[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 159 (2013), Part 3]
[Senate]
[Pages 3326-3328]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                       CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS

  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I am rising to speak on the continuing 
resolution to keep government funded for the rest of the year.
  I chair the full committee of the Appropriations Committee. My very 
able and esteemed colleague, Senator Shelby, is the vice chairman. We 
come to the floor to talk about our legislation, which is an amendment 
to the House CR to fund the Federal Government for the rest of the 
fiscal year. It continues the bipartisan tradition of the 
Appropriations Committee working closely with both sides of the aisle, 
and I wish to thank Senator Shelby for his excellent cooperation and 
his wise counsel in doing this and actually cosponsoring this.
  Our leadership, Senators Reid and McConnell, has been critical to 
allowing us to come to the floor and have our bill be debated openly, 
to have appropriate amendments, and then to have it voted on by the 
full Senate. In today's toxic environment in Washington, I must say our 
conversations have been characterized by civility, collegiality, and 
absolute candor--what we can do; what we can't do, not what we would 
like to do but what we must do to keep the government's doors open.
  I also want to comment on the excellent tone and conversation we have 
had with the House, specifically our House counterparts, Hal Rogers, 
the chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, and Congresswoman 
Nita Lowey. We have talked with each other and worked together, and if 
we continue to do that without other intervening dynamics, we can get 
this bill done.
  Before I go into our bill to offer its content, I want everybody to 
understand there are three things at play in Washington this week. We 
use arcane language, so nobody knows what is going on. There is the 
sequester, there is the continuing resolution, and there is the Budget 
Committee. Everybody is going to get confused because everybody is 
getting it commingled. All of it is getting press and the American 
people don't understand there are three separate solutions to three 
separate problems.
  Let me go to the Budget Committee, which will be on the floor next 
week, and Senator Murray is vociferously and persistently working on 
that bill. That is for fiscal year 2014. That is the framework on how 
we are going to approach our overall budget: What are we going to 
spend, what revenues we are going to have to raise, if any, and also a 
review of mandatory spending. That is going on over there. That is for 
fiscal year 2014.
  The Mikulski-Shelby continuing resolution is the appropriations 
bill--not a personality bill--that will fund the government through 
2013. The American people might say: Didn't you do that in October? 
Isn't our fiscal New Year's Eve October 1? Well, not really. What 
happened is we were going into the heat and passion and prickliness of 
an election year, so the wise heads thought it best to extend it where 
cooler heads would prevail in March. So here we are. We are the cooler 
heads, and we are ready to prevail. What we have here now is that 
legislation.
  Everybody needs to understand this: On March 27, that continuing 
resolution expires. If we do not pass our bill and then have an 
agreement between the House and the Senate that is signed by the 
President, we could face a government showdown. There is no will on 
either side of this institution that wants to do that. We are 
absolutely committed to no shutdown, no showdown, no lockdown, no 
slamdown. We want to do the job, and that is why we have been working 
very carefully to do that.
  What we will offer today is funding through the fiscal year, which 
will take us to October 1, and that meets the mandatory cap assigned to 
us by the Budget Committee of $1.4 trillion. That is a lot of money, 
but it is a big government with big responsibilities. It includes 
everything from defense--defending us over there--to the border 
control--defending us here--to meeting compelling human need and making 
investments in science and technology while ensuring we do what we need 
to do.
  Our legislation is quite simple and straightforward. It includes five 
appropriations bills. Two are already in it from the House--defense, 
military construction, and veterans. It will also include agriculture, 
homeland security, and a subcommittee that Senator Shelby and I are 
chair and vice chair of that funds the entire Justice Department. That 
means FBI, Federal law enforcement, and science and commerce. So we 
have Ag, CJS, homeland security and defense. Defense and military 
construction are identical to the House. Agriculture, CJS and homeland 
security are consistent with bipartisan and bicameral agreements 
negotiated last fall.
