Barbara Mikulski

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise to support S. 2238, the Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2004. I want to thank Senator Sarbanes, my colleague from Maryland and a member of the Banking Committee that pushed this legislation through. Senator Sarbanes and I worked together as ``Team Maryland'' to ensure that this legislation addressed many of the lessons learned in the aftermath of Hurricane Isabel. In September 2003, my State of Maryland was devastated by Hurricane Isabel. This was the worst natural disaster in Maryland history. The people who live on the Chesapeake Bay and the many rivers leading into the Bay lost their homes, their possessions, and many lost their livelihoods. The flooded communities have names like Bowleys Quarters and Millers Island, Bayside and North Beach, Kent Islands and Hoopers Island. The people who live in these communities are hard-working people. Many are retirees who scrimped and saved to buy these homes. Some are people I went to school with. Many of these communities are still struggling with the legacy of Isabel. Some Marylanders are still living in trailers which are really glorified campers. Right after Hurricane Isabel swept through Maryland, Senator Sarbanes and I went with Secretary Tom Ridge and Governor Ehrlich to see the damage, to talk to people, and to find out how we could work together with Marylanders to put their lives back together. When disaster strikes, we are Team Maryland and Team America, Federal and State officials, Democrats and Republicans. We saw houses moved off their foundations in North Beach. We walked the streets of Bowleys Quarters where children's toys and personal items were pushed into yards by three feet of flood waters. We saw mud more than a foot deep three blocks away from the water. We talked to a business owner on Kent Island who lost her restaurant only 6 months after she bought it. I was incredibly moved by what I saw, not only the devastation, but the way these communities were pulling together. I heard about daring rescues from our intrepid first responders. Churches opened their doors to provide food and shelter. Neighbor was helping neighbor. I promised these communities that their Federal Government would help. Unfortunately, the National Flood Insurance Program wasn't there the way it should have been. Today, nearly 9 months after Isabel hit, my constituents are still struggling to get the money that is owed to them. They are frustrated, confused, and frankly, many are just plain fed up. They feel like the insurance they paid for wasn't there when they needed it the most. From Calvert County to Baltimore County to Anne Arundel County to Maryland's Eastern Shore, people told me they didn't understand what their flood insurance covered. Though their homes were damaged, they thought between homeowners insurance and flood insurance they would be covered. Nothing was explained to them when they bought these policies. They didn't know, for example, that the contents of their home wasn't covered without a separate policy. People thought if they had $200,000 worth of coverage on a home they bought for $50,000 that flood insurance would pay to replace the home. But when they put in their claims they found out they would only get a portion of what it costs to make repairs or rebuild. Another serious problem was the way insurance agents handled people's individual claims. When people asked their insurance agents to explain things to them, they couldn't get a straight answer. That's because some of the insurance agents don't really know what these policies cover or how they really work. In Southern Maryland, some homeowners were able to get emergency advances on their claims. Others were told there was no way to get advances on their claims. Different agents gave different answers. In some cases, the same agent would give a different answer depending on the day. That is unacceptable. When I heard these stories about claims being denied or shortchanged, I asked my constituents if they could appeal. They told me they didn't know. When they filed their claims, no one told them how to appeal, or even if an appeal was possible. My office became a clearinghouse for appeals. We asked the National Flood Insurance Program for instructions on filing an appeal; there wasn't one. So, I organized community meetings and appeals hearings. I brought FEMA and representatives from the National Flood Insurance Program to Maryland communities to explain to people what they needed to do to get a fair hearing. Once Marylanders figured out their policies and filed their paperwork, the payments they were getting were not adequate to repair the damage. The flood insurance adjusters weren't using real world estimates for what it took to repair damages. In Bowley's Quarters, the adjuster gave people real low-ball estimates for their repairs. So the community association asked a local contractor to come in for a second opinion. When his estimate was significantly higher, the community leaders went back to the adjuster. They told the adjuster what was needed to do the job. But people shouldn't have to go through all of this to get a fair appraisal and a fair reimbursement from insurance they paid for. These experiences led to four recommendations that I submitted when I testified before the Banking Committee earlier this year. Senator Sarbanes was instrumental in developing these recommendations and worked with the committee to make them part of this legislation. Helpful to this process were two reports that outlined the myriad of problems that surfaced after Hurricane Isabel struck Maryland. The first report was prepared by Maryland's former Insurance Commissioner, Steve Larsen, at the request of Baltimore County Executive, Jim Smith. The second report was prepared by Maryland's current Insurance Commissioner, Alfred Redmer. Many of the findings in those reports were similar to what I heard directly from constituents and were helpful in developing the following recommendations: One, the National Flood Insurance Program must provide a clear and understandable outline of policies so policyholders understand what is covered and what is not. Two, the agents who sell flood insurance must understand what they are selling and how claims are processed so consumers don't get the runaround instead of answers. Three, there must be a clear way for policyholders to appeal their claims awards or appraisals of loss. Four, consumers need to know that the insurance they purchase will pay the real world cost of repairing damages or replacing their losses. I support this bill because it addressed four key reforms that I believe will improve the National Flood Insurance Program. First, the bill directs FEMA/NFIP to develop supplemental forms to the flood insurance policy. These supplemental forms will explain in simple terms the exact coverages being purchased by a policyholder, any exclusions from coverage that apply to coverages purchased, and an explanation, including illustrations, of how lost items and damages will be valued under the policy at the time of loss. Second, the bill directs FEMA/ NFIP, in cooperation with the insurance industry to establish minimum training and education requirements for all insurance agents who sell flood insurance policies, publish these requirements in the Federal Register, and inform insurance companies and agents of the requirements. Third, the bill directs FEMA/NFIP to establish a formal appeals process with respect to claims, proofs of loss, and loss estimates relating to flood policies. Fourth, the bill directs the Comptroller General of the United States to conduct a study of the adequacy of the scope of coverage provided under flood insurance policies, the adequacy of payments to flood victims under flood insurance policies, and the practices of FEMA/NFIP and insurance adjusters in estimating losses incurred during a flood. As the one year anniversary of Hurricane Isabel approaches, I believe we need to take aggressive steps to address the inadequacies of a flood insurance program that clearly wasn't there for people in their greatest time of need. This bill goes a long way in making the flood insurance program fairer, more transparent, and reliable.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to announce the introduction of the Ronald Reagan Alzheimer's Breakthrough Act of 2004. I believe the greatest tribute to President Reagan and the Reagan family is a living memorial. That is why I am introducing this legislation with my colleague, Senator Kit Bond. Our legislation makes an all out effort to spark and accelerate breakthroughs for Alzheimer's. The legislation supports research on how to prevent the disease, how to care for people who have it, and initiatives to support those who are caregivers. Let's celebrate President Reagan's life of vigor by attacking Alzheimer's with vigor. The time to act for real breakthroughs is now. Just last month, Senator Bond and I held a hearing on Alzheimer's research. Expert after expert told us: We are on the verge of amazing breakthroughs; we will lose opportunities if we don't move quickly; we are at a crucial point where NIH funding can make a real difference. Researchers, families, and advocates all said the same thing, we need to do more, and we need to do better. I believe that the answer to that call is passing the Ronald Reagan Alzheimer's Breakthrough Act of 2004. We are truly on the brink of something that can make a huge difference for American families. We know that families face great difficulties when a loved one has Alzheimer's. There is great emotional cost as well as financial cost. We know that for our public investment we could get new treatments that would prolong a patient's cognitive abilities. Each month we delay admission to a long-term care facility is important to the family and to the taxpayer. Everybody wants a cure; that is our ultimate goal. But even if we keep people at home for 1 or 2 more years, to help them with their memory, and their activities of daily living, it would be an incredible breakthrough. Our bill would do three things. First, it would strengthen our national commitment to Alzheimer's research. The legislation doubles the funding for Alzheimer's research at the National Institutes of Health from $700 million to $1.4 billion. We need to give researchers the resources they need to make breakthroughs that are on the horizon in diagnosis, prevention and intervention. Also, our bill calls for a National Summit on Alzheimer's that would bring together the best minds to look at priorities for research moving forward. Second, our bill provides critical support for caregivers. The family is always the first caregiver. The nation saw what a family of prestige and means went through; imagine what other American families are going through. The legislation creates a tax credit for families caring for a loved one with a chronic condition, like Alzheimer's, that would help them pay for prescription drugs, home health care and specialized day care. Also, it helps create one-stop shops across the country so families can find services like respite care, adult day care and training for caregivers. Third, our legislation promotes News You Can Use for families and physicians. Incredible advances are being made every day. We need to get the word out so families and doctors know the most current information. The Alzheimer's Association has been doing a great job with their ``Maintain Your Brain'' campaign; however, philanthropic efforts of advocacy groups are not a substitute for public policy. Our bill builds on these efforts to create an effective public education strategy. It is amazing how far we have come. Back in the early 1980s, Alzheimer's was a catch-all term for any kind of memory loss. Today, doctors diagnose Alzheimer's with 90-percent accuracy. Every day NIH is making progress to identify risks, looking at new kinds of brain scans for appropriate detection, and understanding what this disease does to the brain. How did we get this far, this fast? With a bipartisan commitment of the authorizers and appropriators. Together, we have been working to increase the funding for the National Institute on Aging. In 1998 the National Institute on Aging was funded at approximately $500 million. Thanks to our bipartisan effort, it is at $1 billion. Now is the time to do more. My own dear father had Alzheimer's. I remember when I would go to visit him. It didn't matter that I was a United States Senator; it didn't matter that I could get Nobel Prize winners on the phone. The research and treatments didn't exist for my father, for President Reagan, or for more than 4 million families. Alzheimer's is an All American disease that affected an All American President. Now we need an All American effort to speed up the breakthroughs so no family has to go through the long goodbye. I urge my colleagues to support this bill and move swiftly to enact it into law.