Barbara Mikulski

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. I thank the Senator. I rise in vigorous opposition to the Sessions amendment and urge my colleagues to vote against it. I offered the amendment in the Appropriations Committee to add $100 million for AmeriCorps in this urgent supplemental. It has strong bipartisan support. Senators Stevens, Byrd, Bond, and many others support my amendment. But it is not about supporting my amendment. It is about supporting AmeriCorps at this very troubled time. If we do not do this $100 million, there will be a cut of over 15,000 AmeriCorps volunteers right this minute. These cuts are being announced today. How did this happen? There was a bureaucratic boondoggle. There was a bureaucratic snafu. They overenrolled 20,000 volunteers. Every year, the VA-HUD subcommittee funds 50,000 volunteers. But they overenrolled with 70,000. How did we know about it? Senator Bond chaired the subcommittee leading the fight for reform in fiscal responsibility, and uncovered it at the April 15 hearing. The House put out a press release. We put out performance. We found the mistake. We worked on a bipartisan basis to correct the accounting. I called for new leadership. But that is not a substitute for the need for new funds. This is an emergency today. Who are we going to punish, if we don't do the money? Not the bureaucracy, not the boondogglers, but the volunteers in our communities. There is a question about why now. The law says funding for volunteers and the awards that help them pay off their student debt must be in the Federal checkbook when the volunteers begin their service. For many of them, they are going to begin their service now because they are going to be in school-based programs. Teach America, for example--which we all love--if this is not in there, 1,000 Teach America kids will not be in classrooms; and Jump Start, which works with Head Start and organizes and leverages other volunteers. When we look at what we are doing here, we need to know that if AmeriCorps does not get this funding now they will not be able to sign up volunteers right this minute for these programs. This is to get AmeriCorps over the troubled waters. The President has announced a new CEO. Senator Bond has led the effort for a new chief financial officer. He has been the leader of the reform effort, and has had my utmost support. We can't wait until next year. If we do, we are going to squander volunteer opportunities. The President has called for a new spirit of voluntarism. Young people have responded. We need to respond to the call to meet our responsibility and not punish these communities. I yield the floor.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. But I want to make sure my reform-minded colleague, Senator Bond, can speak.

Ms. MIKULSKI. I state to the Senator from Alabama some facts. First of all, the reason this is being declared an emergency is that if this $100 million is not in this appropriation, 20,000 volunteers will lose their slots. I want to speak about the debacle and the bureaucratic boondoggle at the national corporation. I say to my colleague from Alabama, he is absolutely right, but what he should know is that the VA-HUD subcommittee chaired by Senator Bond has been in the forefront of reform. I say to our colleague that our April 15 hearing was when we found out that AmeriCorps, National Corporation, had enrolled 70,000 volunteers when we had given them money for 50,000 volunteers. I want the Senator to know that we went ballistic. Also, the Senator should know we called the board the Enron corporation of nonprofits. I later wrote to the President asking for more money, a better board and the resignation of Mr. Lenkowsky. The criticisms are there, but when you talk about the need for accounting reform and transparency and all of the excellent things, the Senator should know that our colleague, Senator Bond from Missouri, chairman of the committee, has been a leader in shaking up the agency and I have been his very able partner. We have insisted on a new CFO. We have insisted on better procedures. We have been doing this, and I might add, we were doing it, sir, when the House wasn't paying one bit of attention. It was our oversight hearing that found under this rock were a lot of other rocks, and under those rocks were worms. We know that. We agree with that. What we do not want to do, though, is punish these volunteers and the communities they serve because of the overenrollment. In all honesty, what you should know is that if this supplemental does not occur, 20,000 volunteers will lose their slots, like in Teach America. There will be 395 in my State. I am sure my colleague will see them in his State. So while we want to really throttle the bureaucracy--throttle the bureaucracy--we do not want to punish the volunteers and the communities we serve. We are at a pivotal point--actually a crisis point. So that is why this is in the supplemental. The Senator is well within his rights to raise some of the questions he does. But from the standpoint of the communities and these 20,000 volunteers, this is a pivotal point. I could go on and tell you about the merits of AmeriCorps. I will not keep you. I will have more things printed in the Record. I am very mindful of your time. But I wanted to say to my colleague from Alabama, his call for reform? We issued it even years ago. We have really been pressing. Actually, I think with this new CFO, you would like him very much. But I really have to defend Senator Bond's efforts in moving for administrative reform. I want to say these administrative problems also predate President Bush's time. I do not know if the Senator would like to comment on that. My next set of remarks will be about AmeriCorps and the consequences of this. But I wanted to share those facts with the Senator.