Floor Statements

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I am here representing 150 million women in the United States of America, and they are bewitched, bothered, and bewildered by what the Congress, particularly the House of Representatives, in H.R. 1, has done to women.

Women all over America have to balance their family budgets, so they know our United States of America needs to get its fiscal act together. They also know we need to live in a more frugal time. They understand that. But what they do not understand is that in H.R. 1, with what the House did, the entire burden has come from a very limited amount in discretionary spending. When you take off defense, homeland security, women and children are actually thrown under the bus. Well, they are mad as hell, and they don't want to take it anymore. So the Democratic women today, in the hour we have been given, are going to lay out the consequences of what H.R. 1 means.

Now, we in the Senate, and we, your appropriators--of which there are many women on the committee: Landrieu, Feinstein, Mikulski, Murray--we know we have to bring about fiscal discipline. The Senate Appropriations Committee has already worked to reduce the appropriations in the Senate by $41 billion. Now that is really meat and potatoes. So we feel we have already given an option, but, my god, enough is enough.

Let me give you just the top 10 reasons why H.R. 1 is bad for women and children and examine why we are ready to negotiate so we do not have a shutdown of the government. We need a final settlement on the budget for 2011.

Let's just go through them. One, it defunds the entire health care reform law. That is bad for saving lives and saving money. It also eliminates title X family planning money. It jeopardizes breast cancer and cervical cancer screenings for more than 5 million low-income women. They even went after Head Start. Even little kids in Head Start had to take it on the chin. It is going to cause 218,000 children to be kicked off of it. But they go further. For the group who says they are pro family, family values, and that they have to defend life, yet they slash the nutrition programs for pregnant women by $747 million, affecting 10 million low-income pregnant women, new mothers, and children. They also cut funding for prenatal care, and they went after afterschool programs.

They cut funding for Pell grants. They terminate funding that helps schools comply with title IX. They cut funding for job training, which hurts over 8 million workers, many of them getting new training for the new jobs for the new economy. And something very near and dear, I know, to the Presiding Officer: they went not after Social Security in terms of the benefits but went after the people who work at Social Security-- the Social Security offices where they work on everything from the regular Social Security benefit to the disability benefit. If H.R. 1 passes, over 2,500 people at Social Security will be laid off. In my home State, they were out in the streets in front of the Social Security headquarters saying: What about us? We come every day. We give you the actuarial information on how to keep it solvent. We make sure checks are out there on time, and in snowstorms we are showing up to make sure everything works. But at the end of the day, we are going to be told we are nonessential.

This whole nonessential drives me crazy because, ironically, Members of Congress are considered during a government shutdown. Well, if we are going to be essential, we need to get real about how we come to an agreement on this Continuing Resolution.

So, Mr. President, we in the Senate feel we have given $41 billion already, and we think H.R. 1 just goes too far. It goes too far by leaving so many things off the table.

Now I want to talk about health care reform. We had many goals during health care reform, one of which was to expand universal access. Again, the Presiding Officer has been a champion of that, a stalwart defender of the public option, and a stalwart defender of the single-payer system. As we worked on it and came up with a compromise, what was very clear was that there were certain things we just had to do. One was-- whether you were for the public option or not, whether you are for a single-payer system or the system

we have now--we knew we had to end the punitive practices of insurance companies.

We knew in the health care reform bill we also had to improve quality measures that would actually save lives and save money. We also knew that if we had a strong preventive care benefit, we, once again, through early detection and screening, could minimize the cost to the insurance companies and the Federal budget and also the terrible cost to families who face all kinds of problems but particularly cancer. So that is why we passed the health care reform.

Over in the House, they thought it was going to be really cool to say: We could repeal health care--remember, they said ``repeal and replace.'' They have only talked about repeal because they do not know how to replace. So they decided, through H.R. 1, to defund it, to take the money away. So let me just outline very quickly what we think it means to women and children.

First of all, we ended gender discrimination by the insurance companies. Before we reformed health care, women were charged 40 percent more in many instances for health care premiums as compared to men of comparable age and health care status--40 percent more. There was a gender tax of 40 percent put on by the insurance companies. We ended that.

The second thing is that the insurance companies were treating simply being a woman as a preexisting condition. So we went to the floor, and with the great guys of the Senate we passed the preventive health care amendment. We wouldn't let them take our mammograms away from us. We also made sure our children could have early detection and screening in schools. And, because it is not about gender, it is about an agenda--we included men in these preventive health services as well.

Now, if we agree to that element in H.R. 1, we will take away the preventive health care benefits. They guarantee coverage of preventive care and screenings, such as mammograms for women under 50. We cannot go back.

It would also repeal the quality measures, such as the famous Pronovost checklist developed in Maryland by a Hopkins doc. When used at just Michigan hospitals alone, it is a simple, low-tech way to lower in-house infections in hospitals. In Michigan hospitals, it has saved 2,000 lives and has saved the State $200 million each year.

We can do this. There are so many things that are important in the health care reform bill. We cannot defund it.

As we move ahead in what we hope will be a negotiation and a settlement, we, the women of the Senate, will not surrender the women and children of this country. We will not let them be thrown under the bus and run over by H.R. 1.

Mr. President, I now yield the floor to one of our very able advocates, someone who has been a stalwart defender of childcare in our country, Senator Patty Murray.

Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from New York, Mrs. Gillibrand. Although our newest Democratic Senator, she has been a strong advocate, and she is not new to being a strong advocate. I yield her 5 minutes.

Mr. President, I rise to explain my vote against the managers' amendment to S. 23, the America Invents Act.

I agree wholeheartedly with the chairman of the Judiciary Committee that we must enable our inventors to out innovate and produce the products and jobs of the future.