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to announce the introduction of the Ronald Reagan Alzheimer's Breakthrough Act of 2004. I believe the greatest tribute to President Reagan and the Reagan family is a living memorial. That is why I am introducing this legislation with my colleague, Senator Kit Bond. Our legislation makes an all out effort to spark and accelerate breakthroughs for Alzheimer's. The legislation supports research on how to prevent the disease, how to care for people who have it, and initiatives to support those who are caregivers. Let's celebrate President Reagan's life of vigor by attacking Alzheimer's with vigor. The time to act for real breakthroughs is now. Just last month, Senator Bond and I held a hearing on Alzheimer's research. Expert after expert told us: We are on the verge of amazing breakthroughs; we will lose opportunities if we don't move quickly; we are at a crucial point where NIH funding can make a real difference. Researchers, families, and advocates all said the same thing, we need to do more, and we need to do better. I believe that the answer to that call is passing the Ronald Reagan Alzheimer's Breakthrough Act of 2004. We are truly on the brink of something that can make a huge difference for American families. We know that families face great difficulties when a loved one has Alzheimer's. There is great emotional cost as well as financial cost. We know that for our public investment we could get new treatments that would prolong a patient's cognitive abilities. Each month we delay admission to a long-term care facility is important to the family and to the taxpayer. Everybody wants a cure; that is our ultimate goal. But even if we keep people at home for 1 or 2 more years, to help them with their memory, and their activities of daily living, it would be an incredible breakthrough. Our bill would do three things. First, it would strengthen our national commitment to Alzheimer's research. The legislation doubles the funding for Alzheimer's research at the National Institutes of Health from $700 million to $1.4 billion. We need to give researchers the resources they need to make breakthroughs that are on the horizon in diagnosis, prevention and intervention. Also, our bill calls for a National Summit on Alzheimer's that would bring together the best minds to look at priorities for research moving forward. Second, our bill provides critical support for caregivers. The family is always the first caregiver. The nation saw what a family of prestige and means went through; imagine what other American families are going through. The legislation creates a tax credit for families caring for a loved one with a chronic condition, like Alzheimer's, that would help them pay for prescription drugs, home health care and specialized day care. Also, it helps create one-stop shops across the country so families can find services like respite care, adult day care and training for caregivers. Third, our legislation promotes News You Can Use for families and physicians. Incredible advances are being made every day. We need to get the word out so families and doctors know the most current information. The Alzheimer's Association has been doing a great job with their ``Maintain Your Brain'' campaign; however, philanthropic efforts of advocacy groups are not a substitute for public policy. Our bill builds on these efforts to create an effective public education strategy. It is amazing how far we have come. Back in the early 1980s, Alzheimer's was a catch-all term for any kind of memory loss. Today, doctors diagnose Alzheimer's with 90-percent accuracy. Every day NIH is making progress to identify risks, looking at new kinds of brain scans for appropriate detection, and understanding what this disease does to the brain. How did we get this far, this fast? With a bipartisan commitment of the authorizers and appropriators. Together, we have been working to increase the funding for the National Institute on Aging. In 1998 the National Institute on Aging was funded at approximately $500 million. Thanks to our bipartisan effort, it is at $1 billion. Now is the time to do more. My own dear father had Alzheimer's. I remember when I would go to visit him. It didn't matter that I was a United States Senator; it didn't matter that I could get Nobel Prize winners on the phone. The research and treatments didn't exist for my father, for President Reagan, or for more than 4 million families. Alzheimer's is an All American disease that affected an All American President. Now we need an All American effort to speed up the breakthroughs so no family has to go through the long goodbye. I urge my colleagues to support this bill and move swiftly to enact it into law.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I am proud to join with my colleague Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison--and the 12 other women of the United States Senate--to introduce the Iraqi Women's and Children's Liberation Act. This legislation authorizes the President to give education, health care benefits and other help to the women and children of Iraq, including ensuring the political participation of women in a new democratic Iraq. Before Saddam Hussein came to power, Iraq was the progressive center of the Middle East. In the 1940s, Iraqi women were lawyers, physicians, teachers, professors, engineers, scientists, prominent writers, artists and poets. By the late 1950's, women in Iraq enjoyed political freedoms with equal protections under the law and the right to vote. Under Saddam Hussein, all that changed. Women lost opportunities for education. They were forced out of the work force. Women and children did not have access to health care. The personal rights of women were severely restricted or ignored as Saddam's government sanctioned ``honor killings'' and rape as a tool of oppression. The facts speak for themselves. Today, women make up only 17 percent of the Iraqi workforce. Only 29 percent of Iraqi girls attend high school. Illiteracy among Iraqi women is an astronomical 77 percent, compared to 45 percent for men. Death during childbirth or from pregnancy related complications is the leading cause of death of Iraqi women. Health organizations estimate that 90 percent of these deaths are preventable. Right now, 25 percent of the children under the age of 5 in Iraq are malnourished and 1 in 8 dies even before they reach that age. As America works to help the Iraqi people build a free and democratic nation, it is vitally important that education and health care for women and children are assured. If we are helping create a new government, let us insist that there not be the old rules, the old repression. Of equal importance is ensuring that women have a seat at the table in a new Iraqi government. Full political participation by women is the best insurance that women's rights will be respected now and in the future. These are the two important components of our legislation: first, it authorizes the President to provide education and health care assistance for the women and children living in Iraq and to women and children of Iraq who are refugees in other countries. When our own government and the NGOs come in, they should focus significant efforts on making sure women and children have access to education and health care. They should also do their best to partner with and build the capacity of local NGOs to strengthen Iraq's civil society. Second, it authorizes the President to provide assistance enhancing the political participation, economic empowerment and personal security of Iraqi women. For Iraq to truly be liberated, its women must have a voice in the new political and governmental institutions. This legislation is really about opportunity-making sure the women and children in Iraq have the opportunity to live productive lives and fulfill their potential, and making sure Iraq has the opportunity to succeed as a democratic nation by tapping the talents of all its citizens. The road to opportunity starts with access to health care so children can thrive and women can raise healthy families. It continues with education to gain the skills and knowledge necessary to support that family and contribute to society as a whole. One of the most important ways to contribute to society is through political participation--whether that means voting, running for office, working in a government agency, or organizing for a cause or a community. While building the physical infrastructure in Iraq--things like roads, bridges, and power plants--is important, we also need to focus on the social infrastructure that protects women and children and builds hope and opportunity. That is the goal of this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the Smith amendment on hate crimes. This amendment mirrors the Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act, which I have been proud to co-sponsor. This bill puts America's values of equality and freedom into action. Hate crimes are one of the most shocking types of violence against individuals. They are motivated by hatred and bigotry. But hate crimes target more than just one person--they are crimes against a community because of who they are--because of their race, gender, sexual orientation, religion or disability. We are a nation that cherishes our freedom. All Americans must be free to go to church, walk through their communities, attend school without the fear that they will be the target of hate violence. We are a Nation that is built on a foundation of tolerance and equality. Yet no Americans can be free from discrimination and have true equality unless they are free from hate crimes. That's why hate crimes are so destructive. They tear at our Nation's greatest strength--our diversity. This amendment does two things--it helps communities fight these crimes and it makes sure that those who are most often the target of hate motivated violence have the full protection of our Federal laws. The amendment strengthens current law to help local law enforcement investigate and prosecute hate crimes. It does this by closing a loophole that prevented the Federal Government from assisting local and State police at any stage of the investigative process. Simply put-- this bill authorizes Federal law enforcement officers to get involved if State or local governments want their help. That means local communities, which often have very limited resources for pursuing these types of crimes, will have the resources of the FBI and other Federal law enforcement agencies at their disposal to help them more effectively prosecute incidents of hate violence. This amendment also improves current law so it protects more Americans. It broadens the definition of hate crimes to include gender, sexual orientation and disability. Today, gay and lesbian Americans, women and those with disabilities are often targets of hate motivated violence, but existing Federal laws offer these communities no safeguards. That is the weakness in our current law. And that is what this legislation will fix. By passing this legislation today, the United State Senate says to all Americans that you deserve the full protection of the law and you deserve to be free from hate violence. Hate crimes are crimes against more than one person--these crimes affect whole communities and create fear and terror in these communities and among all Americans. We need look no further than the horrific killings of James Byrd and Matthew Shepard to know the anger and grief that families and communities experience because of hatred and bigotry. Hate crimes attack the fundamental values of our Nation-- freedom and equality. This bill is another step in the fight to make sure that in a Nation that treasures these values these crimes do not occur. So today I rise to support and urge my colleagues to pass this much needed and timely legislation. It is time that we put these American values into action and passed this hate crimes bill. The Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act says that all Americans are valued and protected--regardless of race, religion, gender, sexual orientation or disability.