let's see where we go on that. What we have here, the clean bill offered by Senator Shaheen--now the ranking member on the Homeland Security Subcommittee on Appropriations--and I have a compromise funding bill that gives certainty to the people who work on the front lines to secure the Nation, whether it is securing the border, whether it is building capacity to meet agricultural and biological threats, whether it is replacing aging nuclear detection equipment, also helping our Coast Guard build their national security cutter so the Coast Guard can protect us against drug runners, pirates, terrorists. More than any other specific increase, enacting a clean Homeland Security bill shows the Congress and the Nation value. We do value security, and we value the men and women who work every day to provide us with that security. Uncertainty jeopardizes security. We value them. I urge my colleagues to put their money where their mouths are to enact a clean homeland security bill, and not to get into this whole debate with immigration. I look forward--as we wrap up the debate on the Keystone Pipeline, we then take up Homeland Security and we take up a clean bill. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. Mr. BOOZMAN addressed the Chair.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Accelerating Biomedical Research Act. The bill allows more funding for the National Institutes of Health by allowing NIH funding to grow even while we continue to live under austere funding caps. NIH funding has been a bipartisan effort working with Democrats-- Senators Kennedy and Harkin, as well as Republicans--Senators Hatfield and Specter. We successfully fought to double NIH's budget from $13.6 billion in 1998 to over $30 billion today. We supported it to speed the transition of discoveries from science to treatment and maintain America's global competitiveness. But the NIH budget hasn't kept up with inflation. Its budget has been growing, but slowly. That means the NIH budget buys 20 percent less than what it did when the doubling was completed in 2003. Which means we are missing out. Missing out on potential treatments, potential breakthroughs, potential cures. We have no shortage of ideas. Scientists have ideas but they cannot test them without funding. What is the solution? We need to redouble our commitment to medical research. This bill creates a 6-year plan to put NIH back on stable ground. It is steady growth, it is predictable, and it is fiscally sound. The bill allows for new spending for NIH that does not count against the strict budget caps. So we can put more money into cures without taking it away from other compelling human needs funded within the Labor-HHS Appropriations bill. Why NIH? Why should we have new spending for NIH when other spending is stagnant or being cut? Personally, I would lift the sequester caps. I think they are doing real harm, but I recognize we do not all agree on that. I think we do all agree that NIH research is worth increasing because it both helps the economy and saves lives. First, let me talk about how NIH helps the economy. The NIH is a world-class institution. I call it the National Institutes of Hope, serving as the foundation for U.S. medical innovation which employs 1 million U.S. citizens, including 19,000 at NIH and 14,000 NIH employees who live in Maryland. NIH generates $84 billion in wages and salaries, exports $90 billion in goods and services. Every dollar we invest in NIH generates $2-$3 in economic activity. Every patent NIH generates provides the foundation for 8 private sector patents. In 2013, products built on licensed NIH and FDA inventions reported a total of $7 billion in sales. Investing in NIH is good for our economy But I do not call NIH the National Institutes of Hope because of its economic impact. NIH gives hope because of its human impact. Just look at what we have done with Federal investments in NIH, cutting the cancer death rate by 11 percent in women and 19 percent in men. HIV/ AIDS is no longer a death sentence. Polio and small pox are essentially eradicated in this country. These medical breakthroughs did not just happen. They occurred because our government supported the NIH. And because the NIH supported dedicated scientists seeking knowledge and medical breakthroughs. And now, that support is being eroded. I have heard the American people say, they want Congress to be frugal. But I haven't heard anyone say: ``Let's delay finding a way to prevent Alzheimer's'' or ``Let's encourage our young scientists to work abroad'' or ``Let's put a hold on finding a cure for cancer'' or ``Let's discourage our universities from researching treatments for rare pediatric tumors''. I am for being frugal but we must not jeopardize or hamper America as the gold standard, as the worldwide leader in medical research and innovation. I am for being frugal but not at the expense of the next generation of scientists and the health of American families. Discovery is the genius of our country. When President Jefferson commissioned Lewis and Clark to find water route to the Pacific, the mission was called discovery. Discovery is part of our Nation's DNA. It is what makes this Nation great. To have innovation we must have discovery. This requires: Investing in our human capital, educating our people, and funding their research. That is why I support funding for NIH. And that is why I am introducing the Accelerating Biomedical Research Act today. I hope my colleagues will agree and support this bill.