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I would say on a bipartisan basis we were working for very strong administrative management and fiscal reform. We have worked. It was our committee that uncovered this fiasco in April. We have been, since, working with OMB on management improvement as well as accounting flexibility to get them over the hump. Remember, it is volunteers who will be penalized. It will be volunteers and communities that will be penalized, not the bureaucracy. The bureaucracy gets to keep their jobs. They get to move papers around. It is the volunteers who are going to be punished. So we have a difference of opinion about how you can get reform. But we did move in accounting flexibility, when this Senate passed it 100 to nothing. We did it in 1 day, the House the next day. The President was able to sign it. But flexibility without funds was a hollow victory. So we need the $100 million to cover the rest of the quarter so these 20,000 volunteers do not lose their slots. That is why this is in this supplemental. It was our original intent, Senator Kennedy and I were going to offer this amendment on the floor. But we understood there was sympathy for our position at the White House no commitments, no guarantees, but sympathy. I must say, the President, in his State of the Union, called for a spirit of voluntarism. The outpouring has been tremendous. What happened was they ended up overenrolling. But we are now going to snuff out the spirit of America, snuff out the call to service the President himself requested. We are going to trample on the very ideals these young people want to bring to their communities. We cannot trample on their idealism. We should not snuff out this opportunity because there is a bureaucratic boondoggle. The ``boon'' ought to go to the ``dogglers,'' not to the volunteers. So we believe this modest amount of money, in the overall trillion dollar budget, would be a bridge to get AmeriCorps over troubled waters and would ensure these volunteers would have their jobs. In Maryland, 395 volunteers would be cut from civic work which remodels and rehabilitates homes, tutors kids, works in a variety of ways in these very poor neighborhoods. I personally know what they have done to rehabilitate boarded-up houses. The Baltimore Reads program, the Teach America program--I could list them. But it is not about programs; it is about people helping. I am going to tell you the story of a young man named Mark who was an AmeriCorps volunteer who came to Baltimore and went into one of our poor schools where kids were performing at the 25th percentile. When he left after his 3-year stint, they were performing at the 70th percentile. And, because of the voucher he had earned, he was able to pay down his student debt and therefore be free to get a master's in teaching, and he is now a full-time teacher in Baltimore schools because he so loved what he had come to, the sense of accomplishment that had come from being a volunteer in Teach America. We believe this is $100 million in an emergency supplemental that will help these volunteers do what they want. They will answer the call for service of our own President. The communities and the volunteers will not be punished for bureaucratic mismanagement. We have worked on reform. The reform efforts have been a bipartisan effort. The leadership for greater accountability has been led by our colleague from Missouri and we think we have real momentum now. The White House is watching over this program. The board is now engaged. I believe a new CEO is on the way. We have the right CFO to help us with the financing accountability. There needs to be this bridge to get these 20,000 volunteers over the troubled waters. This is why I believe it should stay in the supplemental and I hope the majority of the Senate would concur with that.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Let me doublecheck this. We have a little disagreement. I will be right here.

Ms. MIKULSKI. I see what the Senator is saying: ``To remain available until.'' That means if for some reason they don't use this, it would expire. That doesn't mean it begins in 2004. It means that it will be available through 2004.

Ms. MIKULSKI. I understand my colleague from Alabama, who offered this amendment, is in an armed services conference. I say to the Senator I appreciate the demands on his time. I will say some things and have a more elaborate statement, but I thank the Senator for leaving the conference and I thank the Senator for offering this amendment earlier in the evening.

Ms. MIKULSKI. To the Senator? Of course.

Ms. MIKULSKI. First to the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, will I have time tomorrow morning?