However, a provision in the managers' amendment would take the Patent and Trademark Office, PTO, off-budget. I cannot support this provision for three reasons.

First, the provision is unnecessary. Proponents argue that it will prevent the diversion of PTO's fees. However, since fiscal year 2005, the Appropriations Committee has rejected the practice of diverting PTO fees for other purposes and instead has consistently recommended that PTO retain every dollar it collects from inventors. In fact, the Appropriations Committee has on several occasions approved bills to allow PTO to spend up to $100 million in excess of PTO's appropriation if fee revenue is higher than the appropriations level.

Second, the amendment would reduce oversight. Rather than being subject to the annual appropriations process, this agency--with a budget of more than $2 billion--would be on autopilot. The underlying bill seeks to reduce the backlog of pending patent applications. Currently, it takes PTO nearly 3 years to process a patent application. The backlog of applications stands at over 700,000. Some progress has been made in this area, thanks to the annual oversight provided in appropriations bills which has succeeded in forcing management reforms that have slowed the growth of PTO's backlog.

The amendment requires PTO to submit annual budget requests and spending plans to Congress. However, this approach eliminates the requirement for an annual legislative vehicle to closely examine and approve expenditures of taxpayer dollars and fee revenue. Instead the amendment would restrict accountability for an agency that struggles to keep up. While our inventors are standing in line for patents, their ideas can be stolen to fuel another country's economy. I am very encouraged by Director Kappos' new leadership at PTO, but much more progress and greater management oversight are still necessary to give American inventors the protections they deserve.

Finally, the amendment may hamper PTO operations in the future. PTO has adequate fee revenue now, but that has not always been the case. As recently as fiscal year 2009, PTO experienced a revenue shortfall due to lower than expected fee collections. To keep PTO's operations whole and to help tackle the patent backlog, we gave PTO a direct appropriation to bridge their financial gap when fees weren't enough. In fact, PTO fee collections have fallen short of appropriations levels by more than $250 million since fiscal year 2005. Unfortunately, should such a gap occur in future years, the Appropriations Committee would not be poised to step in if PTO's fee collections are not adequate to cover operations.

Again, I applaud the Judiciary Committee, under Chairman Leahy's leadership, for pushing PTO to continue its progress as part of our Nation's innovation engine. Unfortunately, this amendment will only send PTO drifting on autopilot with little congressional accountability.

Amendment no. 133

Mr. President, I rise to speak against the Wicker amendment. This is the Republican's first of what I worry will be a sustained attack in the 112th Congress against Federal employees.

As the Senator from Maryland and for Maryland, I represent more than 130,000 Federal employees. These men and women are dedicated and duty driven. They are on the frontlines protecting America every day securing our borders inspecting our food, and performing critical health research. They deserve a decent wage, safe working conditions and our thanks and respect.

This amendment would deny TSA workers the collective bargaining rights that many other employees at DHS currently have, including the Bureau of Prison Guards, Customs and Border Protection, and the Capitol Police.

TSA currently suffers from low morale, high injury rates, and high staff turnover. Giving these employees a voice at work representing their interests will lead to a more stable, more

experienced, and healthier workforce. That would increase productivity, performance, and safety for the flying public.

Like all Federal employees, the employees at DHS with collective bargaining rights must follow civil service rules that prohibit the right to strike and allows managers to move employees to different areas in the event of an emergency. They bargain in a way that does not compromise the agency's mission and that does not endanger national security.

Congress has been debating allowing collective bargaining for TSA employees for a decade. Republicans have been vocally against it.

In 2001, Congress took up FAA. It gave the administrator the authority to determine whether TSA employee would get collective bargaining rights.

In 2004, the 9/11 Commission recommended granting TSA workers collective bargaining.

In 2006, the Senate passed a bill granting collective bargaining for TSA workers. But we couldn't get it across the finish line because of the threat of a Presidential veto. Every Democratic Senator voted in favor of collective bargaining for TSA.

Finally, this month, the TSA completed its review of the potential impact of collective bargaining rights for TSA workers on the safety and security of American travelers. And the TSA Administrator announced that TSA workers do have collective bargaining rights, and they will soon be able to determine whether or not they wish to exercise those rights. In the coming months, TSA workers will be able to decide whether or not they want to be represented by a union to bargain on their behalf on nonsecurity employment issues.

But the Wicker amendment would bring all of this to a screeching halt.

We should not stand in the way of something that TSA employees want, and the Secretary of Homeland Security and the President support.

Federal employees serve their communities and country every day. They should be empowered to fight for their rights on the job without any fear of retribution.

Whether you are at the IRS or the TSA, you deserve collective bargaining rights. And if anyone wants to block, or take away those rights, you will have to get through me first.

The Senator from West Virginia is recognized.

Mr. President, I rise today to commend and congratulate the Susquehanna River Basin Commission, SRBC, in honor of their 40th anniversary. The Susquehanna River Basin Compact, which went into effect on January 23, 1971, brought together the Federal Government and the States of New York, Pennsylvania, and Maryland to form the SRBC, one of only two such Federal-interstate compact agencies in the Nation. The mission of SRBC is to manage the water resources of the Susquehanna basin under comprehensive planning principles, and to protect the Chesapeake Bay, one of the world's most productive ecosystems. The Susquehanna is America's largest eastern river and supplies over half the fresh water entering the Chesapeake Bay.

This unique partnership has resulted in numerous benefits for the people of the basin, including the establishment of a basin-wide flood forecasting and warning system in one of America's most flood prone river systems; the storage and release of water during low flow periods from federally operated reservoirs; the management of large scale withdrawals and consumptive uses of water; and the monitoring of basin water quality. Furthermore, SRBC's involvement in hydroelectric relicensing has restored migratory fish runs, minimum flows, and improved recreational facilities.