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, last night the Senate accepted two very important amendments to level the playing field for Federal employees whose jobs are being contracted out. I am so pleased that we agreed to the Kennedy-Chambliss amendment to fix the worst problems with DoD's contracting out process, and the Collins amendment to--at long last-- give Federal employees the right to protest contracting out decisions to an independent entity. DoD is pursuing a political agenda masquerading as management reform. DoD's zeal for privatization costs money, it costs morale, it costs the integrity of the civil service, and now it's costing our reputation in Iraq. I was shocked to hear about about the role of contractors in the appalling abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib. DoD is taking contracting out too far. How can you contract out the interrogation of prisoners? America needs an independent civil service. Our Federal employees are on the front lines every day working hard for America. At a time when we are fighting terrorism and struggling with chaos in Iraq, how does the administration thank DoD employees? By forcing them into unfair competitions. Forcing them to spend time and money competing for their jobs instead of doing their jobs. Make no mistake. I am not opposed to privatization. In some instances privatization works well. Look at Goddard, in my State of Maryland 3,000 government jobs and 9,000 private contractors. I am proud of them both. What I am opposed to is the Bush administration stacking the deck against Federal employees to pursue an ideologically-driven agenda. The Kennedy-Chambliss amendment fixes the worst problems with DoD's procedures for contracting out to make competitions more fair for DoD employees. The Kennedy-Chambliss amendment does six things to level the playing field. It guarantees employees the right to submit their own ``best bid'' during a competition. It requires contractors to show that they are actually saving money. It makes sure privatization doesn't come at the expense of health benefits for employees. It closes loopholes that allow DoD to contract out jobs without a competition. It establishes a process for allowing and encouraging Federal employees to conduct new work and work currently performed by contractors. And it makes sure that DoD has the infrastructure in place to effectively conduct competitions and oversee the contracts. This amendment is so important. Civilian employees at the Defense Department work hard to support our troops and to protect our country. If we are going to contract out Defense Department work, we need to be very cautious. It's a matter of national security. Can we trust a private company to do the job? What if the company goes out of business? What if it is bought by a foreign company? How do we know a private company will have the same mission--and the same motive as U.S. military personnel? The Bush administration's rules do just the opposite. They're reckless. They give private contractors the edge--whether they deserve it or not. 75 percent of Federal jobs that were contracted out in 2002 and 2003 were DoD jobs. And DoD is targeting 240,000 more jobs for privatization. More than 20 percent of DoD employees who lost their jobs to contractors never had the chance to compete for their own jobs. I want to know why the Bush administration is trying to undermine our Federal workforce--pushing a process so clearly stacked in favor of private contractors. Civilian Defense Department employees are not the enemy. Who are these employees? They are the shipbuilders at Naval Academy in Annapolis, they are intelligence analysts, and they are the electricians at the Pentagon--who know every nook and cranny of top secret buildings. These Federal employees are on the front lines. They lost their lives in the Pentagon on September 11. They are committed to making sure our soldiers are ready to protect us. These men and women are dedicated and duty driven. They are not political strategists. They cannot be bought. Why are some trying to make Federal employees the enemy? They aren't part of the problem, they are part of the solution. I know what Federal employees do, how hard they work. I know they think of themselves first as citizens of the United States of America, second as workers at mission driven agencies. The way the Defense Department pursues contracting out is irresponsible and dangerous. DoD is pushing contracting out even when it just doesn't make sense, even when it puts our Nation's security at risk, or the integrity of our Armed Forces on the line. They are pushing contracting out even when it costs more to conduct competitions than it saves in the long run. I know DoD isn't used to holding fair competitions. Look at their track record--no-bid contracts for cronies like Halliburton. But we can't let the Defense Department's zeal for privatization get in the way of the ability of our Armed Forces to carry out their duties. And we can't let them replace our civil service with cronyism and political patronage. That means putting some checks and balances on privatization. I also want to say a few words about an amendment that Senator Collins offered to give Federal employees the right to appeal unfair contracting out decisions to GAO. This legislation is long overdue. Contractors have always been allowed to appeal to GAO or to the Court of Federal Claims when they lose a competition. Yet Federal employees can only appeal within their agency--the same agency that's trying to contract them out. That is unfair. Giving Federal employees the right to appeal is vital to level the playing field during competitions, to hold agencies accountable for conducting fair competitions, and to make sure taxpayers are getting the best deal. The Collins amendment is a compromise. It doesn't give employees the exact same rights as contractors. For instance, they can't appeal to the Court of Federal Claims. And it creates hurdles for allowing unions to represent their members in an appeal. I am sick of union busting. I think we can do more for employees. I hope we fix these problems as the process moves forward. But we can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. I support the Collins amendment because it is a good compromise, and it would--finally--allow employees to appeal when an agency makes a mistake.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I, too, rise in memory of President Ronald Reagan. President Reagan will be remembered for his strong convictions, his unfailing optimism, and his deep and abiding patriotism. My heartfelt condolences go out to the Reagan family. They have been through so much in the last 10 years. Our former First Lady, Nancy Reagan, has met one of the greatest challenges that one can face with grace, dignity, and dedication. Her courage is a model for the Nation. I know how tremendously difficult it is for a family when a loved one has Alzheimer's. My own dear father suffered from this disease. And, my family and I know what the long goodbye meant. So, I speak for my family, and I think all families who have endured this disease when we salute Nancy Reagan as we pay our respects to our President. National Reagan Alzheimer's Breakthrough Act of 2004 Mr. President, as our country reflects on President Reagan's life, many will ask, how should we honor him? I believe the greatest tribute we could give to President Reagan and the Reagan family is a living memorial, something that he would want to see us do, not something we would like to do, and something that would have lasting value. Therefore, I would like to issue a bipartisan call to support legislation that Senator Kit Bond and I will be introducing next week, legislation to create breakthroughs for Alzheimer's disease. Let's honor President Reagan's life with new research and new initiatives on how to prevent Alzheimer's, how to care for those who have it, how to support the gallant caregivers, and how, ultimately, to find a cure. President Reagan was a man of vigor. Let's attack Alzheimer's with the same type of vigor that President Reagan demonstrated during his life. The time to act for real breakthroughs is now. Just last month, Senator Bond and I held a hearing on Alzheimer's research. Expert after expert told us: We are on the verge of amazing breakthroughs; we will lose opportunities if we don't move quickly; we are at a crucial point where NIH funding can make a real difference. Researchers, families, and advocates all said the same thing, we need to do more, we need to do better. Let's answer that call by introducing and passing the Ronald Reagan Alzheimer's Breakthrough Act of 2004. Friends, we are on the brink of something that could make a huge difference in the lives of American families. We know that families face great difficulties when a loved one has Alzheimer's. There is great emotional cost as well as financial cost. We know that for our public investment we could get new treatments that would prolong a patient's cognitive abilities. Each month we delay admission to a long-term care facility is important to the family and to the taxpayer. Everybody wants a cure; that is our ultimate goal. But even if we keep people at home for 1 or 2 more years, to help them with their memory, their activities of daily living, it would be an incredible breakthrough, and what a great tribute it would be to President Reagan. It is amazing how far we have come. From the time President Reagan took office in 1981 until the time he wrote that incredibly moving goodbye letter to the Nation--and I note it with great emotion because, again, I know how my own father felt. Back in the early 1980s, when President Reagan first came to office, Alzheimer's was a catch-all term. Today, doctors diagnose Alzheimer's with 90-percent accuracy. Every day NIH is making progress to identify risks, looking at new kinds of brain scans for appropriate detection, and understanding what this disease does to the brain. How did we get this far, this fast? With a bipartisan commitment like the one represented by Senator Bond, Senators Specter and Harkin, the Alzheimer's Task Force that is lead by Senators Collins and Clinton, and all of us who are working on this issue. With a bipartisan commitment of the authorizers and appropriators, we have been working to increase the funding for the National Institute on Aging. Remember, there are 19 institutes at the NIH. One of them is the National Institute of Aging. In 1998 the National Institute on Aging was funded at approximately $500 million. Thanks to our bipartisan effort, it is at $1 billion. Now is the time to do more. That is why I want to join with my esteemed colleague, Senator Kit Bond, who himself has been a very strong advocate for research and breakthroughs, to introduce the Ronald Reagan Alzheimer's Breakthrough Act of 2004. We want to strengthen our national commitment to Alzheimer's research, to increase and double the funding of research at NIA, to give them the resources they need to make those breakthroughs they say they are on the horizon of doing. This will mean more clinical trials to test the best way to detect, prevent, and treat Alzheimer's. NIH is looking at a range of behaviors and therapies that can make an incredible difference. In our legislation, we also call for a national summit on Alzheimer's to bring together the best minds to examine current research, to look at priorities, and also to look at how we can help families. While we are looking at research to find the cure or the cognitive stretch out, we have to support the caregivers. God bless the caregivers. These