As Congress finished the year, The Examiner interviewed Sen. Barbara Mikulski, Maryland?s senior Democratic senator who chairs an appropriations subcommittee and serves on several other committees, including the intelligence panel.
Where did we wind up on the budget?
The budget has very important Democratic priorities in it related to national security and also important investments that we need to make in education and health care.
The president?s rigidity in wanting not to work with us means that national priorities are shortchanged. The president really underfunded his budget. The Democrats never overspent. For example, in my appropriations subcommittee ? Commerce, Justice, Science ? it was the Democratic efforts led by me that lifted the ceiling for the Drug Enforcement Agency so that we could fight drugs in the poppy fields of Afghanistan and also in the neighborhoods of Boston and Detroit and Los Angeles The president also zeroed out the ever-popular COPS [Community Oriented Policing] program that under President Bill Clinton helped reduce violent crime. We need more cops on the beat, and we need our cops to be able to apply for federal funds for new technology.
Isn?t part of his rigidity his refusal to sign any tax increases?
It?s not only about tax increases. It?s also about the cost of the war. We?re now spending $4 billion to $5 billion a week on it. That is more than the FBI budget [for a year]; it?s more than the National Science Foundation budget [for a year]. It?s more than we?ve put in to fight crime at the local level or for highway infrastructure. When the president was leading us into this war, he and Rumsfeld said, don?t worry, we will pay for this war either by seizing Iraqi assets, which we never did, or Iraqi oil revenue, which we?ve never seen. The war has been underfunded, and the president refuses to acknowledge that.
People take issue with the earmarks that have been put into previous budgets, but folks like yourself say some earmarks need to be in there to pay for needed projects.
I?m a supporter of congressionally designated projects, and I?ve always supported something that I call smart earmarks, which means that you have real criteria. One, they?re tied into the mission of the agency, and two, they meet a compelling need either in terms of human capital or public infrastructure. We have focused on that in the past year?s appropriation.
We have substantial needs with transportation in Maryland because of the congestion we anticipate coming from the base expansion that will be occurring at Aberdeen, Fort Meade, Andrews and Naval Bethesda. Who wants to fault me for improving MARC trains, getting more cars, analyzing what we need to do for new stops for both the bases that are coming and our new population?
One of the areas that I?ve addressed is looking at ways to focus on the nursing shortage. My earmarks in the area of health and education have dealt with nursing education, both through our community colleges and distance learning. So if you want to fault me for dealing with the waiting list of 3,000 people [in Maryland] who want to be nurses but can?t go because of under-capacity or lack of financial aid, well, I?ll stand by the fact that I fought for nursing. There is a national nursing shortage, and we?re almost at a crisis point. The president tries to shortchange nursing funding. They are modest in funds ? most of these projects, except for transportation, are under $1 million.
As a member of the Intelligence Committee, what?s the bottom line for you on the interrogation techniques that have been used in these camps?
It?s not only the destruction of the tapes, but what went on in the interrogation. I support the framework that John McCain does ? which is that interrogation techniques be limited to those contained in the Army Field manual, and things like waterboarding would be outlawed. Essentially, we follow the rules of the Geneva Convention.
There is substantial evidence that comes from people involved in sophisticated interrogation ? like the FBI ? that there are more effective ways than waterboarding to get information even from the so-called ticking time-bomb terrorist. That?s where you have a high-value target who might have knowledge of an imminent threat on the United States and that you really want to push as hard as you can as fast as you can to get the most information to protect the American people. Those who were involved in interrogation tell us that you can do that within the Geneva Convention.
Because we?re going into a presidential election year, are we going to see more of this partisan gridlock?
We had partisan gridlock because of the Republican Party, so it?s not like it was even-steven. The gridlock has been sparkedand sustained by one party and their ongoing threat of filibuster and using every parliamentary technique to slow us down and also a president who is unwilling to have conversations with Congress to find a middle ground on many of the issues.
I?m not going to take that the Democrats in some way caused gridlock. I want to be very clear about it, because somehow or other, people say, “Oh, they?re all to blame.” We?re not all to blame if one party wants to threaten a filibuster on every single piece of legislation.
Now that Democrats are in control of both houses, there?s an overall impression that they haven?t really done much better.
The Democrats have done a lot. We?ve done strong ethics reform. We have also passed the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission to keep the momentum going on a safer country. We?ve passed a major down payment on the energy legislation and an energy bill that we think is really crucial to what families are facing in terms of their costs at the fuel pump, the cost of electricity in their home, which directly impacts their costs of food. People are really being hard hit with stagnant wages, and at the same the cost of energy has such an impact on their day-to-day lives.
Have you done what you wanted to do?
No. But we were not able to do what we wanted to do because we were blocked by the parliamentary maneuvers of the Republican Party and a president unwilling to meet us halfway. So it?s time to increase our numbers and get a new president who will be a Democrat.
Is increasing the Democratic majority in the Senate the only way to cure this?
Having a Democratic president will go a long way. No. 1, there will be fresh vision in foreign policy, and No. 2, [there will be] a clear direction on sensible domestic priorities. And a return to pay as you go, as we try to dig our way out of the enormous deficit created by George Bush and those who colluded with him.
Is any Democratic president going to make a big difference?
Every Democrat who is running, whether it?s the top tier or people like Sen. Dodd or Sen. Biden ? all are capable of being president of the United States. We have a great cornucopia of talent. I?m, of course, supporting Sen. Hillary Clinton. But every single one of them could be president, would do a good job as president, and quite frankly, I think the Republican field is pretty puny.
Are you planning to run again in 2010?
I can?t go into my plans … but I can say this. I love my job. I think I?m really fit for duty. And I intend to be doing it a very long time.
Sen. Barbara Mikulski at a glance
» Age: 71, born in Baltimore July 20, 1936.
» Education: Institute of Notre Dame, Mount St. Agnes College, B.A.; University of Maryland School of Social Work, 1965.
» Career: Social worker.
» Political career: Baltimore City Council, 1971-76; U.S. House of Representative, 1977-87; U.S. Senate, 1987-present. Longest-serving female senator.
» Committee assignments: Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee (HELP); chairwoman, subcommittee on Retirement Security and Aging; Appropriations Committee; chairwoman, subcommittee on Commerce, Justice and Science; member, subcommittee on Defense; subcommittee on State, Foreign Operations; subcommittee on Transportation, Housing and Urban Development; subcommittee on Homeland Security; subcommittee on Interior, Environment; Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.