  Remember, we are reaching across the aisle, we are reaching across 
the dome. That is how we are trying to do it. However, there are seven 
remaining bills in the continuing resolution, and they are energy and 
water--money for things such as the Corps of Engineers--interior and 
environment, financial services, transportation, Labor-HHS, state and 
foreign ops, and the legislative branch. That means they are provided 
current funding levels and policies with some very limited changes to 
fix present problems. These are called anomalies.
  The Senate version, as I said, totals $1.43 trillion, which is equal 
to the House CR. So the top line is the same; the difference is how we 
achieve national goals. It is equal to the House continuing resolution, 
and it is the same as required by the Budget Control Act. We are 
absolutely in compliance with the Budget Control Act.
  Sequester mandates another $86 billion in cuts. That comes over what 
we do, and that solution is to be negotiated by the President and the 
leadership with the concurrence of both bodies. That is part of the 
charm offensive that is going on now. OK. Sequester needs a balanced 
solution, and we will be listening and awaiting their ideas, but right 
now we are looking at our bill that includes bipartisan amendments, 
minimizing the problems of operating and returning to a regular order 
for fiscal year 2014.
  The amendment we offer is much better than an extension of the 
current continuing resolution. Why don't we take a date and just change 
2012 to 2013? We don't do that because our bill makes reforms. We 
actually get more value for the dollar. If we just extended it, we 
would sometimes be spending money on unneeded programs, one of which 
would be--in our bill, CJS--$500 million for a space shuttle that 
doesn't exist. We want to change that and put it where it belongs, into 
the proper defending of our Nation and investing in science and 
technology. So a date change in a continuing resolution is not 
workable.
  The Senate amendment improves the House CR by adding those three 
domestic bills and, as I said, includes a number of changes. I could go 
through each and every one of those changes, such as in agriculture, 
but what I wish to do is explain the process now. I do want to explain 
the content of my bill; however, I am going to take 1 minute now and 
yield to Senator Shelby for his opening statement and then I will come 
back and explain the details of our actual funding.
  I must say again, I have appreciated not only the civility and the 
collegiality but the candor. We had to look at not what we would like 
to do and not even what we should do but what we must do to keep 
government operating, to achieve the national

[[Page 3327]]

goals America wants: our national security, both those who wear the 
uniform of the U.S. military as well as others who defend the Nation, 
such as border control, Federal law enforcement, law enforcement at the 
local level, food safety and drug safety inspectors, to make sure we 
meet compelling human need in the fields of education, biomedical 
research. This is what we are trying to do--weather satellites that 
predict future natural disasters.
  Again, we don't have a bill that is what we would like to do, what we 
have is a bill that is what we must do. If we all work together--and we 
ask those who have amendments to be working with our leadership--we 
believe we can move this bill by the middle of this week; that by the 
week's end, the certainty of government funding will have been 
established and we will have shown we can govern.
  I yield the floor so my vice chairman can say what he wishes to say 
to add to the debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, first of all this morning I would like to 
thank Chairwoman Mikulski for her willingness to work together in good 
faith and to introduce the bill that keeps the government running for 
the rest of the fiscal year. The chair and I have had what I would 
characterize as a long and productive working relationship. I think 
this bill is a very clear signal that we intend to continue that 
relationship for the good of the legislative process and the American 
people.
  I believe Congress must learn to deal with the spending constraints 
that have become a necessary reality for all of us. Much more work 
remains to be done to secure our fiscal future, including fixing 
entitlement programs and reforming our Tax Code. However, today we have 
taken the first step to show the American people Congress can come 
together on important issues. My hope is we will continue to do so.
  I am pleased to say Chairwoman Mikulski and I have accomplished three 
shared goals in this proposed legislation. First, this bill will 
prevent a government shutdown. Nobody in America wants that. Moving 
from one continuing resolution to the next only delays our problems and 
creates added uncertainty. I hope we can return to the regular order of 
producing budgets and appropriations bills to avoid the threat of a 
shutdown in the future.
  Second, this bill will provide more flexibility for the remainder of 
the year so that government agencies can deal with the reality of the 
sequester which remains fully in place here.