are family members, often spouses, who take care of someone with Alzheimer's. The first caregiver is always the family. We saw that with Nancy Reagan who went from being First Lady to first caregiver. We need to support families. We need to give help to those families practicing self-help. We now have legislation on the books to do that. But, we need to add more to the Federal checkbook. Most families don't know where to turn to get what services are available. I have a family caregiver tax credit that would reimburse families for prescription drugs, home health care, and specialized daycare. Too often, for families with Alzheimer's, family responsibility brings them to the brink of family bankruptcy. There are other things we want to be able to do with this legislation, such as providing news people can use. The legislation would establish a network so information can get out people about the advances, and things that could be done right now to slow the onset of symptoms. We need to get the word out, such as the wonderful program developed by the Alzheimer's Association called ``Maintain Your Brain.'' But, private philanthropy cannot be a substitute for public policy and public funding. We have to fund these initiatives. I believe very strongly in this. There are 4.5 million people with Alzheimer's. They live in every State, in cities and suburbs and on farms. They are from every walk of life, like my father, who owned a small grocery store, or a man who was the President of the United States. Alzheimer's is an all-American disease. It affected an all- American President. Now we need an all-American effort to find the breakthroughs. I encourage everyone to consider this when Senator Bond and I introduce this legislation. This research and treatment is very important. I do not want to be so bold as to speak for Mrs. Reagan, but based on what I know she has gone through and what other families have gone through, I believe the legacy she would approve of is an all- American effort. An effort to speed up the day when no family ever has to have that very long goodbye. I yield the floor.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, today I rise to commemorate the 50th Anniversary of Brown v. Board of Education. Today, we celebrate the historic and unanimous Supreme Court decision that called for an end to racial segregation in schools throughout the nation. And as we honor those individuals who risked so much to challenge discrimination and establish a constitutional right to an equal education, I am filled with both hope and promise. Hope that the legacy of Brown will endure. Hope that equality and opportunity will soon be the reality for millions of school children who today still face segregation and inequality in their schools. And the promise that today we will renew our commitment to achieving the goal of equality that began 50 years ago with the Brown decision. I am so proud to honor today the important role that the great state of Maryland played in this history of Brown. Maryland is the birthplace of Thurgood Marshall, the architect of the blueprint to end racial segregation in education. Thurgood Marshall grew up and attended racially segregated schools in Baltimore, he knew the impact of segregation first hand, and he took the fight for racial justice all the way to the Supreme Court. His thoughtful and strategic legal arguments were instrumental in knocking down racial segregation in our country. Maryland is also the home of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. Founded in 1909, the NAACP successfully fought to integrate the University of Maryland in 1935 and its leaders painstakingly planned and organized the challenge to racial segregation in public schools. Brown marks a momentous beginning in American history. For the first time, the Supreme Court recognized a constitutional right to an equal public education for all students. And for the first time, the Supreme Court recognized that separate can never be equal. Brown is the foundation on the road to dismantling segregation in our society. The fight for equality started with the schools and progressed through the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the Fair Housing Act of 1968--all critical steps to rid the nation of segregation and disparities it fostered. Yet 50 years later we're still a long way from the promise of Brown v. Board of Education--equality in public education and opportunity for all students. Why was the Brown decision so important? Because the Supreme Court said that regardless of race, color, creed or ethnicity education ``is a right which must be made available to all students.'' The Brown Court took the unprecedented step of examining how African-American children were being educated and the environments that they were learning in. And for the first time the Court used social science research to show that learning is compromised by segregation--and as a result Black students were receiving inferior educations. It was clear that poor schools, which invariably lacked resources, resulted in a lower quality of education for Black students than their white counterparts. Most importantly, the Brown decision, with a mighty hand, challenged Americans to confront the discrimination, segregation and inequality that existed in schools and in their communities. Today, I urge Americans to renew that challenge. We must address the growing disparities in our schools and the re-segregation of students of color in our classrooms. Even a quick glance at our Nation's schools, including schools in Maryland, shows that the promise of Brown has not been realized. We know that students are still segregated--and that schools still are not equal. Students of color and poor students are more likely to be in overcrowded schools, without enough books and computers, in buildings that are often literally falling apart. They are often sidelined into special education classes--when what they really need is special attention. I don't want the quality of education to depend on a family's income or the location they live in. As the Brown Court understood, having adequate resources and decent facilities matters. We need to make sure we have a public school system that works. That means smaller classes, a good teacher in every classroom, and making sure schools have resources to meet special needs--like bilingual education and special education. We need to keep fighting against the soft bigotry of low expectation. Today, as we commemorate the Brown decision and the progress that has been made in the past 50 years, we renew our commitment to increase diversity and provide educational opportunities for all children regardless of race, ethnicity, socioeconomic status. We must stand up for what America stands for: opportunity, equality, and empowerment. We must make sure there is no discrimination of any kind, anywhere in the United States of America--whether it is the old fashioned kind or the new fashioned kind. That means saying no to continued racial discrimination in education, and saying no to racial sidelining: pushing children of color into special education. Brown established education as a right to all students. We must continue to fight to protect that right, to make sure that the promise of an equal education is, in fact, a reality for all school children.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden), the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Bingaman), the Senator from California (Ms. Boxer), the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Corzine), the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Daschle), the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Jeffords), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry), the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Miller), the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Reid), and the Senator from Michigan (Ms. Stabenow) are necessarily absent. I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from California (Ms. Boxer), the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Daschle), and the Senator from Michigan (Ms. Stabenow) would each vote ``yea.''

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I will vote for the IDEA Improvement Act to reauthorize special education--even though I am disappointed that the Senate didn't pass the Harkin-Hagel full-funding amendment. This is a down payment. There are some good policy changes in this bill, and I think we should move the reauthorization process forward. But I will continue to fight for full funding of special education. It is the single most important thing we can do for children. I am going to vote for this bill because it takes some big steps forward, and it is a good compromise. As a member of the HELP Committee, I am proud to say that we reached bipartisan agreements on some very complicated policy issues. It simplifies complicated rules and procedures and makes it easier for schools and parents to navigate--not litigate. And it allows schools to help students who need special attention, but not necessarily special education. I have talked to Marylanders about this. The women of Delta Sigma Theta Sorority see their children being racially sidelined--pushed into special education, when what they really need is special attention. I am so pleased that we are doing something in this bill to stop racial sidelining. Yet, I have some concerns about the bill. My biggest concern is that this bill doesn't fully fund special education. I have heard from teachers, principals, and school superintendents who want to know where the resources will come from. This year, the Bush budget provides a $1 billion increase for special ed. That may sound like a lot, but at that pace, we will never reach full funding. The Federal Government is supposed to pay 40 percent of the cost of special education. Yet, it has never paid more than 19 percent. In Maryland, the Federal Government only pays an average of 11 percent. That means local districts must make up the difference by skimping on special ed, by cutting from other education programs, or by raising taxes. I don't want to force States and local school districts to forage for funds, cut back on teacher training, or delay school repairs because the Federal Government has failed to live up to its commitment to special education. Full funding would free up money in local budgets for hiring more teachers, buying new textbooks and technology, and repairing old school buildings. It would give teachers the training and support they need. It would help students with disabilities and their families by providing enough funding for special education programs so parents can have one less thing to worry about, and students get the opportunities they deserve. Everywhere I go in Maryland, I hear about special education. I hear about it in urban, rural, and suburban communities; from Democrats and Republicans; and from parents and teachers. They tell me that the Federal Government is not living up to its promise, that special education costs about 18% of the average school budget, that schools are suffering, and that parents are worried. Parents of children with special needs are under a lot of stress. They are worried about their jobs. They are terrified of losing their healthcare when costs keep ballooning. Many are holding down more than one job just to make ends meet. Or they are trying to find daycare for their kids, and elder care for their own parents. They are racing from carpools to work and back again. The Federal Government shouldn't add to their worries by not living up to its obligations. With the Federal Government not paying its share of special ed, these parents have real questions in their minds: Will my child have a good teacher? Will the classes have up-to-date textbooks? Will they be learning what they need to know? Parents of disabled children face such a tough burden already. Caring for a child with special needs can be exhausting. School should not be one of the many things they worry about--particularly when the laws are already on the books to guarantee their child a public school education. The bottom line is the Federal Government is shortchanging these parents by not paying its share of special ed costs. I have heard from parents. They have other concerns, too, besides the money. They are concerned that this bill rolls back the guarantee of a quality education, by getting rid of short-term goals on education plans and scaling back safeguards. I agree that we need to simplify this law to make it easier for schools and parents to navigate. I am glad that this bill makes some crucial improvements. Yet, I want to do what is best for families and schools. Ninety percent of school districts are out of compliance with the Federal law. I know schools and teachers want to do what is best for students with special needs-- and if they had the resources, they would. But we need to protect the rights of families to fight for what is best for their children--for the times when the school falls short. Instead of rolling back protections for students, we should provide the resources so that schools can give students the services they need to succeed with their classmates in public schools. Special education has made such a huge difference in the lives of students with disabilities. I will vote for this bill because it is so important to reauthorize special education. But I will keep fighting for full funding because I don't want special education to be a hollow promise.