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I wish to take this opportunity to bring to my Senate colleagues' attention the most momentous day that will occur next week. Next week, on January 27, it will be the 70th anniversary of the liberation of the Auschwitz concentration camp--70 years since the liberation of the Auschwitz concentration camp. It was a triumph for the allies, but a melancholy day as the world began to see the films and photographs coming out of this hellhole. I stand here today to remember and remind us all that, more than any other word, Auschwitz is synonymous with evil. As someone who is very proud of her Polish-American heritage, I visited Auschwitz. I wanted to see it when I had the chance to learn more about my own heritage, and I wanted to see what happened there so that I would remember. I rise today so that the world remembers what happened there, and then the heroic effort of the allied forces, joined together, to be able to save Europe and save Western civilization. I have submitted a resolution honoring those who survive even today, and those who were lost, that would remind us that we need to work always for tolerance, peace, and justice, and, always, to end genocide. The harms of Auschwitz are incomprehensible and indescribable. The numbers are grim and even ghoulish. Over 1 million people--men, women, and children--lost their lives at Auschwitz. Ninety percent were Jews, hundreds of thousands were children, and it was the largest of any of the death camps. Auschwitz was first created as an internment camp for Polish dissidents, for hundreds of thousands of Poles who were not Jewish but were murdered alongside the Jews of Auschwitz. In occupied Poland, a Nazi governor named Hans Frank proclaimed that, ``Poles will become slaves of the Third Reich.'' But Auschwitz went far beyond the Poles, because the German authorities brought in people from throughout Europe. Who were the people who came? They were teachers, they were politicians, they were professors, they were artists--they were even Catholic priests. They were executed or barely survived. These are the stories of heroism that arise from the horrors. Many Poles risked their lives to save Jews. I am reminded of the story of Irena Sendler, who was a young social worker in Warsaw. She smuggled 200 Jewish children out of the ghetto into a safe house. The Gestapo arrested her in 1943. They first tortured her and then condemned her to death. Jan Karski, working for the Polish Government, went on to be a leader of solidarity in the founding of the new Polish democratic government. In working, he visited the Warsaw ghetto and did much to liberate people. But this is not a story of numbers or statistics or naming of heroes. It is a story I am going to tell about myself. In the late 1970s, as a brandnew Congresswoman, I traveled to Poland. I wanted to see my heritage, and I visited the small--really small-- village that my family came from, where my great-grandmother left Poland as a 16-year-old girl to come to the United States to meet up with her brother and begin a new life, with little money in her pocket but big dreams in her heart. The story of America is the story of our family. Landing in Baltimore when women didn't even have the right to vote, she came in 1886--exactly 100 years to the year I became a U.S. Senator. So I wanted to go back to see where we came from to really know our story even better. But I also wanted to see the dark side of the history of Poland, and I went to Auschwitz. Touring the concentration camp was an experience for me that was searing. Even today I carry it not only in my mind's eye, but I carry it in my heart. I could not believe the experience. The Presiding Officer knows me. I am a fairly strong, resilient person. I think we have even shared stories that I was a child abuse worker. I have seen tough things. But I wasn't prepared for what I saw that day. As I walked through the gate of Auschwitz, to see the sign--that despicable sign--of welcome there. And then we toured--well, you don't tour. It is not a tourist site, it is a memorial. It is sacred ground. It is not a tourist site. But as we walked through, we saw the chambers where people had died. I even went to a particular cell of a Father Kolbe, a Catholic priest who in the death camp gave his life to protect a Jewish member there. When they were ready to shoot him, Father Kolbe stepped forward to offer his life instead. Father Kolbe, in my faith tradition, has been canonized a saint for his heroic effort to show that he was willing to martyr himself for another human being, and in the belief that God was there in what he wanted to do. But as I walked through there--and I saw hard things, tough things, wrenching things, repulsive, repugnant things. But then I got to the part that really broke my heart. I got to the part about the children. Pictures of children--little children. Not that any child's age is there. And then I saw the bins--the bins of the children's shoes: bins piled up with little shoes size 2, size 3, size 4, lace-up shoes, because they were the shoes they had in the 1930s and 1940s. And then I saw their suitcases. Then over in another corner I saw the eyeglasses that were taken from them and broken into pieces. Then I saw the pictures of the mothers. I will tell you, I became unglued. I had to step away. Even today, when I tell this story, my voice chokes up because it shook my very soul. So as we move