Ms. MIKULSKI. Of course, I first of all thank our colleague from Alabama for offering this amendment earlier this evening. I would like about 3 minutes.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, I rise to state for the record my strong support of Senator Harkin's amendment to the Medicare prescription drug bill (S. 1) to increase Medicare reimbursement for mammorgrams. I am a proud cosponsor of this amendment. I am pleased that Senator Grassley and Senator Baucus agreed to include it in the Medicare prescription drug legislation that passed the Senate earlier today. Americans must have access to mammography because it is an important tool to screen and detect breast cancer. It is vital for Medicare beneficiaries to have access to mammography. A woman's risk of having breast cancer increases with age. A woman's chance of getting breast cancer is 1 out of 2,212 by age 30. This increases to 1 out of 23 by age 60 and 1 out of 10 by age 80. More than 85 percent of breast cancers occur in women over the age of 50. There will be 70 million Americans aged 65 and over in 2030. At the same time about 700 mammography facilities have closed nationwide over the last 2 years. Adequate reimbursement is essential to help ensure that women have access to this important screening tool. This amendment will increase Medicare reimbursement for mammograms. This amendment is also an important step to help radiologists enter and remain in the field of mammography by providing more adequate reimbursement. Mammography is not perfect, but it is the best tool we have now. I have long fought to ensure that Medicare beneficiaries have access to mammography. I cosponsored the Assure Access to Mammography Act, S. 869, that would increase Medicare reimbursement for mammograms. It would also increase the number of radiologists by increasing Medicare graduate medical education, GME, to provide three additional radiologists in each teaching hospital. In 1990, I introduced the Medicare Screening Mammography Amendments of 1990 to provide Medicare coverage of annual screening mammography. My legislation was included in the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990. Before that, Medicare did not cover routine annual screening mammograms. Additional legislation since then has expanded access to mammography for Medicare beneficiaries. I will continue to fight to ensure that women have access to quality mammography, and I urge that the final version of the Medicare prescription drug bill include provisions to increase Medicare reimbursement for mammograms.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, senior citizens are facing a crisis--a crisis in affording health care and a crisis in affording prescription drugs. I have been in communities all over Maryland. Listening to seniors who are desperate. Listening to their families in the diners--who want to help their parents, yet face stresses of their own. Listening to the employers in the boardrooms--who want to help their retirees, but can no longer afford to. Here is what they tell me. They say: We need a prescription drug benefit in Medicare. We need a safety net for seniors and families. Congress must enact a Medicare prescription drug benefit, and must do it now. I absolutely agree. It is time Congress made Medicare prescription drug coverage a national priority. For so many years, Congress has talked about prescription drugs and Medicare. Talk, talk, talk. You can't talk yourself out of high cholesterol; you need Lipitor. You can't talk your way out of diabetes; you need insulin. The problem with the Senate is--when all gets said and done--more gets said than gets done. Finally--the Congress is acting. Here are my principles. These principles are the yardstick by which I measure any proposal. The benefit must be for seniors, not for insurance companies. That means the cornerstone must be Medicare. This bill does that. It does not force seniors to give up the Medicare they love to get the drugs they need. It must help the majority of Marylanders. I work for Marylanders. So I did the numbers--570,000 Marylanders are on Medicare. According to Johns Hopkins, 68 percent of these seniors would benefit from this legislation. That means 394,000 would benefit from this bill. It must be voluntary. And the answer is, yes, this bill is voluntary. No one should be coerced or forced into a private program or forced to give up coverage they currently have. It must be affordable. I am not so sure. I am concerned about the significant deductible--$275 a year and the hefty premiums--almost $400 a year. It also has a coverage gap. Once you spend $4,500 a year--you get no help until you spend $5,800. This will cost too much. That is why I supported the Durbin amendment, which would have provided a better benefit at less cost to seniors. It must be accessible. It must be available to all seniors, regardless of where they live. This bill does that. It must be meaningful. It must cover the kind of drugs your doctor says you need, not what an insurance executive thinks you should get. This bill does that by creating a medical necessity override. This means your doctor has the final say on which drugs you get, not an insurance company. I feel pretty good about that. I tried to improve the bill. I voted for amendments to improve the bill. For example: For the Durbin substitute which would have created a stronger, more comprehensive benefit at a lower cost to seniors. For an amendment to get rid of the coverage gap. This would guarantee that seniors would have continuous coverage for their prescription drug costs. For an amendment to provide seniors with a guaranteed prescription plan that is under Medicare. This would allow seniors to stay in a prescription drug plan that is operated by Medicare and not have to move in and out of private plans and a Medicare fallback plan that is only available when the private plans leave the market. For amendments to protect the benefits of retirees who already have drug coverage. These amendments would help employers to continue to be able to offer quality health care to their retirees. For an amendment to implement the drug benefit next year--instead of waiting until 2006 to start these benefits. I am sorry