The Susquehanna Flood Forecast and Warning System, administered by the National Weather Service, in cooperation with the U.S. Geological Survey and the SRBC, provides timely warnings to residents of the Susquehanna River basin to reduce loss of life and property damage during flood events. The funding I've helped to secure over the years supports the flood warning infrastructure--a network of gauges, radar and computer technology--to provide advanced flood warning information to communities along the river.

The Susquehanna System is about saving lives and saving communities. I have seen firsthand not only what the warning system accomplishes, but also its ongoing and compelling needs. This system has been critical in protecting families and businesses during flooding that has devastated communities along the east coast.

I extend my congratulations to the Susquehanna River Basin Commission for its 40 years of water resources management excellence, and I will continue to work closely with the Commission on important water resource issues in the future.

Mr. President, I rise today in very strong opposition to any attempt to repeal the health care reform bill. The Republican leadership has offered an amendment to repeal the Affordable Health Care Act. They are only keeping half of their promise. They went out there and campaigned--and the tea party had a teapot boiling over--and they said: We are going to offer a bill to repeal and to replace. Guess what they are doing today. One more hollow, symbolic, pander-to-the- masses amendment. Their amendment offers a repeal, but it does not offer a plan or strategy to replace. Do you know why? They have no ideas. They just want to pander to the crowd.

I want my colleagues to know that I am emphatically and unabashedly against the repeal of health care reform. But I want to say to my colleagues, as I listened to this colloquy, every Senator has the right to rewrite legislation, but they do not have the right to rewrite history or to rewrite the facts.

I heard CBO criticized and being dismissed. But yet it was the Republican Party who said we could not move anything, bring up anything, even get a Kleenex without getting a CBO score. Now they do not want a CBO score. You cannot say I want a CBO score one day and then make fun of it the next. Garbage in, garbage out.

Then second: Oh, they rewrote the bill in the middle of the night, sweetheart deals, whatever. I was on the HELP Committee. I chaired the task force on quality. I went to several hearings in an open, public forum to get the best ideas to produce the best bill. In many of those instances, very few of the other party even bothered to show up. So I am not real excited about their criticism.

Then we went into a markup of the bill, 4 weeks in the HELP Committee, open, public markups in full view and on C-SPAN. Over 300 amendments were dealt with--300 amendments. How is that secret? How is that behind closed doors? How is that in the middle of the night? We worked in the middle of the night because there were so many amendments. Fine, that is democracy. That is the way the legislative process works. But don't try to rewrite history. Don't try to rewrite facts. And if you want to rewrite the bill, keep your promise, Republican Party. If you want to repeal, then let's go to replace.

I want to hear their ideas for replacement. I challenge them right here, right now, today on this amendment. Come in with other amendments on your ideas for replacement. I want to know what it is they want to do. I want to know which parts of the health care reform they want to repeal and replace. What is it they want to repeal and replace?

How about this? No longer can big insurance deny coverage to a child with a preexisting condition. Do they want to repeal that? And with what are they going to replace it? Do they want to repeal the part where we allow young people to stay on their parents' plans until they are 26? Do they want to repeal that? And with what do they want to replace it?

We eliminated the cap on what an insurance company could pay out. Do they want to repeal that cap--if you have cancer, if you need heart surgery? And with what are they going to replace it?

I am proud of what we did in health care. It is an excellent bill. We accomplished four goals. First of all, we save and strengthen Medicare. We end those punitive practices of insurance companies. We expanded universal access. And, guess what. We came up with quality and prevention measures that save lives and save money. This is what people wanted in health care reform. I heard it all over Maryland and heard it at hearings. I had roundtables, hearings, I was in diners, I held online townhall meetings, phone calls, letters. Once they got the straight information about what we did, they liked it.

Let's go to Medicare. We extended the solvency for a decade. We closed the doughnut hole that has been so hard to swallow. Last year, more than 32,000 Maryland seniors received a $250 rebate check to help pay for prescription drugs. That is in the health care reform bill. If we repeal it, do I have to call up 32,000 Marylanders and say give it back? Give it back; we repealed. Wow, I bet that is going to go over.

These same seniors will now get 50 percent off their brand-name drugs when they hit the prescription drug coverage cap. Are we going to repeal that? And with what are we going to replace it?

Also, one of my favorite parts of this bill is ending the punitive practices of insurance companies, such as seeing a child denied coverage because of chronic conditions because of asthma or juvenile diabetes.

I also fought very long and hard, as everyone knows, for women. Did you know, Mr. President, when we began our hearings on the bill, we found out

that in many instances insurance companies charged women 25 to 40 percent more in their premiums simply because they were a woman, more than guys with the same age and same health status? Are we going to repeal that and bring back gender discrimination?

Also, we ended the despicable practice of just being a woman being treated as a preexisting condition. Another point my hearing disclosed is that in seven States and the District of Columbia, women were denied coverage for simply being a victim of domestic violence. They were abused by their partner, and they were then abused by the insurance company. Are we going to abuse them once again by repealing that provision? Not if I can help it.

Then there were other issues also related to the whole issue of prevention. We offered a prevention amendment. When they tried to take our mammograms away from us, the Democratic women took to the floor-- and good guys supported this bill and we passed it: preventive measures at no cost and no deductible in order to make sure we not only had our mammograms but that there were other preventive services.

Provision after provision--are we going to go back to that? I hope not. If they are going to repeal, that is what they are repealing. They are really repealing the way we ended the punitive practices of insurance companies. They are really repealing our attempt to make sure Medicare is solvent and close the doughnut hole for prescription drugs for seniors and also get them better health evaluations. We also did other things.

