Barbara Mikulski

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, in conclusion, my amendment helps our communities by providing more funding to meet immediate water and sewer needs so our communities can have clean and safe water. Water and sewer funding provides dual value for the taxpayers. It helps public health, it helps the environment. We will have clean water and safe water, and it creates jobs. I urge my colleagues to support my amendment to provide $3 billion more for our communities because I know every single State could use at least $1 billion more and I wish we could do it. I yield the floor.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise to offer an amendment to increase funding for our communities for our Nation's waste system. My amendment is simple and straightforward. It adds $3 billion to the VA-HUD bill for a total of $5.2 billion for water and sewer infrastructure. My amendment increases funding in the EPA clean water State revolving loan fund to $3 billion, over $1.3 billion. My amendment also increases funding in the EPA drinking water revolving fund from $850 million to $2 billion. When I offer this amendment, I want to be very clear. I am in no way critical of the effort the committee has made. I have been part of the effort. I congratulate Senator Bond for his robust funding for water and sewer systems. I thank him for his hard work on this issue. But we simply did not have enough money in our allocation. The budget cut $500 million from the President's budget from the clean water State revolving loan fund. Senator Bond and I worked together to restore that $500 million, and we are very grateful for that. But the Nation calls out for more. Our Nation's communities are facing enormous needs in their effort to provide clean water and safe water and to comply with Federal environmental mandates. The need for better water and sewer systems is much greater than the amount that we now have in the Federal checkbook. There have been studies, and studies after that, and the needs have been real and valid and have been validated by independent research. The Federal Government must do more to help meet these needs. Failure to do so places a great burden on the local taxpayers because it shifts the responsibility to them. We have created an unfunded Federal mandate. At the same time, the lack of proper water and sewer threatens public health and environmental safety. Our State and local governments are also revenue-starved to meet these mandates. Let me tell you about some of the studies. In fiscal year 2000, the Water Infrastructure Network said our water and sewer systems will face a funding gap of $12 billion over the next 20 years. GAO said the cost to really do our water and sewer systems the way they need to meet not only environmental but public health concerns will be $300 billion over 20 years. There is study after study after study that validates this. In my own State of Maryland, there is $4 billion in unmet needs. This isn't Senator Barbara Mikulski talking; this is the State of Maryland speaking. Our Eastern Shore and rural communities are trying hard to reduce harmful nutrients that pollute the Chesapeake Bay. Every time they increase their bonding authority to pay for unfunded mandates, it means one less school or one less highway. But the needs of Maryland are a cameo of the needs of the Nation. We are simply not putting enough money in the Federal checkbook for water and sewer systems. In my own hometown of Baltimore, our sewer system was built over 100 years ago. We are under a court order instituted by the EPA to rebuild it. It will cost $1 billion to do this. In order to be able to do this, ratepayers will pay the bill. This is an issue where growing green also generates jobs. The second reason this amendment is necessary is that it creates jobs. It is estimated for every $1 billion we spend on water infrastructure, 40,000 jobs are created, from the civil engineers and architect who design on it, to construction contractors, to heavy equipment manufacturers, and even those who run the lunch wagons at the job site. This creates jobs, but it has value for the taxpayer. It will give the State a much needed breather as they themselves are trying to meet this need. My amendment is temporary and it is targeted. It is a one-time $3 billion increase. This isn't $3 billion every year; it is $3 billion this year. The State loan funds have widespread support and would go a long way in helping this. The President requested $3.7 billion for water and sewer projects in Iraq. The President requested this funding as an emergency. I respect what the President said, but we have an emergency here. We have crumbling water systems that threaten public health. We need billions of dollars. We have rising rates for our citizens, and at the same time the local ratepayer is going to shoulder the responsibility. If there is an emergency in Iraq, there is surely a water and sewer emergency in this country. My amendment has widespread support--from the Water Infrastructure Network, a coalition of 47 nationally organized recognized organizations, to local officials, water and sewer service providers, engineers, construction contractors, labor unions, and environmentalists. This is the place where it all comes together-- mayors, Governors, workers, private sector. These will not be government jobs. These will be jobs in the private sector, in the local community, meeting local needs. Groups such as the League of Cities and the Association of Counties and others do that. I ask unanimous consent that two letters of support for my amendment be printed in the Record. They are from the Water Infrastructure Network, the Coalition of the American Rivers and Ocean Conservatory, and others.