all these amendments failed on party line votes. This legislation is a beginning. It is something we can build on. What it comes down to for me is--will it help the majority of seniors in Maryland? The answer is, yes; it will help over 394,000 people. For people who spend at least $1,110 a year on prescription drugs--it will help. For someone who is facing a catastrophic disease like cancer and has very high drug costs--it will help. So I will vote for this bill. It is not the bill I want. Yet we can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. We can't do nothing--as seniors struggle to pay for the drugs they need. But let me be very clear, this is as far as I will go. If this bill comes back from conference and it is a benefit for insurance companies--say goodbye to my vote. If it increases costs for seniors, say goodbye to my vote. If it cuts benefits, say goodbye to my vote. So I will vote for this legislation tonight because I don't want to say goodbye to this opportunity to provide a Medicare prescription drug benefit for seniors.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of amendment No. 994 from my colleague from Illinois, Senator Durbin. The MediSAVE amendment would provide a vastly superior Medicare prescription drug benefit to our seniors. But I am also disheartened. This is not the bill we are debating. I wish it were. The MediSAVE amendment meets all of the principles I laid out for a Medicare prescription drug plan. In an earlier statement, I outlined the principles that I would use to grade any Medicare prescription drug plan. I think the MediSAVE plan gets an A. I commend Senator Durbin for his hard work on this plan. I have five principles for a prescription drug benefit. 1. The cornerstone must be Medicare. I am opposed to the privatization of Medicare. Any prescription drug benefit that relies on the private sector must be in addition to, not in lieu of, traditional Medicare. Seniors must not be forced to leave the Medicare system they trust to get the prescription drugs they need. 2. Voluntary. No one should be coerced or forced into a private program or forced to give up coverage they currently have. 3. Affordable. The benefit must be affordable. That means a reasonable premium and copayment. 4. Universal and portable. The benefits must be available to all seniors, regardless of where they live. And all seniors must have the same benefit, and be able to take it anywhere they go. 5. Meaningful. The benefit must cover the drugs your doctor says you need--not what an insurance executive thinks you should get. How would the MediSAVE plan benefit seniors? MediSAVE would create a more meaningful benefit. It would have no deductible for drug coverage. It would have a guaranteed premium of $35 per month. Rather than having to pay 50 percent of their drug costs covered, under this plan seniors would have to pay 30 percent of those costs. That adds up to a big savings for seniors, many of whom live on a fixed income. MediSAVE would also take into account the amounts that employers contribute toward retirees' drug costs which will help millions of seniors keep the employer-sponsored health care they earned. But most importantly, MediSAVE would deliver the prescription drug benefit through the Medicare that seniors trust. I believe the Durbin amendment is a great improvement over the bill we are debating. I urge all my colleagues in supporting this amendment.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise to join Senator Kyl in submitting a resolution calling for the immediate release of Dr. Yang Jianli. Dr. Yang Jianli. Dr. Yang is a democracy activist who has since been held incommunicado in China for more than a year. Dr. Yang is being held in violation of his human rights and international law. He should be freed now. Dr. Yang Jianli is a scholar and important democracy activist in his home State of Massachusetts where he is founder and president of the Foundation for China in the 21st Century. Jianli is a permanent United States resident who continues to work for democracy in his native China. Dr. Yang was taken into custody when he returned to China on April 26, 2002. He has been held incommunicado since then. His family in Massachusetts and Maryland are understandably concerned about his welfare. The U.S. Department of State has called for China to release Dr. Yang. So has the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention. The Chinese government refuses to admit to detaining this man illegally. However, the U.N. Working Group on Arbitrary Detention says, ``The non-observance of Dr. Yang's right to a fair trial is of such gravity as to give his deprivation of liberty an arbitrary character. Therefore, his arrest and detention is arbitrary being in contravention of Article 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human rights and Article 9 of the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights.'' In other words, the Chinese government never bothered to charge Yang Jianli with a crime--they just locked him up and threw away the key. We can assist by increasing the pressure of the Chinese government and support the U.N. petition on Dr. Yang's behalf. Being deprived of his basic human rights of access to legal counsel and contact with his wife and children is wrong. When China wanted most-favored-nation trade status, we heard a lot of lip service to human rights and democracy. Dr. Yang Jianli's case shows the true face of China's government. They locked him up because he wanted to speak out about democracy and human rights. I strongly urge the Chinese government to respond to the continual requests for Yang's freedom by the United States government and human rights groups around the world. The House is taking up a similar resolution today. I hope that the Senate will act quickly to add our voices in calling for freedom for Yang Jianli.