I am so proud of this. We said to the insurance companies, 80 percent of what you collect has to go into health care. It cannot go into administrative costs. It cannot buy you another Armani suit or a pair of Gucci shoes or a third or fourth home or $1,000 bottles of wine when you have those conferences where you think about price fixing; you have to put it back into health care. I do not want to repeal that provision. I want that 80 percent collected to go back into health care. I think that is a good idea.

In our bill, one of the things I am proud of is that we stop big insurance from putting lifetime dollar caps on benefits. I heard from a woman in Columbia who told me her husband had reached his lifetime limit. So when he needed an EKG to deal with a long-time cardiac problem, they had to pay for it out of pocket. Even with health insurance, their health care costs still topped $17,000 a year with their annual income at $60,000. By lifting that cap, the man can get his EKG and prevent other kinds of problems.

I could go case example after case example.

Let's go to something called quality and prevention. I know that is often ridiculed. That is goosh; that is not like real medicine. I want to tell the story of a brilliant and talented physician at Johns Hopkins, Dr. Pronovost. He developed a checklist that, if followed, lowers infections that are caught in hospitals which takes lives, takes money, and extends stays.

In health care reform, we improve patient safety and help prevent medical errors. The Pronovost checklist, which we allow to occur in the bill, has now, we found out, reduced in Michigan patient deaths by 10 percent, and it has nearly had over an 85-percent effective rate at eliminating bloodstream infections.

The cost savings to both public and private insurance in Michigan has been stunning. Do we really want to repeal these measures that are saving lives and saving money?

I do not want to repeal this bill. We did a lot of good things in it. If the Republicans have ideas, then I do not think they should vote to repeal unless they have a better idea to replace what I outlined today. I challenge them: If you want to repeal, keep the other half of your campaign promise--replace. Let's put those replacement ideas out into the light of day. Let's put them out for debate and discussion and then vote. I am up to the task. I wonder if they are.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank my colleagues for their very warm words. Today, when I walked down the aisle, escorted by my esteemed partner, Ben Cardin, my former and beloved colleague, Senator Paul Sarbanes--when I walked down that aisle, I walked into the history books.

I never set out to do that and, for me, it is a great honor to join Margaret Chase Smith in the history books. As Senator Snowe has said, and also Senator Collins on a number of occasions, Margaret Chase Smith and I share many things in common. Today they wear the rose, but those two outstanding Senators from Maine also wear the values of Maine and the values of Margaret Chase Smith: a strong belief in constituent service, staying close to the people, focusing on jobs for the State, being a strong supporter of innovation, and a fearless, unrelenting streak of independence. I hope I am like her. I know they bear that same set of characteristics.

For me, it is not how long I serve but how well I serve. Service for me is about being connected, connected to my constituents, staying close to them so they do not fall between the cracks, meeting their day-to-day needs and also looking at the long-range needs of the Nation.

Nobody comes here by themselves. Later on today I will thank my friends and supporters. But I want to thank the wonderful people who shaped me, the wonderful nuns who taught me, the school Sisters of Notre Dame and the Sisters of Mercy who taught me about leadership, who taught me about service, who taught me about my faith in Matthew 5, the Beatitude that said hunger and thirst after justice.

But today as I stand here, I also think about my mother and father. I am filled with great emotion. I wish my mother and father were here today. They worked so hard for my sisters and I to have an education. But though they are not here with me today in the Senate gallery, I know they are in my heart. I want them to know they are with me when I fight for what we believed in.

My father ran a small grocery store. Everybody loved my father and mother. They were known for honesty and integrity. When my father opened the grocery store every morning, he would say: Good morning. Can I help you? And that is the kind of values I bring to the Senate.

Our family came from Poland. When my great-grandmother arrived in this country she had little money in her pocket, but she had a big dream in her heart. That dream was the American dream where through hard work, hard work and dedication, you could make something of yourself. You could own a home, you could have a job, you could get an education for your family. She did not even have the right to vote, and in this great country of ours, in three generations, I joined the Senate. She knew about hard work in terms of economic opportunity. She did not think too much about the Constitution, but I do--particularly that first amendment.

I got into politics fighting a highway. In other countries they put dissidents in jail. In the United States of America, because of the first amendment, they put you in the United States Senate. God bless America.

When I came to the Senate, though I was all by myself, I said I was never alone because of the wonderful way the men have treated me. The history of the women in the Senate is short--I might add, 4-foot-11 short. But everything we have done we have been able to work on together.

I fought for seniors to try to pass, and passed, the Spousal Impoverishment Act to make sure the very cruel rules of our government did not force people into bankruptcy when they had to turn to a nursing home. I worked to pass the Lilly Ledbetter bill to give equal pay for equal work; our wonderful work on women's health, where we broke barriers in terms of research. We know we have saved lives because of what we have done in research in our preventive health amendment, and for young people in national service.

I have also fought for Maryland--whether it is cleaning up the bay or fighting for jobs in the Port of Baltimore, whether it is looking out for the Goddard Space Agency or doubling the funding at the National Institutes of Health. For me, again, it is all about service. I am fighting for a stronger economy and a safer America. For me it is not about the past, it is about the future. Though I break one record today, I want to work with all of you on both sides of the aisle to break other records.

Let's break that high record of unemployment in our country. Let's break that record of low graduation rates in our high schools. Let's break the record of the longest war in American history and bring our troops home as safely as we can. I want to build a strong economy.