into this commemoration--because it is both a celebration and a commemoration--a celebration of the liberation but a commemoration of what went on. I knew when I left Auschwitz--I knew and I understood why, first of all, we should never have genocide in the world again. The second thing, and also so crucial to my views, is that there always needed to be a homeland for the Jewish people--why we always need an Israel, why it has to be there, survivable for the ages, and for all who will seek a home there and seek refuge there. This is why I worked so hard on these issues in terms of the support for Israel, the end of genocide, and also the gratitude for all the people who fought-- for the people who fought in the underground, for people who fought in the resistance, for people who tried to participate in the famous uprisings; to thank God also for the other fighters--the ones who in the camp gave whatever they could to keep other camp members going; and then, for the allied troops, led by the United States of America-- there, where we stood together, we stood and stared evil down; and then, when we opened up the doors of Auschwitz, for freedom and the ability to come out, though barely alive--that it was indeed an historic moment. We don't want that history ever to repeat itself, where there has to be a liberation of a death camp. I would also take this opportunity to salute the allies and all the American people who made us victorious in World War II. Let's say God bless the United States of America. And let's work together for a safe and secure Middle East.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about jobs-- especially jobs in the U.S. steel industry. This November I went to a ceremony at Sparrows Point a former steel plant in Maryland. It was a bittersweet day. I was there to honor the legacy of Bethlehem Steel and all of the Steelworkers in Baltimore. The site is being demolished but Sparrows Point has over 3,000 acres of land, access to ports, rails, and roads to attract companies to create jobs today and tomorrow. We don't have steel in Maryland anymore. Many of us still mourn its loss. But we still have steel in America and I am still for steel. If this Keystone bill is really a jobs bill, then let us put some made-in-America jobs in it and show our support for American steel. For over a hundred years, workers at Sparrows Point produced the steel that built America. Members of my own family worked at this steel mill. My father would open the doors to his grocery store early so that Bethlehem Steel workers could pick up their lunch on their way to work. America's steel and steelworkers protect the United States and our freedom. At Sparrows Point, they rolled gun barrels, made steel for grenades, shells and landing craft during World War II. God help us all if America stops making steel. During times of war-- will we depend on foreign steel to build our ships, aircraft carriers and weapons? American steelworkers work hard, play by the rules and serve their country. In war: building ships, tanks and weapons. In peace: making steel for our buildings and cars. Yet for over 50 years, the steel industry withered--not because steel was unproductive or overpriced. The steel industry withered in America because Congress didn't do everything possible to protect American steel from factors in the international steel market, raw material costs, slumping demand, low steels prices, and a global recession. The government looked the other way when foreign imports began to drive down our prices and drive down our steel mills. Our government singles out specific industries all the time when it is in our national interest. We single out specific industries and then talk about their value to America. I agree with that. We single out industries when it is in our national interest because we need them as part of our economy or as part of our national production. Helping the farmers or the airlines because of the national interest means national responsibility. In 2008, we bailed out the banks and we bailed out the auto industry for stability, security, and American independence. Where is the help for the steel industry and the steelworkers? I have fought for steel in the past. Now I am fighting for steel again. I fought so hard year after year to protect the lives and livelihoods in Baltimore, in Dundalk. I have fought for more than 25 years to reverse this tide against American manufacturing and against American steel. I am going to keep on fighting. I fought to keep Sparrows Point open. And when that wasn't possible, I fought for a safety net for workers Trade Adjustment Assistance, unemployment insurance and health care benefits. I think about Maryland steelworkers every day--what they are going through these past few years have been tough on workers, their families, and the community. I am supporting an amendment that protects American steel like steel has protected us. It is simple. Let us put American workers back to work in good, solid steel jobs, by requiring that the pipeline's construction, connection, operation, and maintenance all be done with made-in-America, U.S. steel. Let us get to work for American workers and let us put the jobs in this jobs bill.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I come to the floor with my colleague Senator Ben Cardin from Maryland. Mr. President, the Senate is not in order.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Does that mean all conversations, Mr. President?