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I want to join my colleagues and so many others around the country and around the world to condemn the treatment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. What happened there is deplorable. It is despicable, and it is dishonorable. It does not reflect the values of the United States of America or the code of conduct for the United States military that so many of our brave men and women live by every day. This has been a terrible blow for the vast majority of our troops who go by the book, serve America with honor, and put their lives on the line every day to promote and protect the democratic principles that we hold dear. It is also a terrible blow for America's standing around the world. Today, our troops are less secure. Instead of winning hearts and minds on the road to a free and democratic Iraq, our troops must now overcome tremendous anger and mistrust. That is why we must take immediate steps to: investigate these abuses, hold accountable those responsible, commend those who did the right thing, and correct the problems quickly and thoroughly. First, there must be thorough and rigorous investigations. Congress and independent investigators in the military and the intelligence community must get the facts: what are the abuses, how widespread are they, how did they come to happen, and what did the military and civilian leadership do, or not do, to correct them. On charges of such a grave nature--that are so detrimental to America's standing in the world--there cannot be enough transparency and public scrutiny. The result of these investigations must be accountability at all levels of the military and civilian chain of command--up to the highest levels. Why do the Privates and Specialists face prosecution, but the Generals get letters of reprimand? Those who participated or were complicit in abuses--or created a climate that allowed them to occur-- must be held accountable, no matter their rank or title. The world has witnessed shameful acts committed by people who represent the United States in Iraq. Now America must show the world how United States of America exercises the true principles of democracy--upholding the rule of law by administering justice in a swift, transparent and fair manner. We should also commend those who did the right thing, like Specialist Darby, who reported the abuses, General Sanchez, who launched an investigation, and General Taguba, who issued a no-holds-barred report. The problems that led to this must be corrected quickly and thoroughly. Our soldiers in Iraq must get the training and supervision they need to do their jobs with honor and in accordance with international law. And if heads need to roll to correct the problem, so be it. The world must know that America holds to the highest standards of military conduct and human rights protections. Anything less is unacceptable. The resolution we will vote on this evening commends our soldiers, condemns the abuses and calls for swift justice and accountability. Yet it should go further and demand accountability at all levels. Mr. President, I hope the Senate will speak with one voice by unanimously supporting this resolution.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record letters in support of the Dorgan-Mikulski amendment from the boilermakers and the shipbuilders, from the electrical workers, from the U.A.W., and from the AFL-CIO.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from North Dakota, the lead sponsor of this amendment, for yielding me such time. I also acknowledge his outstanding leadership on trade. Trade is such an abstract word, but it is another word for jobs. The big question is, how are we going to keep jobs in the United States? This, then, takes us to tax policy. Tax policy is more than just simply collecting revenue; tax policy is a statement of our principles. The Tax Code in the United States has, since the New Deal, stood for certain principles: That it should be fair, No. 1, and that the more wealthy you are, you would bear a little heavier responsibility. Part of the principle of fairness and of paying taxes is what is called citizenship. It is called shared responsibility. It is called, how do you make sure the U.S. Government functions to provide national security and domestic opportunity and a safety net for seniors. That is really what it is all about. The Tax Code is the fundamental principle of how you collect revenue, and it is tied with citizenship, both individual citizenship and corporate citizenship. The way we see it is: If you are a good corporate citizen, you ought to stay in this country and keep your jobs here. Right now we have a tax code that rewards just the opposite. We have a tax code that rewards corporations for shipping jobs overseas. I believe what the Dorgan-Mikulski amendment does is say that, No. 1, our Tax Code should be patriotic. Our Tax Code should stand up for America. It should stand up for keeping jobs here. It should stand up for rewarding good-guy companies that keep jobs here and provide health benefits to their employees. It should also close the loophole where people not only take jobs overseas but hide their income in the Bermuda Triangle or the Cayman Islands. This deals with one aspect. The amendment Senator Dorgan and I offer, the economic patriotism amendment, says that right now what we would do is close the loophole for sending jobs overseas. The Dorgan-Mikulski amendment ends those huge tax breaks to manufacturing companies that send jobs overseas, that only sell the products they make back here in the United States. Right now this Tax Code lets these companies move the jobs and not pay the taxes on the profits they earn by sales back home. Our amendment tells these companies: If you want to export jobs out of America, you can go, but you can't import these products back in the United States and be able to shelter your profits. Our amendment says: The Tax Code can no longer be used to boost corporate earnings at the expense of American workers. It is actually an amendment that makes good sense. Why should we reward people who move their jobs overseas and penalize in the Tax Code the people who keep their jobs here in the United States and who also tend to provide their employees with health insurance? People in my State really cannot believe what is happening. We have lost 21,000 manufacturing jobs since 2001. What a bloodless statistic. Behind every one of those numbers are 21,000 families, 21,000 families that built ships, made steel, made garments and apparel, even made the kind of technology we use in high tech. Where did those jobs go? They went on a slow boat to China. They went on a fast track to Mexico and a dial 1-800 anywhere. Why are they going? Because the Federal Tax Code says it is OK. The Federal Tax Code says, in fact, it is not only OK, we are going to give you a huge subsidy. I think we need to subsidize the good-guy corporations. That is what I want to do. I believe that the Dorgan- Mikulski amendment is a patriotic amendment. It is part of an economic patriotism that we have to start focusing on in this country. I don't want my country, in a few years, to have the economic profile of a Third World country. Vote for America, vote for patriotic economics, and vote for Dorgan- Mikulski.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, I want to thank the Senator from North Dakota for his passion and vigor in presenting this amendment. I also thank him for his story about the Red Ryder, a good old wagon. I had a Red Ryder wagon. Growing up in a blue-collar neighborhood in Baltimore during World War II, my father had a little neighborhood grocery store. And one of the ways the groceries got delivered was in this good old red wagon we had. I could use the wagon for a couple things. Dad would sometimes say: Barb, take the wagon down to Mrs. Smith or Yankowski or Coalino. It was a very ethnic neighborhood. They called in and ordered late. Run down those oranges and take the wagon. I loved that red wagon. I was also a Girl Scout during World War II. Dad would let me use the wagon to go around the neighborhood to collect newspapers because we were recycling a variety of things for the war effort. I felt like a little soldier on the move with my red wagon and my little Girl Scout uniform, along with other kids from the troop. I was the kid with the wagon. I loved that wagon. I loved that neighborhood so much because in that neighborhood there were men sent off to World War II, saving Western civilization, saving the world. We were the neighborhood of factories. We made liberty ships. We turned out a liberty ship, one ship every 3 weeks. We put out turbo steel to make the tanks. Glenn L. Martin made the seaplanes that helped win the battle of the Pacific. We were in the manufacturing business. We were in the war effort business. And this little girl in her Girl Scout uniform with the little red wagon made in the USA felt she was doing her bit. Guess what. Those jobs now are leaving. Our shipyard jobs have left. Our steel mills have shrunk to miniscule levels. We don't make ships. We don't make steel. We don't make clothing. We are really down. The blue-collar Baltimore of World War II and Korea and Vietnam just isn't what it used to be. Where did those jobs go? Those jobs are on a slow boat to China. They are on a fast track to Mexico. And other jobs are in a dial 1-800 anywhere. And why did they go? They went because there were tax breaks that rewarded those corporations to move not only the red wagons but so much of this manufacturing overseas. Today, as we know, if you are in business and in the good old United States of America, you get a tax break if you move those jobs overseas. I think it is wrong to give companies incentives to send millions of jobs to other countries when millions of Americans are losing their jobs. It is wrong to put companies who stay in America at a competitive disadvantage because they have their business and hire their workers at home, pay their share of taxes, and provide health care to their employees. We should be rewarding these companies with good guy tax breaks for hiring and building their businesses right here in the United States. We should be giving good guy bonuses to American corporations who are providing health care to their workers and to their retirees. But, no, we give tax breaks to those people who want to take their jobs and evacuate to another country. It is time we look at our Tax Code and call for a patriotic Tax Code. I want a patriotic Tax Code. We walk around the floor of the Senate, we go to rallies. We love to be in parades. We wear our flags because we want to stand up for our troops--and stand up for our troops we should--but we have to stand up for America. We have to stand up for America by having a strong economy. That is why I want a patriotic Tax Code. This amendment we are proposing is about patriotism. It is about economic patriotism. We have