I am going to work to build a strong economy, an innovation economy so we are able to move ahead. Today when I took my oath, I pledged that I want to help America be great again with a renewed self-confidence and achievement. I want us to be a global leader in this innovation economy. I want to help America be excellent again so we not only win Nobel Prizes--and I want us to win lots of them--but win international markets and win lots of them. I want to promote a sense of community where we look out for each other and for our community and where the people of the United States know they have a government on their side.

I will close with a quote from George Bernard Shaw.

I am convinced that my life belongs to the whole community;

and as long as I live, it is my privilege to do for it

whatever I can, for the harder I work, the more I live.

I rejoice in life for its own sake. Life is no brief candle

to me. It is a sort of splendid torch which I got hold of for

a moment, and I want to make it burn as brightly as possible

before turning it over to future generations.

Someday in the future, someone else will break this record. Let's work together to break those other records.

Thanks for everything. God bless America.

(Applause, Senators rising.)

Mr. President, I rise to speak about the appropriations process and the need to return it to regular order. I come to the floor very bitter that we have to pass this continuing resolution, CR. The power of the purse is our constitutional prerogative. I am for regular order. Regular order is the most important reform to avoid continuing resolutions and omnibus bills.

Regular order starts with the Appropriations subcommittees and then full committee marking up 12 individual bills. Chairman Inouye has led these bills out of Committee for the last 2 years, as Chairman Byrd did before him. Then the full Senate considers 12 bills on the floor and all Senators have a chance to amend and vote on the bills. This, however, has not happened since the 2006 spending bills. Lack of regular order means trillion dollar omnibuses or continuing resolutions. If a bill costs a trillion dollars, then opponents ask why can't we cut it by 20 percent--what will it matter? But we are dealing with actual money; it is not authorizing, which is advisory. There are real consequences. If we are really going to tackle the debt, the Appropriations Committee must be at the table. Tackling the debt can't be done just through Budget and Finance Committees alone.

What are the real life consequences of this CR? Well, this CR means that it will be harder to keep America safe. Under this CR the FBI cannot hire 126 new agents and 32 intelligence analysts it needs to strengthen national security and counter terrorist threats. The FBI's cyber security efforts will also be stalled, even while our Nation faces a growing and pervasive threat overseas from hackers, cyber spies and cyber terrorists. Cyber security is a critical component to our Nation's infrastructure, but this CR doesn't allow the FBI to hire 63 new agents, 46 new intelligence analysts and 54 new professional staff to fight cyber crime. The DEA, ATF and FBI cannot hire 57 new agents and 64 new prosecutors to reduce the flow of drugs and fight violence and strengthen immigration enforcement along the Southwest border. Under this CR, we leave immigration courts struggling to keep pace with over 400,000 immigration court cases expected in 2011 because they cannot add Immigration Judge Teams who decide deportation and asylum cases. We cannot hire 143 new FBI agents and 157 new prosecutors for U.S. attorneys to target mortgage and financial fraud scammers and schemers who prey on America's hard working, middle class families and destroy our communities and economy. We miss the chance to add at least 75 new U.S. deputy marshals to track down and arrest the roughly 135,000 fugitive, unregistered child sexual predators hiding from the law and targeting children.

This CR stifles innovation and workforce development. In September, Norm Augustine and the National Academy of Sciences updated the 2005 ``Rising Above the Gathering Storm'' report, sounding the alarm that the U.S. is still losing ground in science that fuels innovations, and brings us new products and new companies. Everyone says they are for science, but it appears that no one wants to pay for it. So, under this CR, our science agencies, like the National Institute of Standards and Technology, NIST, and the National Science Foundation, NSF, will be flat funded. For NSF, this would mean 800 fewer research grants, and 7,000 fewer scientists and technicians working in labs across the country on promising research in emerging fields like cyber security and nanotechnology. Under a CR, we will let the world catch up by not making new investments in science education. We won't just lose the Ph.D.s who open avenues of discovery and win the Nobel Prize. We will also lose the technicians who are going from making steel and building ships to the new, innovation-based manufacturing economy, creating the next high tech product. We will also lose the chance to build up technical education in key fields like cyber security. Under this CR, we cannot expand the supply of cyber security specialists who are responsible for protecting U.S. Government computers and information. We miss the opportunity to triple funding for the NSF program to train cyber professionals for Federal careers, which has brought us more than 1,100 cyber warriors since 2002 and of whom more than 90 percent take jobs with Federal agencies.

I am also disappointed we will be passing this CR because I believe in the separation of powers established by the Constitution. Congress should not cede power to the Executive Branch, regardless of which party is in the White House. The Constitution gives the power of the purse to Congress. I will not cede the power to meet compelling human or community needs or create jobs for America and for Maryland. I don't want to leave all funding decisions to bureaucracy.

On the Appropriations Committee, we did our work by reporting 12 separate bills to the full Senate, but none came to the Senate floor. My Commerce, Justice, Science--or CJS--Subcommittee held 6 hearings with 14 witnesses to examine agencies' budget requests and policies. We heard from 4 inspectors general, IGs, from our major departments and agencies: Todd Zinser at Commerce, Glenn Fine at Justice, Paul Martin at NASA and Allison Lerner at NSF. We listened to agencies' officials, representatives of organizations from sheriffs to scientists

and interested Senators. My CJS Subcommittee worked in a bipartisan way to craft a bill that makes America safer, invests in the American workforce of the future and is frugal and gets value for taxpayer dollars. Under this CR, all of that work is wasted. Instead of fulfilling our constitutional duty of the power of the purse, we are leaving it to the Executive Branch to make key funding decisions with minimal direction from Congress.