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the amendment No. 1001 offered by my colleague from California, Senator Boxer. The Senate is debating legislation to provide seniors with prescription drugs that is a start but there are also many shortcomings with this bill. One of most glaring shortcomings is the gap in drug coverage. It doesn't make sense. As drug costs rise, benefits get shut off and seniors with high drug costs have to pay all of their drug costs from $4,500 to $5,800. I think that is cruel. How would this amendment address this shortcoming? It is simple. This amendment would let seniors continue to have continuous coverage until you hit the catastrophic cap of $5,800 so that means no gap. And, then your copay would drop to 10 percent just like in the bill. No figuring out when you hit the coverage gap. No figuring out how long you are going to be in the hole. No paying premiums and not getting benefits. You simply get drug coverage. Why is this amendment important? The coverage gap imposes a ``sickness tax'' on seniors. Once drug spending reaches $4,500 and this is a senior who clearly is facing serious health problems this senior would now have to pay $1,300 of their own money without any help from the Government even though they are still paying premiums to stay in the plan. What does this mean? Millions of our seniors will have no drug coverage for several months out the year. Their coverage will just stop and for many; it may not start back up again until the next year. This is wrong. I believe honor thy mother and father is not just a good commandment to live by, it is good public policy to govern by. That is why I feel so strongly about Medicare. Congress created Medicare to provide a safety net for seniors. I don't think there should be any holes in that net. That is why I support this amendment and urge my colleagues to also.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment No. 976 offered by Senator Rockefeller to protect retirees from losing their hard won health care benefits. I also support amendment No. 998 offered by Senator Dodd to encourage employers to continue to provide retirees with health care coverage. I have seen how a community is devastated when a company pulls the retiree health care plan out from under their feet. Last year, when Senator Rockefeller and I worked on adding steel retirees to the trade adjustment assistance health care tax credit, the writing was on the wall for Bethlehem Steel. A once proud company, that was the backbone of several communities in Maryland, West Virginia, New York, and Pennsylvania had been crippled by illegal dumping of foreign steel. Now Bethlehem Steel is no more and nearly 20,000 of their retirees and their families in Maryland, nearly 100,000 total, are left without the health care for which they worked their whole lives. We provided some relief for these retirees. But we cannot let other retirees face the fear of losing their health care; face going bankrupt trying to afford their drugs, or face a confusing new system. This legislation does not privatize Medicare: it does not coerce seniors to leave the Medicare they trust to get the drugs they need. Yet it does rely too heavily on private insurance companies. It should be a benefit for seniors and not a benefit for insurance companies that have let seniors down so many times before. Yet it puts the health care benefits of millions of seniors in jeopardy by creating an incentive for employers to drop retiree health care coverage. That is why I will join my colleagues in offering amendments to strengthen the bill. What would this amendment do? CBO, our nonpartisan, unbiased analyst tell us that 37 percent of seniors with employer-sponsored coverage will lose that coverage if this bill is passed. These retirees earned their retiree health care benefits. The benefit payments made on their behalf should be counted as their contributions toward the catastrophic cap. They earned their health care coverage. It is a part of their benefit package as a worker and should count just as the wages they pay for their prescription drugs count. Why is this amendment important? Employers want to do the right thing but are being squeezed at the bottom line. Prescription drug costs account for about 40 percent to 60 percent of employer retiree health care costs. What does that mean for U.S. employers? U.S. employers face competition from overseas where the cost of health care, including prescription drugs, is subsidized by the Government. What does this mean for U.S. retired workers? Unless this amendment is adopted, a senior could have closer to $10,000 in drug costs before they get the relief of the catastrophic cap. Unless this amendment is adopted millions of seniors could lose their retiree health care coverage. Under some estimates, this bill would give insurance companies up to $25 billion to provide drug benefits to seniors. Yet thousands of employers already provide quality health care benefits to their retirees, benefits that include prescription drugs. Congress should use the same test as a doctor would: Do no harm. In passing this bill, we could decimate the ability of employers to provide health care coverage for their retirees. I think we should fix this. In conclusion, I urge my colleagues to stand up for American businesses, stand up for America's workers, and stand up for America's seniors and support this amendment.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Women's Health Office Act with my colleague, Senator Olympia Snowe. The Women's Health Office Act authorizes and strengthens women's health offices or officers at Federal health agencies in the Department of Health and Human Services. This legislation will make sure that men and women get equal benefit from Federal investments in medical research and health care services. Today, doctors, scientists, Members of Congress, and the American public know that women and men have different bodies and different health care needs. Diseases like ovarian cancer and endometriosis affect only women. High blood pressure is two to three times more common in women than men. Women are four times more likely to develop osteoporosis than men. The number of uninsured women has grown three times faster than the number of uninsured men over the past 5 years. Women make three-quarters of all health care spending decisions for themselves and their families. For decades, despite these differences, men's health needs set the standard for our health care system and our health care research agenda. Women were systematically excluded from