to start putting our might and our muscle and our votes behind this in the Senate. What does a patriotic Tax Code do? I think it would focus on bringing our jobs back home and bringing our money back home. That is what a patriotic Tax Code would do. The Dorgan-Mikulski amendment is step one. It ends these huge tax breaks for manufacturing companies that send jobs overseas, only to sell the products they make right here in the United States of America. The current Tax Code lets these companies move the jobs and not pay taxes on the profits, even though they earn the profits by their sales of those products in the United States. Our amendment tells these companies if you want to export jobs out of America, you need to pay the taxes on your profits. Our amendment says the Tax Code can no longer be used to boost corporate rewards at the expense of American workers. I have watched those jobs I have talked about leave. A couple months ago, we were hard hit on the eastern shore. There is a company headquartered in Maryland called Black and Decker. It makes many of the wonderful tools you use in your home. It was started by a Maryland family. The jobs were in America. Now the headquarters is in America, but the jobs are not here. The eastern shore jobs at that major manufacturing facility have left. Over a thousand people were laid off; 1,000 people in a little community like Talbot County. That is a tremendous impact. The impact has been felt by the whole community. People lost their jobs, and people had to cut back in terms of their homes, the way they shop at their grocery store; and there is great shrinkage in the United Fund. I could go on about that. Those jobs left this country. At the same time, there are other examples. Take Maytag. Oh, gosh, every woman in America loves Maytag and that friendly guy who comes to service them. Well, I hope he speaks a foreign language to try to read the manual, because those Maytags are made somewhere else. By the way, they used to be made in Illinois. So those 1,500 jobs left. They were washed out, if you will, in this country. Then there is Levi Strauss, which closed six U.S. plants, cutting over 5,000 jobs. So the jeans that made America famous are now being made in other countries. We could go on to furniture that used to be made in our Southern States, like Virginia and North Carolina. Many of you might have read in the paper over the weekend what is happening in Roanoke, VA, where many people have lost their jobs in manufacturing, in metal working, in furniture, and in other materials. Their divorce rate is so high that almost 50 percent of the people in Roanoke, VA, are now divorced. It is becoming the divorce capital, with the highest divorce rate in the Nation. Why did that happen? You can look at the divorce rate and chart it along with the decline in those manufacturing jobs. We have seen it in manufacturing. There is the exit of the service jobs now. A lot of people in manufacturing who lost their jobs busted their backs and their butts to send their kids to higher education, community college, or college. They said go to college, kids, learn technology; it is the new field. You are not going to be laid off like me. You are going to have a future. America will be the tech country of the world. Well, guess what happened. Now the tech jobs are going. In the next few years, the IT sector will move over 500,000 jobs overseas. People are saying train--you have to be kidding. Even our State governments are outsourcing jobs by hiring companies to do call centers overseas. I joined with Senator Dodd to stop the outsourcing of Federal jobs overseas to call centers. That is why I stand here today with my colleague from North Dakota to call on us to think about economic patriotism, think about a patriotic Tax Code that, first of all, gives rewards to American companies that keep jobs here, and also a tax code that gives good bonuses to those companies that provide health insurance to their workers and also look out for their retirees. Then the other thing is to end the despicable process and breaks and rewarding those companies who move not only the little red wagons, but very big manufacturing items overseas. That is why I want to stand up today for what I believe is the right thing to do. I call upon my colleagues to think about where America is going in the 21st century. Where are we going to be? Are we going to create more opportunity? Are we going to create more jobs that pay living wages, that have a benefit structure you can reward? Or are we going to resemble the economy of a third world country? I really want to have a tax code that brings our jobs back home, brings our money back home, stands up for America. So pass the Dorgan- Mikulski amendment and take your first step toward economic patriotism.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise today in support of National Primary Immune Deficiency Diseases Awareness Week. The national awareness week took place the week of April 19th. Primary immune deficiency diseases PIDD, are genetic disorders in which part of the body's immune system is missing or does not function properly. The World Health Organization recognizes more than 150 primary immune diseases which affect as many as 50,000 people in the United States. Fortunately, 7 percent of PIDD patients are able to maintain their health through regular infusions of a plasma product known as intravenous immunoglobulin. IGIV helps bolster the immune system and provides critical protection against infection and disease. The Immune Deficiency Foundation, which is the Nation's leading organization dedicated to improving the quality of life for PIDD patients is located in Towson, MD. The foundation was founded in 1980 by parents of primary immune deficient children and their physicians. At that time, there were few treatments for many primary immune deficiency diseases, and the treatments that were available were painful and not very effective. There were no educational materials for patients, no public advocacy initiatives, and little research was being done. Over the past 24 years, the foundation has made tremendous strides. Recently, the foundation entered into a historic research partnership with the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases at the National Institutes of Health. The establishment of the ``US Immunodeficiency Network'' represents the most significant advancement in primary immune deficiency research in our Nation's history. Despite the recent progress in PIDD research, the average length of time between the onset of symptoms in a patient and a definitive diagnosis of PIDD is nine and a half years. In the interim, those afflicted may suffer repeated and serious infections and possibly irreversible damage to internal organs. That it why it is critical that we raise awareness about these illnesses within the general public and the health care community. I commend the Immune Deficiency Foundation for its leadership in this area and I am proud that I was able to join them in recognizing the week of April 19 as National Primary Immune Deficiency Diseases Awareness Week. I encourage my colleagues to help improve the quality of life for PIDD patients and their families.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to oppose S. 2290, the so- called ``FAIR Act.'' I oppose this bill because it is anything but fair to victims of asbestos exposure. This bill puts the interests of insurance companies and industry before those who are sick and often dying because of asbestos exposure. How can we call a bill fair--when it makes those who suffer as a result of asbestos exposure worse off and further delays their compensation. We need a balanced and fair approach to asbestos reform that will have bipartisan support. Democrats want it, business wants it, labor wants it and many of our friends on the other side of the aisle want it. Unfortunately, the FAIR Act is not it. Even the process by which this bill came to the floor is not fair. This is not the bill that came out of the Judiciary Committee, its not the product of the negotiations that Senators Specter, Leahy, Daschle and others have been pursuing, it is not a bill that has had any input from Democrats. Senators Frist and Hatch decided what should be in the bill and put it on the floor. They skirted the usual Senate process and introduced a partisan bill. This bill is not fair. Is it fair that those who are seriously ill as a result of asbestos related illnesses would receive far less on average under this bill than they would in our court system? Is it fair that victims who are suffering from lung cancer may only receive $25,000 when they were exposed to asbestos for 15 years and will likely die within a few years of diagnosis? Is it fair that businesses will only put $109 billion into the fund when conservative estimates expect the fund's claims to reach at least $134 billion? Is it fair that victims will be left with no recourse if, as many expect, the fund runs out of money and those who are sick are forced to wait years more for compensation? And I ask you, is it fair that those who have already spent years in the court system will have their settlements and judgments wiped out and have to wait years more for compensation under the new system? These defects are simply unacceptable in a bill that is supposed to solve the asbestos nightmare and get victims real relief now. None of these provisions is fair to the workers, mechanics, miners, and family members who have been exposed to asbestos and are now suffering from disease. These are the people who are relying on the Congress for help so they can spend their last days enjoying their families and loved ones and not litigating their claims. The U.S. Senate can do better than getting caught up in a political game when people's lives are at stake. This legislation has three major flaws--it gives victims far too little, forces victims into a fund that has too few resources, and closes the courthouse door for victims of asbestos exposure. Too many victims receive far too little under this bill. This new Frist/Hatch bill may have increased the awards for some victims over previous version of the bill, but it still leaves many of the most seriously ill victims with awards far below what they would receive if they went to court. For example, overall awards in this bill are far lower than what victims would receive in court. And to top it all off victims could see their awards reduced even further because of workers' compensation or insurers' liens, which this bill allows. That's not fair. This bill forces victims out of the courts and into a fund that may run out of money. The level of funding under this Frist/Hatch bill is well below what even conservative estimates put as the likely cost of the fund. How can we ask all these victims to give up their right to go to court and then put them in a fund that will run out of money? They will be left holding the bag and waiting years more to get relief. Certainly business can do more for the trust fund in exchange for a reprieve from their litigation liability. I am not only worried about the fund running out of money in the long term--but also up front. Over 300,000 cases are currently pending and it is expected that 90,000 additional cases will be filed each year of the first few years of the trust. Under this bill there simply is not enough funding in the early years to cover those costs. So what happens? Victims again are left waiting, as they have been in the tort system, for years for some compensation and sadly many of them will die before they ever see a cent. This legislation shuts the courthouse door for victims. Many victims of asbestos exposure have already spent years in court and have received a settlement or judgment. The Frist/Hatch bill wipes out all pending claims, including those where a settlement has been reached or where a judge or jury has reached a judgment. These victims have spent years and often most of their resources litigating these cases. Now Congress wants to come in and say ``Sorry, you have to file your claim again and wait for the fund to get your relief.'' That undermines the civil justice system, the faith we put in judges and juries and is simply not fair to victims