Ms. MIKULSKI. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Ms. MIKULSKI. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 2178 To Amendment No. 2150

Ms. MIKULSKI. I concur with the amendment.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I have no objection. This has been a longstanding issue raised by our colleague from Alaska. It is a very compelling situation.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, what time----

Ms. MIKULSKI. I move to reconsider and lay the motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. nsf epscor program

Ms. MIKULSKI. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 2177 To Amendment No. 2150

Ms. MIKULSKI. This is an excellent amendment. We concur.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to express my enthusiastic support for Roger Titus, a dedicated and well-qualified Maryland lawyer, to be a Federal district court judge for the District of Maryland. When I review nominees for our Federal courts, I consider three criteria. They must have the utmost legal competence, the highest integrity and have a staunch dedication to protecting core constitutional values and guarantees. Mr. Titus meets all of these standards. I believe he will represent Maryland well on the District Court. Mr. Titus is recognized as one of the best lawyers in Maryland. He has been awarded Century of Service Award by the Bar Association of Montgomery County and has been recognized for his leadership in the legal community with the Leadership on Law Award from The Baltimore Daily Record. He is committed to serving the community and his profession. For over 16 years he served city attorney's office of Rockville, rising to position of city attorney. He is also a member of Board of Trustees of Suburban Hospital and pro bono counsel to Mobil Medical Care, Inc., a nonprofit dedicated to bringing health care services to Maryland's homeless population. The position that Mr. Titus is nominated for is important to protecting the rights of all Marylanders. Mr. Titus will join two other distinguished nominees that the Senate confirmed earlier this year, whom I strongly supported, Judges Bennett and Quarles. These nominees represent the types of lawyers that we should be putting on our Federal courts. They have strong bipartisan support, distinguished legal careers in the state from which they are selected and they are in the mainstream of legal thought. One of the things that impresses me about Mr. Titus is his strong ties to the community. Mr. Titus was raised in Maryland, attended Bethesda/Chevy Chase high school and went to college at Johns Hopkins University. He was the first in his family to go to law school. In fact, he was an electrical engineering major and had not really had any exposure to lawyers until he eloped with the daughter of a lawyer in college. From there the rest is history. He is now one of many in a family of lawyers. As a young lawyer, he worked as assistant city attorney in Rockville defending and representing the city. In 1972, he was appointed to be the city attorney of Rockville were he continued to represent the city in matters of complex municipal law. He also served as adjunct law professor at Georgetown Law School and then went on to establish his own successful law firm. In 1988, his firm merged with one of the top law firms in the United States, based right here in Washington DC--the firm of Venable, Baetjer and Howard, LLP. Mr. Titus is a leader in the firm as the partner in charge of the Montgomery County office and as a member of firm's Management Board. Roger Titus has had a distinguished legal career both working in the public sector as the advocate for the city of Rockville before the courts, and then in the private sector where he is known for his expertise in complex civil litigation. It is because of his service to the bar and his outstanding legal skills and intellect that Mr. Titus has received a ``well qualified'' rating from the American Bar Association. Mr. Titus' dedication to the law is also seen in his work as a volunteer counsel for Mobile Medical Care, Inc. This is an organization that provides free medical services to poor and homeless persons. Some of the most vulnerable citizens in our society. As their legal counsel, he helped them resolve legal hurdles which enabled them to set up a headquarters in Bethesda, MD. His commitment to the law is also reflected in his service to the bar. As a member of the Standing Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure of the Court of Appeals of Maryland, he worked to secure guidelines for legal representation of minors in proceedings terminating parental rights. I mentioned before the awards that Mr. Titus has received. These accolades from his colleagues are proof of the respect he has in the legal community and his intellect and ability. They demonstrate his service to bar and community and how much he has accomplished in career. I do not know how Mr. Titus will vote on every issue that comes before him. I know he has been nominated by a Republican President, and it is likely that my beliefs and Mr. Titus' beliefs on certain issues will differ. But I am confident that he will use his expertise and legal experience to guide him as he makes important