  Third, I believe this bill is a product both parties in both Houses 
can support. It prioritizes spending and aims to steer clear of 
divisive issues.
  In addition, discretionary spending is subject to the caps put in 
place by the Budget Control Act, and this bill complies with those 
levels. As noted, spending cuts made by the sequester will come on top 
of these constraints.
  I support moving forward with this bill, and encourage my colleagues 
to join together to do the same. Many Americans have lost faith that 
Republicans and Democrats can work together on anything. I believe this 
bill demonstrates it is possible, and I hope it will pave the way for a 
more productive relationship in the future. And while we are sure to 
disagree on many issues, I remain positive we can restore regular order 
in the Congress and deal with pressing fiscal matters in a timely 
bipartisan manner.
  I think I speak for both of us when I say we are committed--yes, we 
are committed--to putting the budget and appropriations process back on 
track. We look forward to working with our colleagues who share that 
goal and are willing to join us in this effort. This is a new 
beginning.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, you can see our tone. We need 
everybody's cooperation, if they have amendments, to bring them to us 
and also to the leadership which is helping us negotiate which ones 
will come up, and I think we can get this bill done this week.
  But I wish to say why getting it done is worthwhile. I want to speak 
about agriculture, and I wish to speak about some of the content we 
have, and do it in alphabetical order because it is easier for folks to 
follow.
  In agriculture, our amendment makes sure we fund the Food Safety 
Modernization Act which is not included in the House bill. This is the 
first major reform of food safety laws in 70 years and is much needed. 
CDC says 48 million Americans suffer from food-borne illness each year.
  This morning before I came to the floor, I attended a hearing on the 
Select Committee on Intelligence that I am a member of. General James 
Clapper, the Director of National Intelligence, along with key people 
from the military, civilian agencies such as FBI Director Mueller, gave 
us a 30-page report on threats to the United States. One of the things 
they talked about was the safety of our food supply. We need to make 
sure we have inspectors on the ground for what might occur through 
bacteria or what might also be induced. So food safety is a big issue.
  This amendment is also better at improving clean water to rural 
communities, and provides 165 rural communities with clean water and 
waste disposal, creating construction jobs today, and improving 
community health. I am very well versed in that because, along with 
Senator Cardin, we represent 2,000 miles of the Chesapeake Bay. We have 
older communities. We have issues related to wastewater treatment that 
are not only polluting the Bay but are very difficult to repair because 
of the very nature of our population--wonderful, patriotic people who 
don't have a lot of cash to pay a lot of taxes for wastewater. But in 
helping them, we improve public health and we save the Chesapeake Bay 
with all its seafood industry. That is just me. But we could go 
everywhere.
  Commerce, Justice, Science, that is a subcommittee I chair. Boy, do I 
like it. Why do I like it? Because it goes to everything we are talking 
about: about justice, about jobs today and jobs tomorrow. When we look 
at our Department of Commerce, which should be the point place for 
American business really promoting private sector initiatives and, most 
of all, promoting exports--not sending jobs overseas but sending 
products and services--that is where the trade negotiation goes. This 
is part of our economic vitality. This is where we have bipartisan 
agreement. Let's engage in free and open and fair trade. That 
negotiation staff and so on is funded through our subcommittee.
  We also want to protect our borders. That is going to be in homeland 
security. In our justice funding, we fund Federal law enforcement and 
provide funds to local communities on a competitive basis to put cops 
on the beat and to give them the appropriate things they need to 
protect themselves.
  Let's look at the Byrne grants, the main Federal tool that helps 
State and local law enforcement. We provide more money. That means more 
money for body armor, more money for them to learn the latest tips and 
so on, and stopping the gang threat. It also provides COPS on the Beat 
grants. Both of those are modest increases over the House funding. When 
I say modest, do you know what I am talking about? For all that local 
law enforcement does, we are going to provide $15 million. That is not 
a lot of money by Washington's terms, but to the local police 
departments it will be a help.