medical research because decisionmakers said that our hormone cycles complicated the results. One study on heart disease risk factors was conducted on 13,000 men--and not 1 woman. But the results of studies like these were applied to both men and women. This neglect put women's health and lives at risk. That's why my colleagues and I took action. More than a decade ago, I worked with Olympia Snowe, Ted Kennedy, Tom Harkin, and other women in the House to get an Office of Research on Women's Health at the National Institutes of Health, NIH. In 1993, I worked with these same women and Galahads in Congress to make sure that the women's health office would stay at NIH by putting it into law. This office at NIH has made a real difference in how women are treated for certain illnesses. We now know that men and women often have different symptoms before a heart attack. Women's symptoms are more subtle, like nausea and back pain. Knowing these systems means women can get to the hospital sooner and can be treated earlier. That's turning women's health research into life-saving information. I am proud that there are now women's health offices or officers at nearly every Federal health agency at the Department of Health and Human Services. Like the one at NIH, women's health offices mean that women's health needs are always at the table. These offices at the Food and Drug Administration, (FDA), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, (CDC), and the Health Resources and Services Administration, (HRSA) make sure women are included in clinical drug trials, reach out to low-income and minority women to make sure they are getting vaccines and cancer screenings, and work with health care providers to put research on women's health into practice. Recent questions about the risks and benefits of mammography and hormone replacement therapy remind us that women's health offices are as important as ever. Right now, many of these offices and the important work they do could be eliminated or cut back without the consent of Congress. That is why this bill is so important. This bill would put women's health offices into our Nation's law books. The Women's Health Office Act does more than protect the status quo. It keeps us moving forward on women's health. It gives women's health offices a clear, consistent framework throughout the Department. By writing them into law, it gives women's health offices the stature they need to be strong, effective advocates for women's health within the Federal Government. This legislation coordinates women's health activities within each agency, to identify needs and set goals. The women's Health Office Act centralizes overall coordination throughout the Department of Health and Human services, to clarify lines of accountability and chart a clear course on women's health. Finally, it authorizes funding for these women's health offices or officers, to make sure that we put our Nation's priorities in the Federal checkbook as well as the Federal law books. This bill has strong bipartisan support. During the 107th Congress, the Women's Health Office Act passed the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, HELP, Committee unanimously as part of a comprehensive women's health bill that would have expanded women's health research and improved women's access to health care. It also passed the House of Representatives overwhelmingly during the 107th Congress. I am disappointed that Congress was not able to pass this bipartisan legislation, but I am hopeful that last year's momentum will help us get to women's Health Office Act signed into law this year. I would like to thank Senator Olympia Snowe for leading the way on this important legislation. As Dean of the Senate women, I will continue to fight to get this bill signed into law and to make progress to improve the health of American women.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Women's Health Office Act with my colleague, Senator Olympia Snowe. The Women's Health Office Act authorizes and strengthens women's health offices or officers at Federal health agencies in the Department of Health and Human Services. This legislation will make sure that men and women get equal benefit from Federal investments in medical research and health care services. Today, doctors, scientists, Members of Congress, and the American public know that women and men have different bodies and different health care needs. Diseases like ovarian cancer and endometriosis affect only women. High blood pressure is two to three times more common in women than men. Women are four times more likely to develop osteoporosis than men. The number of uninsured women has grown three times faster than the number of uninsured men over the past 5 years. Women make three-quarters of all health care spending decisions for themselves and their families. For decades, despite these differences, men's health needs set the standard for our health care system and our health care research agenda. Women were systematically excluded from medical research because decisionmakers said that our hormone cycles complicated the results. One study on heart disease risk factors was conducted on 13,000 men--and not 1 woman. But the results of studies like these were applied to both men and women. This neglect put women's health and lives at risk. That's why my colleagues and I took action. More than a decade ago, I worked with Olympia Snowe, Ted Kennedy, Tom Harkin, and other women in the House to get an Office of Research on Women's Health at the National Institutes of Health, NIH. In 1993, I worked with these same women and Galahads in Congress to make sure that the women's health office would stay at NIH by putting it into law. This office at NIH has made a real difference in how women are treated for certain illnesses. We now know that men and women often have different symptoms before a heart attack. Women's symptoms are more subtle, like nausea and back pain. Knowing these systems means women can get to the hospital sooner and can be treated earlier. That's turning women's health research into life-saving information. I am proud that there are now women's health offices or officers at nearly every Federal health agency at the Department