who have been waiting years. Senator Feinstein had offered an amendment to the original bill in Committee that helped take care of part of this problem. It was based on a simple idea--victims have waited long enough and they ought to be allowed to pursue their claims while the fund was getting off the ground. But the Frist/Hatch bill gets rid of that provision and makes victims wait. Wait till the money is in the fund, wait till the administrative system is set up, wait till Administrators are appointed and then wait some more. It might take years to get the fund off the ground and until then victims have no where to go to pursue their claims. I, like my colleagues, wanted a to be able to vote for legislation that would help victims, that would make sure they got the compensation they deserve and would also ensure that problems with the current legal system were addressed. But this bill is the wrong vehicle--it actually rolls back the progress that was made in the Senate Judiciary Committee and through months of negotiations between labor, business and insurance. I know that Senators Daschle, Leahy, Dodd, Feinstein and others have been working tirelessly with those on the other side of the aisle and with industry, insurance and labor to create a consensus bill. I have supported those efforts and am disappointed that Senator Frist introduced this bill which sends us in exactly the opposite direction. It sends us away from common ground and negotiated positions to a strongly partisan bill that does not reflect any of those efforts. I think we should go back to the table, to finish the conversations, to reach a balanced agreement that the majority of us can support. We need to protect those who have been exposed and are suffering from asbestos related diseases by putting sufficient amounts in the trust fund, by making sure that compensation levels are fair and awards are dispensed quickly, by ensuring that the fund is solvent and provides victims with the ability to go back to court if the system runs out of money. We also need to make sure that those who are in court can continue their cases until the fund is set up and that those who have reached a settlement or received a judgment can get the remedy their litigation has entitled them to. I stand with my Democratic colleagues in saying ``we want a bill.'' I want a bill that helps victims get just compensation, and that provides financial certainty for industry and insurers. But that cannot come at the cost of the rights and remedies for those who are and will become seriously ill as a result of asbestos exposure.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to the conference report on the Pension Funding Equity Act of 2003. The conference report the Senate is considering today is a hollow promise for America's workers. This bill helps some companies and workers, but fails others. It provides relief for pension plans that cover 35 million American workers, including auto, steel and transit workers, and airline pilots. I support making sure their pension plans are safe. But, this conference report fails to provide relief to the multi- employer pension plans that cover 9.7 million unionized workers. Many of these Americans work for small businesses, including many in my state. These workers are boilermakers, shipbuilders, electricians, and carpenters. I want to stand up for these workers to make sure their pensions are safe also. I voted for a bill in the U.S. Senate in January, which was a truly genuine, bipartisan effort, passing by an overwhelming vote of 86-9. The bill I voted for wasn't perfect, but it was a solid, bipartisan bill. Because of recent economic events, pension plans were hit by the perfect storm of a stock market crash, historically low interest rate, and a weak economy. So, many pension plans were in a crisis. Pension plans were calculating their liabilities based on an outdated rate that is no longer issued. By switching to a more accurate rate, pension plans will have lower funding needs which frees up money to buy plants and equipment and hire workers. This is a temporary fix while Congress reviews the issue and comes up with a permanent solution. I support this move. Large pension plans that were particularly hit hard by the downturn in the stock market and the weak economy also are given a temporary break on their ``catch up'' contributions to give them a break while the economy recovers. I also support this provision. Yet when I voted for the pension bill last January, there was pension relief for all pension plans, the large pension plans and the multi- employer plans which are common in small businesses, and used by plumbers, carpenters, shipbuilders, and truckers. Some believe that the conference report we're considering today is the best we can do. I believe we could have done better. We must do better. We make sure all workers pensions are safe. I'm voting against this bill because of its impact on people, yet I have to say something about the process. This was far from Congress's usual procedure. It was passed by the Senate by an overwhelming majority. However, the Senate's views were disregarded in conference. We were handed this conference report and told to take it or leave it. This is legislation that will affect the lives of 44 million Americans, but it fails to provide help for nearly 10 million of those Americans. I cannot support that. I know that some in Maryland are asking, ``Why are you voting this way Barb?'' They're saying, ``We need help now. Our pension may be in trouble.'' To these Marylanders, I want you to know that I want to help you now. I want to ease your worry about your retirement security. But, I want to give you something real. Not all Marylanders will be helped by this bill. So, I won't vote to pass this bill because I want to make sure all Marylanders have a safe and secure retirement. We can do better. We must do better, and we must do better this year. There are twenty weeks left in this session of Congress. During these weeks, we can make sure all workers are protected. That is why I will be joining with my colleagues to fight to make sure that all pensions plans are safe.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, today I rise on behalf of myself and Senators Specter, Murray, Clinton, Landrieu, Dayton, Schumer, Daschle and Lieberman, to introduce the High-Risk Non-Profit Security and Safety Enhancement Act of 2004. This bill provides homeland security assistance for high-risk non-profits to protect them against foreign terrorist attacks. This legislation is critical to help protect the ``soft targets'' of terrorism all over the United States. We are all aware of recent terrorist attacks in the United States, Spain, Germany, Iraq, Tunisia, Kenya, Morocco and Turkey. These attacks by Al Qaeda on an international Red Cross building, synagogues, train stations, hotels, airports, restaurants, night clubs, and cultural centers, show its willingness to attack ``soft targets'' of all types in order to conduct its campaign of terror. I want to make sure that our communities are protected and the buildings where citizens live, learn and work are as secure as possible to safeguard American lives from a potential terrorist attack. Local communities are on the front lines in our war against terrorism. This Congress must do its share to make sure that they do not have to bear the full cost of this war. This bill helps us do that by providing funds for security enhancements in buildings that Americans visit everyday and by providing local law enforcement with added support for the costs they incur in helping to guard these local buildings and community centers. Specifically, this legislation will provide up to $100 million in assistance to 501(c)(3) organizations demonstrating a high risk of terrorist attack based upon very specific standards. Organizations wishing to receive security enhancements under this Act must demonstrate that they have experienced specific threats by international terrorist organizations, there were prior attacks against similarly situated organizations, there is vulnerability of the specific site, the symbolic value of the site as a highly recognized American Institution, or that they have a specific role in responding to terrorist attacks. This bill allows the Department of Homeland Security to contract for security enhancements to help these high-risk non-profit organizations. These funds can only be used for security enhancements, such as concrete barriers, and ``hardening'' of windows and doors, as well as technical assistance to assess needs, develop plans, and train personnel. Funding under this Act can never be used for enhancements that would only be reasonably necessary to protect from neighborhood crime. This bill also helps our vital first responders, those who are on the frontline everyday helping to protect these ``soft targets.'' These men and women have the responsibility for protecting institutions against the possibility of terrorist attack, while they are also responding to the public safety needs of the entire community. By authorizing $50 million in grant funds for local police departments, this bill provides real relief to local law enforcement who bear the growing costs associated with providing heightened security to high-risk non-profits. As a Nation our priority in fighting the war on terror is to be able to better detect, prevent and respond to acts of terrorism. This bill gets us one step closer to meeting those goals by helping vulnerable targets better detect and prevent terrorist attacks and by making sure that if terror strikes one of these facilities, security and safety measures are in place to protect the lives of those inside and around these buildings. Nothing the Senate does is more important than providing America security and Americans safety. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation because it does exactly that. It makes sure that there is added security for these ``soft targets'' that Americans visit everyday and it adds funding to support the local police, fire and rescue workers who are the first responders when there is a threat to one of these organizations. In the battle to protect our Nation from terrorist attacks, we must be sure to provide assistance to these high-risk non- profit organizations that provide vital health, social, cultural, and educational services to the American people. I know others share my concerns about protecting these ``soft targets'' in our war against terrorism and that is why the United Jewish Communities, the American Red Cross, United Way, the American Hospital Association, the American Association of Museums, the National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities (NAICU), American Jewish Congress, the Theatre Communications Group, and the YMCA of the USA are all united in supporting this legislation. This bill not only supports homeland security, it supports hometown security, making our communities stronger and safer, and I encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation and ask unanimous consent to print in the Record a letter from organizations supporting this effort and I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, today I rise on behalf of myself and Senators Specter, Murray, Clinton, Landrieu, Dayton, Schumer, Daschle and Lieberman, to introduce the High-Risk Non-Profit Security and Safety Enhancement Act of 2004. This bill provides homeland security assistance for high-risk non-profits to protect them against foreign terrorist attacks. This legislation is critical to help protect the ``soft targets'' of terrorism all over the United States. We are all aware of recent terrorist attacks in the United States, Spain, Germany, Iraq, Tunisia, Kenya, Morocco and Turkey. These attacks by Al Qaeda on an international Red Cross building, synagogues, train stations, hotels, airports, restaurants, night clubs, and cultural centers, show its willingness to attack ``soft targets'' of all types in order to conduct its campaign of terror. I want to make sure that our communities are protected and the buildings where citizens live, learn and work are as secure as possible to safeguard American lives from a potential terrorist attack. Local communities