As I travel around Maryland, people tell me that they are mad at Washington. Families are stretched and stressed. They want a government that's on their side, working for a strong economy and a safer country. They want a government that is as frugal and thrifty as they are. They want to return to a more constitutionally based government. This CR is not the solution.

Some Members might say that a CR is OK, it will save money, it doesn't matter. Well, even though the CR provides less funding for CJS, it doesn't do it smarter because the CR is essentially a blank check for the executive branch. Regular order provides direction, telling the government to be smarter and more frugal, making thoughtful and targeted cuts and modest increases where justified--not government on autopilot.

For example, my CJS appropriations bill tells agencies to cut reception and representation funds by 25 percent; eliminate excessive banquets and conferences; cut overhead by at least 10 percent--by reducing non-essential travel, supply, rent and utility costs; increase funding to IGs, the taxpayers' watchdogs at the agencies, and have those IGs do random audits of grant funding to find and stop waste and fraud; and notify the committee when project costs grow by more than 10 percent so that we have an early warning system on cost overruns. These reforms are lost in any CR.

We should refocus on the Appropriations Committee. Many Senators have only been elected for the first time in the last 6 years, so most have never seen regular order and don't know what Appropriations Committee is supposed to be. The Appropriations Committee is ``the guardian of the purse,'' which puts real funds in the Federal checkbook for the day-to-day operations of Federal agencies in Washington, and around the Nation and the world. It performs oversight of spending by Federal agencies. And it serves as Congress's main tool to influence how agencies spend money on a daily basis. Why does this matter? It matters because the Appropriations Committee is the tool for aggressive oversight and meeting the needs of our constituents. Agencies must respond to Appropriations--their budgets depend on it.

We must preserve the separation of powers, oversight of Federal agencies and advocacy for our States and our constituents. I urge my colleagues to return to the regular order, and look forward to consideration of all 12 appropriations bills on the floor next year.

Mr. President, it is with great pleasure that Senator Cardin and I bring to the Senate Judge Ellen Hollander, an outstanding woman who is currently a member of the Maryland Court of Special Appeals; has been deemed qualified, very qualified by the Maryland Bar, and every specialized bar in the State of Maryland.

She brings a sense of judicial temperament, great judicial competence, and a commitment to impartial justice. She will be a great addition to the Federal bench in Maryland and to the Federal bench of the United States. She does not live in an ivory tower. Her work on boards and commissions in the nonprofit areas shows a keen involvement in civic affairs. I urge that we adopt the nomination of Judge Hollander. I would hope that we could do it by voice.

Mr. President, I rise to congratulate the men and women of the FBI's Baltimore field office who have prevented yet another catastrophic terrorist attack on our Nation. Similar to the plot to bomb the tree lighting ceremony in Portland, OR, over the recent Thanksgiving holiday weekend, the outstanding work of the men and women of the FBI's Baltimore field office was successful in infiltrating and thwarting the planned bombing of a military recruitment center in Catonsville, MD. This deplorable scheme was meant to harm the young men and women who sacrifice so much for our country by serving in the Armed Forces. That is why I am grateful for the FBI's months of careful, covert and skillful investigations and operations to disrupt this plot, put the terrorist behind bars, and keep Marylanders safe.

This is the second time in as many weeks that the FBI has stopped a terrorist plot to harm Americans here at home, reminding us they are on the job 24 hours a day 7 days a week keeping the United States safe. Whether they are catching sexual predators who exploit children on the Internet, targeting scammers who prey on hard-working, middle-class families with mortgage fraud schemes, stopping cyber crooks from hacking into U.S. networks, or preventing terrorists bent on murder and destruction from acquiring weapons of mass destruction, the FBI is committed to protecting our communities with fidelity, bravery and integrity. This job is not easy and most of the time the good work done by FBI employees does not make headlines, but they remain committed to their mission of fighting to protect 300 million Americans nonetheless.

A tremendous amount of detective work was carried out by the FBI and their Federal, State and local law enforcement and homeland security partners to prevent this attack and save lives. The takedown went exactly as planned, and that can be attributed to professionalism and diligence displayed by the many agencies involved. Leading the charge was the Joint Terrorism Task Force, which was integral in coordinating a multiagency team that investigated the threat thoroughly and ensured the safety of Marylanders. In addition, I want to praise the critical contributions to the investigation by the Baltimore City Police Department, Baltimore County Police Department, Maryland State Police, Naval Criminal Investigative Service, Army Recruiting Command, Air Force Recruitment Command, Air Force Office of Special Investigations, Army 902d Military Intelligence Group, Defense Criminal Investigative Services (DCIS) and other DOD components, U.S. Marshals Service, and Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

As chairwoman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, and Science, I know firsthand the importance of the national security responsibilities shouldered by the FBI as they protect us from both homegrown and international terrorism. In a time when many Americans eye the Federal institutions with wariness and disapproval, the FBI continues getting the job done and restoring confidence in our government's ability to keep us safe. Again, I congratulate the FBI's brave men and women for their tireless efforts in protecting our communities, and say to them, ``Keep up the fight!''

Mr. President, I rise to make a clarification regarding a project that is listed in the congressionally designated spending table to accompany Division G, the Interior, Environment and Related Agencies division of fiscal year 2011 omnibus appropriations bill. I understand that due to a clerical error, I was listed as a sponsor for the following water infrastructure project: ``City of Baltimore for Penn Station pipe relocation.'' I would like the Record to reflect that I am not in fact a sponsor of this project.

Mr. President, after careful deliberation, I have decided to support the bipartisan tax agreement.

If Congress does not pass this agreement, taxes will rise for all middle class families. Unemployment insurance will end for millions of Americans--including 75,000 Marylanders. And important tax breaks for low and middle income workers will expire.