of Health and Human Services. Like the one at NIH, women's health offices mean that women's health needs are always at the table. These offices at the Food and Drug Administration, (FDA), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, (CDC), and the Health Resources and Services Administration, (HRSA) make sure women are included in clinical drug trials, reach out to low-income and minority women to make sure they are getting vaccines and cancer screenings, and work with health care providers to put research on women's health into practice. Recent questions about the risks and benefits of mammography and hormone replacement therapy remind us that women's health offices are as important as ever. Right now, many of these offices and the important work they do could be eliminated or cut back without the consent of Congress. That is why this bill is so important. This bill would put women's health offices into our Nation's law books. The Women's Health Office Act does more than protect the status quo. It keeps us moving forward on women's health. It gives women's health offices a clear, consistent framework throughout the Department. By writing them into law, it gives women's health offices the stature they need to be strong, effective advocates for women's health within the Federal Government. This legislation coordinates women's health activities within each agency, to identify needs and set goals. The women's Health Office Act centralizes overall coordination throughout the Department of Health and Human services, to clarify lines of accountability and chart a clear course on women's health. Finally, it authorizes funding for these women's health offices or officers, to make sure that we put our Nation's priorities in the Federal checkbook as well as the Federal law books. This bill has strong bipartisan support. During the 107th Congress, the Women's Health Office Act passed the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, HELP, Committee unanimously as part of a comprehensive women's health bill that would have expanded women's health research and improved women's access to health care. It also passed the House of Representatives overwhelmingly during the 107th Congress. I am disappointed that Congress was not able to pass this bipartisan legislation, but I am hopeful that last year's momentum will help us get to women's Health Office Act signed into law this year. I would like to thank Senator Olympia Snowe for leading the way on this important legislation. As Dean of the Senate women, I will continue to fight to get this bill signed into law and to make progress to improve the health of American women.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I want a medicare prescription drug plan that benefits seniors--not a plan that benefits insurance companies. That is why I am a cosponsor of the Stabenow amendment. This amendment gives seniors a choice: to get their prescription drugs through traditional Medicare or through a private insurance company Why is this important? Because it lets seniors choose the program that fits their needs. Seniors trust Medicare. It has provided a safety net for seniors for almost 40 years. Medicare hasn't let them down. We can't say the same about insurance companies. We have been down that road in Maryland with Medicare+Choice. The insurance companies came in. They enticed seniors with promises of better care and prescription drugs. They took the money from our seniors and left town leaving over 100,000 Maryland seniors without coverage. Seniors in my State were gouged and abandoned. So I don't trust insurance companies to be there for seniors. I trust seniors to make their own decision to decide which prescription drug plan is best for them. Seniors trust Medicare. When given an opportunity, I think seniors will choose Medicare. In the mid-1990s, when Medicare HMOs offered prescription drug benefits. Only about 15 percent of beneficiaries signed up. Yet year after year, Senate Democrats have fought off efforts to privatize Medicare--to force seniors to leave their family doctors and join HMOs and other private plans. We heard Newt Gingrich talk about making Medicare ``wither on the vine.'' Then this year, the President's prescription drug proposal would have forced seniors to leave the Medicare they trust to get the drugs they need. I believe honor thy mother and father is not just a good commandment to live by. It is good public policy to govern by. That is why I feel so strongly about Medicare. Medicare is not the problem. It is the solution. That is why Congress must now provide a prescription drug benefit for seniors. To benefit seniors--not to benefit insurance companies. We must do it now--to help seniors, to help families, top help American business and to help our economy. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Stabenow amendment.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I, too, want to express my appreciation to the chairman of the HELP Committee, Senator Gregg. I think it is gracious of him to let us keep the bill at the desk knowing the urgency of the need to test it. I think the point he raises about the need for regular oversight on national service is well taken. I look forward to participating in that hearing. I thank him for his courtesy and for his sensitivity to the urgency of the situation and his commitments regarding volunteers.