are on the front lines in our war against terrorism. This Congress must do its share to make sure that they do not have to bear the full cost of this war. This bill helps us do that by providing funds for security enhancements in buildings that Americans visit everyday and by providing local law enforcement with added support for the costs they incur in helping to guard these local buildings and community centers. Specifically, this legislation will provide up to $100 million in assistance to 501(c)(3) organizations demonstrating a high risk of terrorist attack based upon very specific standards. Organizations wishing to receive security enhancements under this Act must demonstrate that they have experienced specific threats by international terrorist organizations, there were prior attacks against similarly situated organizations, there is vulnerability of the specific site, the symbolic value of the site as a highly recognized American Institution, or that they have a specific role in responding to terrorist attacks. This bill allows the Department of Homeland Security to contract for security enhancements to help these high-risk non-profit organizations. These funds can only be used for security enhancements, such as concrete barriers, and ``hardening'' of windows and doors, as well as technical assistance to assess needs, develop plans, and train personnel. Funding under this Act can never be used for enhancements that would only be reasonably necessary to protect from neighborhood crime. This bill also helps our vital first responders, those who are on the frontline everyday helping to protect these ``soft targets.'' These men and women have the responsibility for protecting institutions against the possibility of terrorist attack, while they are also responding to the public safety needs of the entire community. By authorizing $50 million in grant funds for local police departments, this bill provides real relief to local law enforcement who bear the growing costs associated with providing heightened security to high-risk non-profits. As a Nation our priority in fighting the war on terror is to be able to better detect, prevent and respond to acts of terrorism. This bill gets us one step closer to meeting those goals by helping vulnerable targets better detect and prevent terrorist attacks and by making sure that if terror strikes one of these facilities, security and safety measures are in place to protect the lives of those inside and around these buildings. Nothing the Senate does is more important than providing America security and Americans safety. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation because it does exactly that. It makes sure that there is added security for these ``soft targets'' that Americans visit everyday and it adds funding to support the local police, fire and rescue workers who are the first responders when there is a threat to one of these organizations. In the battle to protect our Nation from terrorist attacks, we must be sure to provide assistance to these high-risk non- profit organizations that provide vital health, social, cultural, and educational services to the American people. I know others share my concerns about protecting these ``soft targets'' in our war against terrorism and that is why the United Jewish Communities, the American Red Cross, United Way, the American Hospital Association, the American Association of Museums, the National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities (NAICU), American Jewish Congress, the Theatre Communications Group, and the YMCA of the USA are all united in supporting this legislation. This bill not only supports homeland security, it supports hometown security, making our communities stronger and safer, and I encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation and ask unanimous consent to print in the Record a letter from organizations supporting this effort and I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I am proud to cosponsor the Boxer/ Kennedy amendment to raise the minimum wage for the first time in seven years. This increase is long overdue. The last time Congress increased the minimum wage was in 1997. Yet inflation has already wiped out the real value of that increase. For working people, a full-time job should not mean full-time poverty. I thought in this country, the best social program was a job. Yet minimum wage jobs aren't paying enough to keep families out of poverty. There are more than 100,000 Marylanders earning minimum wage. Most of them can't even afford a two-bedroom apartment. At $5.15 per hour, minimum wage workers working 40 hours per week, 52 weeks per year, earn an annual salary of only $10,700. That's $5,000 below the national poverty line for a family of three. Every day the minimum wage is not increased, workers fall farther and farther behind. Throughout Maryland, I keep hearing about families turning to soup kitchens and local charities for help. They are forced to do this because the economy is bad, and their jobs simply don't pay them enough to stay afloat. An increase in the minimum wage equals an increase in the standard of living for working Americans. This amendment would raise the minimum wage from $5.15 and hour to $7.00 an hour. It would help nearly 7 million working Americans. It helps low wage workers like the home health aides who take care of our elderly parents and the child care workers who take care of our children. It helps farm workers, security guards and housekeepers. Right now we are debating the reauthorization of Welfare Reform. I voted for Welfare Reform in 1996 because I agree that the best way to help lift someone out of poverty is to help him or her get a job. But it doesn't help anyone to get a job that doesn't pay enough to stay off of public assistance. While we're working to move our most vulnerable citizens from welfare to work, we need to make sure those jobs pay a livable wage. I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise to submit a Senate Resolution with my distinguished colleague from Kansas, Senator Brownback. This Resolution expresses the desire of the Senate for NASA to undertake a comprehensive independent review of the decision to terminate the final servicing mission for the Hubble Space Telescope and that all planning and preparation activities continue during this period. On January 14, 2004, the NASA Administrator announced that he was terminating the final servicing mission for the Hubble Telescope that was scheduled to be launched in 2007. When the NASA Administrator announced his decision, I was shocked. Hubble has been the most successful NASA program since Apollo. In fact, it is arguably the greatest scientific instrument since Galileo's telescope. Pictures from Hubble have helped scientists prove that the universe is expanding, that black holes exist, and how stars are born and how stars die. Earlier this month, the Space Telescope Science Institute released what may be considered the greatest photograph ever taken of the universe. It is a picture showing what the universe was like almost 12 billion years ago. Galaxies and stars never seen before are shown in extraordinary detail that will usher in a new era of discovery for years to come. With the scientific value of Hubble undisputed, I was shocked that there was no report, analysis or study that supported the Administrator's decision. It is imperative that we have a full understanding of all the issues, including the potential risks, scientific benefits and alternative servicing methods for a Hubble servicing mission. This decision is too important to be left to just one person. We need the best advice from the best minds to determine Hubble's future. Let me be clear. I want to stand up for Hubble. I will always stand up for the safety of our astronauts. We must do everything possible to ensure the safety of our astronauts, whether they are traveling to the Space Station or fixing Hubble. Putting safety first means that NASA must fully implement all of the recommendations of the Columbia Accident Investigation Board as soon as possible. As the Ranking Member of the Appropriations Subcommittee that funds NASA, working on a bi- partisan basis with my distinguished colleague from Missouri, Senator Bond, we are committed to providing whatever resources are needed to ensure that safety of our astronauts and the safety of the Space Shuttle. Before an irrevocable decision is made about Hubble's future, I want the best minds in science and engineering to tell us what are the risks and how can we reduce them. I know many of my colleagues share these concerns. That's why Senator Brownback and I are submitting this resolution today. The decision to terminate the Hubble servicing mission represents a major change in our science and space policies. Congress, the American people and the world deserve nothing less than a rigorous and independent review so we can fully understand all of the issues surrounding a servicing mission. Finally, I want to thank the outstanding employees of the Goddard Space Flight Center and Space Telescope Science Institute. Without their hard work and dedication to the cause of science, exploration and discovery, Hubble would not be what it is today, the greatest scientific instrument mankind has ever created.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise to honor Mrs. Patricia Simmons for her 34 years of dedicated service as head librarian at the National Naval Medical Center, and to congratulate her for earning the Meritorious Civilian Service Award. Mrs. Simmons is a lifelong civil servant. She has touched the lives of many in the military service with her love of literature and her commitment to service. I ask that an article from the Journal, a publication of the Medical Center, be printed in the Record. The article follows. [From the Journal, Oct. 30, 2003] End of a Chapter (By Ellen Maurer) Patricia Simmons, head librarian at the National Naval Medical Center (NNMC), stamped her last book this month. Retiring after 34 years of service at the hospital's general library, Simmons was honored in a ceremony Oct. 15 for not only her long-term commitment to the command, its staff and patients, but also for her love of literature. ``She loves that library and every book that makes it up,'' says Cat DeBinder, an NNMC staff member who has known Simmons for more than 25 years. RADM Donald Arthur, MC, Commander, NNMC, presented Simmons with the Meritorious Civilian Service Award during her retirement ceremony. The award citation detailed Simmons' significant contributions, which included an improved web cataloging data-base system and an internet cafe. Ironically, though, those who knew Simmons best said she wasn't really dependent on new technology. ``Pat never needed a computer . . . her unflappable data base was between her ears and it never crashed,'' says DeBinder. ``She carried out her responsibilities with great love and true passion. She could tell you exactly where any book was; lead you correctly, without hesitation, to any subject and was a wizard with those little three-by-five index cards.'' DeBinder admits, however, that Simmons' familiarity with the books she ``guarded'' for more than three decades did have its disadvantages--if only to those library patrons, like DeBinder herself, who occasionally missed their ``due back'' date. ``Once, I had to fess up to the unspeakable. I lost a book. It was an old paperback, printed in the late sixties or early seventies. I think the original price was 40 cents. The pages were yellowish-orange with age. The title was ``No Bad Dogs.'' Pat had a very difficult time accepting the fact that I lost one of her books. I begged for mercy, forgiveness and I offered money. She said, `Just keep trying to find the book.' '' Whimsically, DeBinder adds, ``Pat . . . I'm still looking.''

Ms. MIKULSKI

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

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I say to the chairman, mine is not a sense of the Senate. Mine is a regular amendment.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Thank you very much. Why don't I just get busy to do that? Amendment No. 2820 Mr. President, it is with enthusiasm that I send my amendment to the desk.