This agreement is not perfect. Yet, if Congress does not extend unemployment insurance and tax breaks for the middle class, the economy could slip backwards.

This is the only realizable option we have right now to create jobs, stabilize our economy, and ensure that there is a safety net for people who have lost their jobs.

This package maintains tax cuts for the middle class so that working families do not see their taxes rise in a difficult economy.

It will help 100 million middle class families by preventing a tax increase of over $2,000 for the typical family from going into effect on January 1st.

It also prevents more than 21 million families from coming under the Alternative Minimum Tax.

This deal extends the Earned Income Tax Credit--providing $800 million in tax relief for Maryland families.

It also extends the tuition tax credit which has helped 170,000 students in Maryland.

This plan will extend unemployment benefits through the end of 2011. It will help over 75,000 families in Maryland who have lost their jobs. It will help them put food on the table, pay their rent, and pay their energy bills. It will prevent them from losing their homes.

This money goes straight back into our economy while putting more money in the pockets of millions of Americans who are facing the worst job market in a quarter century. It gives them the time they need to get back on their feet, while we get the economy back on track.

For the Americans who have been hit the hardest by the economic downturn, this is insurance that they paid into and benefits that they have earned through their work. This is about people who have lost their job, who are actively looking for a job, who need a safety net to bridge them over until they can get a paycheck again.

I am concerned about the long term solvency of Social Security and about the cut in the Social Security payroll tax. The authors of this deal say there will be no impact on solvency of Social Security, and that the Social Security trust fund will be reimbursed for the lost revenue from the payroll tax. Yet, this could have dangerous consequences on Social Security.

What if this cut in Social Security payroll taxes is extended beyond 2013? What if this is just the first step in the effort to cripple Social Security? What if this is just another step for those who want to cut Social Security, privatize Social Security, or use the Social Security trust fund to cut the deficit?

I fought against attempts to privatize Social Security under the Bush administration. I fought against fast-track proposals to cut Social Security under the guise of deficit reduction. And I will fight to make sure that temporary tax cuts are not turned into means to undermine Social Security funding.

This tax agreement takes risky steps that could threaten the long term solvency of Social Security. It also extends lavish tax breaks for those who need them least--the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans. It ignores the pay as you go rules that are essential to deficit reduction.

Yet, it helps the long term unemployed--who were facing losing everything they have during this holiday season--including hope. It also helps middle class workers, families sending their kids to college, and small businesses who create jobs.

So I will vote for this tax agreement. It is essential to helping families and our economy.

Mr. President, I rise today to commemorate one of the greatest recent achievements in women's health--the 20th anniversary of the founding of the Office of Research on Women's Health at the National Institutes of Health. I could not be prouder of all that the Office of Research on Women's Health has done for women's health, and I am honored to be a part of its history.

As an advocate of women's health, a supporter of scientific research, and a woman myself, this is an emotional day for me. Twenty years ago, women did not have much to celebrate when it came to scientific advances. In fact, we were not even at the table. Remember that famous study that said, ``an aspirin a day keeps the doctor away''? That study included 10,000 men but not a single woman. The same went for the famous study on heart disease factors: 13,000 men were surveyed but not a single woman.

We had a big problem. Women were being systematically excluded from NIH clinical research. It was not sound science, and it was not acceptable. Our worst concerns were confirmed by a 1990 GAO report, which proved that women were not being included in clinical trials.

I had to do something about it. I remember it well: I called up my women colleagues, and they agreed. We piled into the car on a hot August day, and we drove to NIH in Bethesda, MD. Our aim was to assemble all 12 institutes, communicate our concerns, and see what goals they could come up with to resolve this unfair exclusion. We showed up: Connie Morella, Olympia Snowe, Pat Schroeder, and I--and so did the TV cameras and Time Magazine. We made it clear that the time had come to include women in scientific research, remember their place in the Federal budget, and treat them with respect.

We got Dr. Bernadine Healy appointed as the first female director of NIH, and that was a notable accomplishment. But we needed more. We needed an Office of Women's Health at the NIH to be on the law books. So Senators Kennedy, Harkin, Kassebaum, and I worked together to create and fund it in statute. The first thing that Dr. Healy did with that funding was to put it toward the Women's Health Initiative, a now- famous hormonal study that has helped decrease breast cancer deaths by 15 percent, saving millions of lives.

Dr. Healy then appointed Dr. Vivian Pinn to serve as the first director of the Office of Research on Women's Health, ORWH. These women empowered researchers to look at disease in a gender-specific way, such as heart disease and depression. They also made great strides in breast cancer and cervical cancer research, as well as AIDS research and mapping the human genome. None of this would have been possible just a few years earlier. And it would not have been possible without my dear friend, Dr. Ruth Kirschstein. She led the fight for women's health on the inside of the scientific community, and I was proud to help her from the outside.

Today, we are keeping up the fight. There are now 17 women in the Senate, and women's health is one issue that always brings us together. During the health reform debate, we would not stand for insurers treating gender as a preexisting condition or for restricted access to mammograms and other preventive care. That is why I introduced the women's health amendment--the first amendment to pass during the Senate health reform debate--that provides preventive care for women with no co-pays and no deductibles and ends gender discrimination in health care. I was proud when my amendment passed the Senate 61-39. We also included the Women's Health Office Act in health reform, so that now all women's health offices throughout the Department of Health and Human Services are set in law. That means we have offices of women's health standing sentry for drug approvals, mental health and substance abuse issues, quality measures, and public health initiatives that will help women.

But our work goes on. To quote my dear friend Teddy Kennedy, ``The work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives and the dreams shall never die.'' I thank the people who made the Office of Research on Women's Health a reality. I thank the office itself for all of its hard work, and I look forward to another 20 years of ground-breaking discoveries.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 15 minutes.