decisions affecting Marylanders. I am also confident that his legal background and respect for the law will be his foundation as he serves on the Federal District Court in Maryland. I am impressed with Mr. Titus' commitment, expressed during his hearing before the Judiciary Committee, to adhering to the law. His dedication to following precedent and a statute's requirements, even where it is inconsistent with his own personal beliefs or is unpopular. It is the ability to put the law first, to know that personal views are irrelevant, that will serve him and Maryland well when he is a Federal district judge I am proud to support this distinguished Maryland lawyer for a seat on the prestigious Federal court in Maryland. It is well qualified, distinguished members of the bar, who are respected in their legal community and who are in the mainstream of legal thought, like Mr. Titus, that this administration should be nominating. These are nominees who have excelled in their profession and who are looked up to by Republicans and Democrats alike. Like Judges Quarles and Bennett, Mr. Titus is a nominee who both of Maryland's Senators can support. We support him because we are foremost concerned with protecting the integrity and excellence of the Maryland Federal judiciary. That concern has lead both Senator Sarbanes and myself to work with and support the choices of the administration for these District Court nominees. That concern is why I wish the administration had looked to the Maryland legal community when it nominated someone to fill the vacancy left by the death of Judge Francis Murnaghan, an esteemed jurist who served on the Fourth Circuit for over 20 years. Today, as I rise to enthusiastically support the nomination of Mr. Titus and as I have risen to support the other nominees for the district court, I believe these individuals are a model of the types of lawyers that should be nominated to fill Judge Murnaghan's seat on the Fourth Circuit. These nominees show that the President could easily nominate someone from Maryland who is fit for the bench and will serve with pride and excellence. They also show that the administration would not have to look far for a qualified nominee from Maryland.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, this week marks the close of National Breast Cancer Awareness Month. During the month of October, dedicated advocates, breast cancer survivors, and health professionals commemorate the tremendous progress we have made in the fight against breast cancer, as well as raise awareness about the progress we hope to make in the future. In the last 10 years, we have accomplished many things. We have increased funding for breast cancer research by 700 percent, passed the Breast Cancer Research Stamp Act, which has raised more than $30 million, and made sure that Medicare and Medicaid are required to cover mammograms. We have accomplished a lot, but we must continue to fight. Breast cancer is second only to lung cancer in cancer deaths among women. An estimated 211,300 new invasive cases of breast cancer are expected to occur among women in the United States during 2003. An estimated 39,800 women will die from breast cancer. While incidence among men is rare, we know that 400 men will also lose their lives this year to breast cancer, an area in which we still have much to learn. I wrote the Mammography Quality Standards Act more than 10 years ago to save women's lives. Before MQSA became law, there were no national quality standards. Image quality varied widely and there were no inspections. Now, when women get mammograms, they know the equipment meets Federal safety and quality standards. Currently, I am working to reauthorize this important law before Congress adjourns. In 1990, I fought for the Breast and Cervical Cancer Screening Program to make sure women without health insurance have access to lifesaving tests like mammograms. Also, I fought for the Breast and Cervical Cancer Treatment Act to help these women get the treatment they need if they are diagnosed with breast or cervical cancer. My colleagues and I on both sides of the aisle have worked together, especially the women Senators and the Galahads of the Senate, like Senators Kennedy, Harkin, Grassley, and Specter. For all that we have done, there is still more to do. We need to make sure women have the information they need about the importance of screenings, make sure we have the best tools and best trained doctors for diagnosis and treatment, and make sure uninsured women have access to health care. Also, we must be steadfast on research. I came to the U.S. Senate to change lives and save lives. I will continue to fight to eradicate breast cancer. Today, I commemorate the progress we have made and look towards the future. I will keep fighting to make sure women's health is on the agenda, and breast cancer survivors, and the health professionals can make a difference in the lives of thousands of women. Each one of us can make a difference. Together we make change.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. I think that is a reasonable solution. I want to cooperate in any way I can to ensure the Senator's right to offer a second degree and to expedite the debate. I withdraw my objection.