  Commerce-Justice also supports innovation. It is in this subcommittee 
that we fund the National Science Foundation $220 million more than the 
House. That means we will be able to provide more help to 7,000 
scientists and teachers making new discoveries for new products that 
will lead to new companies and new jobs. This is what we do.
  We are better than the House also in homeland security. This 
amendment does more to protect the Nation from cyber warfare. Cyber 
warfare is one of the greatest threats facing America. Again, in this 
30-page report we have on threats, the first five pages were devoted to 
all of the cyber problems. What kind of cyber problems? Cyber attacks, 
cyber espionage, and the growing nexus between organized crime and 
nation states, preventing hacking,

[[Page 3328]]

stealing our state secrets, our trade secrets and also the human 
trafficking of children and women, weapons of mass destruction. Where 
you sell women and children as a commodity across the borders of the 
world through organized crime and corrupt government officials, you 
will also sell other kinds of things, including weapons of mass 
destruction. So this is where we need to fund homeland security, the 
Department of Defense, the FBI, our contribution to Interpol. All of 
that is in the bill, and we do better--not a lot better because we are 
frugal; again, not what we would like to do, but what we must do.
  Also under homeland security, we make sure we look at that which puts 
people in harm's way. In my own State, and others, there is the issue 
of fires. Most fire departments in big cities are run by professionals, 
but in most rural communities they are run by the great volunteer fire 
departments. We have a fire grant program that I helped start that 
trains and equips local firefighters. What we do here is provide more 
money--$33 million above the House--to help provide those grants, and 
we also provide additional funds to help State and local fire 
departments.
  In the area of compelling human need, I want to talk about the 
Subcommittee on Education, Labor, and Human Services. This is the 
subcommittee that funds compelling human need. And what do we do here? 
We look after childcare development block grants, we support care for 
9,000 more children, and we also make sure we adequately fund Head 
Start by providing modest sums there.
  In addition, we also provide more money to the National Institutes of 
Health, $71 billion. But put that into the context that they are going 
to take a $1.5 billion hit in sequester.
  I know the Presiding Officer represents a great State, Hawaii. Who 
wouldn't love Hawaii? But I wish the Presiding Officer would look at 
Maryland. Not only do we have the wonderful Chesapeake Bay, a Super 
Bowl championship, but we have other ``super bowl'' winners. They are 
called the National Institutes of Health, the National Security Agency, 
the National Weather Agency.
  Just the other day when I was over at NIH, they told me--and told 
America through their communications--that NIH's work, working with 
clinicians and the private-led science sector, has reduced cancer rates 
in the United States of America by 15 percent in breast cancer, 
prostate cancer, lung cancer. And it is all those wonderful researchers 
at the Bethesda campus and in academic centers of excellence all over 
America. But instead of pinning medals on those people and encouraging 
young people to come into science, we could end up giving them a pink 
slip. What are we doing?
  I not only want to lower cancer rates, but I want to improve and 
raise the discovery rate. This is what we do in this CR. We are working 
with them on a bipartisan basis. This is helping American people and 
giving us products that are approved by FDA that we can sell and ship 
around the world, particularly to countries that could never do it.
  So I am all about jobs--jobs today and jobs tomorrow. That is why 
what we do in transportation, housing, and urban development is also a 
big step forward. In addition to looking out for the homeless, we 
provide an additional amount of money for highway and road safety 
programs, where people actually working with funds going to Governors 
at the local level--not some shovel-ready gimmick--can identify 
projects in the pipeline we could generate in construction. We can 
improve public safety by smart highways. And, literally, we can help 
get America rolling again; we have a fragile economy.
  I could go on about this bill, but this is a general outline, and I 
will talk more about it. I feel very passionate about it because we 
have squeezed every nickel, we have looked at it very fastidiously to 
make sure that we are right within our mandated spending cap to assess 
our national priorities: national security, compelling human needs, how 
we can help create jobs, look out for the middle class, and make those 
investments that improve the lives of the American people and generate 
jobs tomorrow.
  I think we have a very good bill. I ask everyone's cooperation to get 
it passed.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.

                          ____________________