Mr. President, I rise today to talk about my opposition to an amendment that is going to be offered by the Senator from Oklahoma to eliminate congressionally designated projects.

For me, the job has always been about the people, and the best ideas do come from the people. As I have traveled around the State of Maryland, whether to worksites or roundtables or unfettered, uncensored conversations in diners, I listen to the people. What they tell me is that they are mad at Washington because when all is said and done, more gets said than gets done. Families are stretched and stressed, and they want a government that is on their side. They want a strong economy, a safer country, and a government that is as frugal and thrifty as they are. People want us to focus on a constitutionally based government.

I support the people because I feel the same way. I do think we have to

focus on building a strong economy. We do have to focus on being a more frugal government. However, I say to my colleagues, getting rid of congressionally designated projects is really a false journey to be on. If we eliminate every congressionally designated project--otherwise known as earmarks--we won't do anything to reduce the deficit because congressionally designated projects are less than one-half of 1 percent of total Federal spending. What it will do, however, is make it harder to meet compelling human and community needs many of us hear about from our constituents. Without these congressionally designated projects, often their needs will be cast aside by a big government or a big bureaucracy.

I believe we need to fight for real deficit reduction, and the way we do it is to look at the recommendations of the various commissions that are being put forward, whether it is Simpson-Bowles or Domenici-Rivlin or others.

What I do think is that we also should maintain our constitutional prerogatives of fighting for our constituents and fighting by being able to put special projects into the Federal checkbook.

I have been clearly on the side of reform. We have had many requests for earmarks in my Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science. I got $3 billion worth of requests, including $580 million for police officer technology. Another $980 million came for fighting crime, drugs, and gangs through enforcement, prevention, and intervention. Also, we got $220 million worth of requests in science and in education. We cannot fund those at those levels. In fact, we severely reduced them and stayed within what we think are acceptable limits. So we need the local communities to keep our communities safe, to educate our children in science and technology, and make sure we keep our police officers safe with earmarks of $3 billion.

There have been abuses of congressionally designated projects. That is why I support reform, and the leadership is focused on reform. In 2007, new Senate rules began to require full disclosure of these projects. In 2009, Senator Inouye insisted on more significant reforms: Every project must be posted by Senators on their Web site. Every project must be less than 1 percent of the discretionary budget.

Today, congressionally designated projects--otherwise known as earmarks--are 50 percent below what they were when the Republicans controlled the Congress. Mr. President, I emphasize that under Democratic leadership, we reduced earmarks by 50 percent below what they were in 2006, and we made the process open and transparent. I think this is very important.

In the Commerce-Justice bill, I instituted my own reforms. I even went a step further. I established criteria that met community needs and must be supported by a viable organization, and it must have matching funds.

I have also fought and led the subcommittee in a more aggressive reform effort. I provided robust funding to inspectors general to be the watchdogs of the agencies. I am the first Senator on an appropriations subcommittee to insist that the inspector general testify at every one of my subcommittee hearings of an agency on issues relating to waste and abuse.

I established an early warning system on cost overruns, and then I reduced overhead by 10 percent by getting rid of lavish banquets and conferences and also cutting the amount that could be spent on tchotchke giveaways at the conferences they did have. That might sound like a small thing, but, my gosh, getting an inspector general there, we found all kinds of things under every rock where another couple million were hidden and we worked to get rid of that. We also got rid of things such as the $4 meatball or $66 for bagels for one person at a Department of Justice breakfast. So we said: Let's get rid of the folly, let's get rid of the fraud, let's into get into a more frugal atmosphere, and we were able to do this.

I would hope we could institutionalize these reforms. There are reforms we could put in place that are common sense, but it would enable colleagues to exercise their constitutional prerogative of not letting big bureaucracies and big government determine the destiny of our communities. I am always going to fight for Maryland. I am not here to defend earmarks, but I am here to defend my ability to help Maryland. So I oppose Coburn.

Coburn would have a moratorium for 3 years on appropriations bills, authorizing bills and tax bills. I oppose it because I do not think, first of all, it will reduce the Federal deficit; secondly, it takes away my constitutional power--the power of the purse that was given to Congress--to be able to help my constituents; and lastly but most of all, I wish to have every tool at my disposal to make sure big bureaucracies don't forget the little people who pay the taxes. So I hope we defeat Coburn.

At the same time, what I want to be able to do is stand on the side of reform. I can assure my colleagues, if Coburn is defeated, I will do everything in the institution to follow the leadership already established by Senator Inouye--a real reformer--to further reform our process. Let's get rid of abuse, but let's not give away our ability to stand and fight for our constituents.

Let me close by giving a couple examples. The Port of Baltimore provides over 1,000 jobs. I want to be ready when those big ships come through the Panama Canal, so I have a dredging earmark in that makes my port fit for duty for the 21st century.

I also have another earmark in for Ocean City beach replenishment, which we have already done. It protects millions of dollars of real estate along Maryland's coast, where we generate over $10 billion in tourism.

I have also funded small projects but big in the hearts of my constituents, such as helping with the building of a children's hospice. Imagine having a child so sick they require hospice care. The least America can do and the least the Senate can do is to partner with families, the local government, and people at great institutions, such as hospice, to make sure children at the end stage of life have a place to be.

So do I fight for congressional projects? You bet I do. Has it made a difference in the lives and economy of Maryland? You bet it does. So we can have this moratorium, but I will predict we will be back 15 months from now to reinstate it. I say: Let's keep it, let's reform it, let's have a stronger economy, safer communities, and a more frugal government.

I yield the floor.