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

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I have an amendment that I send to the desk and ask its immediate consideration.

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

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, we are looking forward to moving this bill. I know the Senator from Wyoming wishes to offer a second degree. I note that he is on the floor. I also note that the Senator from Ohio has done a great deal of work on the Civil Service. He has some very interesting ideas. I wish we could continue the debate on these amendments. The Senator from Ohio will be offering an amendment. We are ready to debate and discuss it. If we all work together, I think we can finish the bill in the interest of the American public, the integrity of the Civil Service, and the taxpayer. I will save my rebuttal until the pertinent parties are on the floor. I am ready to go. If we could have the second degree, we are ready to debate it. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I feel at a bit of a disadvantage. I am all set to debate, but we keep waiting. We waited for the amendment. Now we have to wait for the Senator from Ohio to make his points in the argument and then he tells me to go ahead and make the argument. My argument is to rebut their amendment. So I am waiting for the Senator from Ohio to make his argument. I have great admiration for the Senator from Ohio, particularly in the area of Civil Service. I know he has put in countless hours in terms of the Civil Service. Perhaps if he could explain his amendment. I listened carefully to Senator Thomas, but I am not sure I grasped the full extent of the amendment. There are many elements about the amendment I find attractive and I would like to comment on those. Those I find deficient I would like to identify. I do want the Senator from Ohio to know I think you are an expert on Civil Service. I have great admiration for you.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, how much time remains?

Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, how much time remains on my side?

Ms. MIKULSKI. I yield myself 5 minutes and withhold 4 to see if Senator Kennedy or another Senator wishes to speak. Right now I would like to yield myself 5 minutes. I ask the Chair to confirm, as I get a little excited when I am talking about this.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, what I want to say in response to what my colleague has said is, No. 1, he says the May 29 circular is better. There is a fundamental difference between us on that. I don't believe it is better. I stand with the way the National Treasury Union Workers feel about it and the way the other Federal employees feel about it. If you are on the side of the companies that are going to benefit from privatization, you like it. If you are the ones who are on the firing line or the chopping block, you don't like it. What I do acknowledge is that the amendment offered by my two colleagues from the other side of the aisle does improve the A-76 process. I also acknowledge that I know the Senator from Ohio did go ballistic. I am glad that he went ballistic. I thank him for standing sentry down in the Government Affairs Committee against bounty hunting, against quotas, and against sending jobs overseas. I salute him on that. But he is one man against a whole tide here. This is why I think his amendment has merit. But I tell you, deep down to my toes, I believe they want to privatize most of the Federal Government, and I do believe that deep down inside they want quotas to privatize. I don't believe that about him. When we look at this whole issue that he raised about private sector contractors moving jobs overseas, the Senator knows they have already done it. If the call center at the Census Bureau is now in India, Hello? The United States of America calling India to find out about census? I could go on with other examples. The time is late. I appreciate the fact that the Senator gives Federal employees a right to appeal when they lose a competition which they now don't have. I also acknowledge that his amendment removes the 5-year recompete competition, and I salute him on that, and also ensures contract oversight. In other words, you have some good ideas here. But in my comments, I say, you can vote for both. I want my colleagues to know they can vote for both. They can vote for Voinovich-Thomas and they can vote for Mikulski. Voinovich-Thomas has ideas of merit. Theirs is a modest improvement. My amendment improves it all. They improve five things about this. I have identified 15. If you want 15, you vote for Mikulski. But you can vote for them and you can vote for me. The other thing I want to say is that the Mikulski amendment does not stop contracting out. It simply stops the May 29 circular, which is harsh, punitive, and unfair to Federal employees. I said to the administration, back to the drawing boards, work with Voinovich and Thomas and Collins, and work with Mikulski, Kennedy, and Sarbanes, and make sure our Federal workforce keeps on working.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, how much time do I have?

Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, I wish to notify the Chair that other Senators are on the way. I will speak for 2 minutes and then I hope they are here. Again, I reiterate, the Thomas amendment has some good points. You can vote for both. My amendment does not stop privatization; it just makes it fair. I say something and they something back. But I am telling you, they don't mandate cost savings in this A-76. Let me tell you a boondoggle. Defense Finance Accounting Service-- this is finance accounting--contracted out 650 jobs to a private computer company. Guess what. The DOD inspector general found out that it cost the taxpayers $25 million more than it would cost under Federal employees. Take the call center. They won the competition, and they won it by sending it to India. Lower wages, no health care. Let's ship those jobs overseas. My gosh, what are we doing? This May 29 circular is despicable, it is unfair, it is harsh, it is punitive, and it will cost taxpayer dollars to do studies, and it is costing morale. If we want people to work for the Federal Government and be enthusiastic and put their best energies forth and put America first, we cannot keep Tinkertoying with them. I hope you can vote for their amendment, but, please, in the interest of the vitality and integrity of the Federal workforce, please vote for the Mikulski amendment. I yield 1 minute to the Senator from Louisiana.