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, what a mess we have at the Corporation for National and Community Service. The Congress has funded 50,000 AmeriCorps volunteers, as we have year after year. But, guess what. The corporation has enrolled 70,000 volunteers. It seems the corporation cannot count. As a result, there will be fewer volunteers this year. Fortunately, because of a bipartisan collegial relationship on the VA/HUD subcommittee, Senator Bond and I are going to fix this problem for the volunteers and for the communities they serve. We are introducing something called the Strengthen AmeriCorps Program Act, and, frankly, it gives AmeriCorps the fix it needs to straighten out the mess they created. This bill is simple and straightforward. It gives the AmeriCorps Program the flexibility within the current funding for 2003 so there can be 50,000 AmeriCorps volunteers this year. I have been reading in press reports, but most of all I have been getting calls from constituents and other Senators who support AmeriCorps. What are they concerned about? They are concerned that it appears there will be cuts by as much as 15,000 volunteers. I am concerned about that, too, and the effects on our communities and the young people who serve them while earning a scholarship for college. I believe the public has a right to know what happened. So I want to explain to advocates and my colleagues what is happening and why the corporation has cut AmeriCorps. Congress has not cut AmeriCorps. It is because there is a persistent pattern of mismanagement at AmeriCorps. The corporation has over-enrolled 20,000 volunteers. When you make a mistake of 20,000 it is not a mistake, it is mismanagement. Two thousand would have been a mistake; 20,000 is mismanagement. The corporation has violated the law, mismanaged taxpayers dollars, and created uncertainty for our volunteers and our communities. In April, at the VA/HUD subcommittee, I called on the National Service CEO, Dr. Leslie Lenkowsky, to fix the problem. He promised he would do that by June 1. But, guess what. He called on May 30 and said he just could not do it. Then out came the shrinking of the number of volunteers, and out came the blaming on Congress. Instead of fixing the problem, he blamed Congress. I wish the corporation was as good at accounting as it is blaming. They had 10 weeks to get their act together and they did not do it. I was very stern with Dr. Lenkowsky and the Board of Directors at the hearing. I must say I thank the Board Chairman, Mr. Stephen Goldsmith, for responding constructively to the criticism of myself and other Members of the Congress. They took it to heart. They are beginning to reform national service. They are doing due diligence. They are putting more time into the oversight than, frankly, Dr. Lenkowsky. Dr. Lenkowsky is the Chief Executive. He has failed to respond to the situation, failed to respond to the subcommittee request, failed volunteers, failed communities, and in the schools I went to when you get that many ``Fs'' you just flunk out. Today, I am asking Dr. Lenkowsky to resign. I am really sorry we have gotten to this point, but we cannot continue this. I think if we are going to have a national service program, we need to have a national service program that serves the Nation and follows the directives of the Congress. We have worked on a bipartisan basis in this subcommittee year after year after year. We saved this program. It is usually zeroed out in the House. It is a gimmick to get us to rescue it. And now, once again, thanks to the leadership and constructive relationship with Senator Bond, we are going to strengthen AmeriCorps. Without our cooperation and leadership at VA/HUD, AmeriCorps wouldn't even be here. So we need to pass the Strengthen AmeriCorps Program quickly. It is an accounting fix that is certified and approved by OMB and GAO. I support our President's call to national service. I want to work with President Bush in a bipartisan way to take national service into a new century. That is why I have worked with Senator McCain, Senator Bayh, and others to do that. Most of all, I want to work with my colleague Senator Bond, once again, as we always have, to sustain national service. Now we have legislation to clean up the mess that the corporation had. But the only way I think the corporation is going to get any momentum is if its current executive either steps aside or steps down. I hope Congress moves this bill in a matter of days. The Nation needs it because the volunteers need it and the communities need the volunteers. I yield the floor.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. I thank the Chair.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I wish to speak as in morning business.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Speaking to the Senator through the Chair, my remarks are about 5 or 7 minutes. I might add, there is a crisis in national service with volunteers. Senator Bond and I have a legislative solution. That is why we wanted to speak in morning business. The corporation is blaming Congress when they, my colleagues would be interested to know, oversubscribed by 20,000 volunteers. So Senator Bond wanted to share our fix with the people. I could do this in about 5 or 6 minutes.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the National Great Black Americans Commemoration Act. I am proud to sponsor this legislation. Black Americans have a rich history that must be cherished and remembered. This bill will honor African American leaders from across the country--some who are well known, and others who are almost forgotten--by helping to preserve their names, faces, and stories for generations to come. This legislation will provide Federal assistance to expand exhibits and educational programs at the National Great Blacks in Wax Museum and Justice Learning Center in Baltimore, Maryland. The museum showcases the lives of great Black Americans who have proudly served the United States--from civil servants like Mary McLeod Bethune, to military heroes like Colin Powell, to Congressional leaders like Senator Edward Brooke, R-MA, and civil rights leaders like Rosa Parks. Some are household names, like Frederick Douglass and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Yet many more are unfamiliar, like the 22 African Americans who served in Congress in the 1800s. It's time we give these pioneers the recognition they deserve. Maryland is proud to be home to so many important figures in black history. From the dark days of slavery through the civil rights movement, Marylanders have led the way. The brilliant Frederick Douglass was the voice of the voiceless in the struggle against slavery. The courageous Harriet Tubman delivered 300 slaves to freedom on the Underground Railroad. The great Thurgood Marshall argued the Brown v. Board of Education Case before the Supreme Court, and later became a Supreme Court Justice himself. Maryland is home to contemporary leaders, too. The dynamic Kweisi Mfume, president of the NAACP, who, like me, came out of the Baltimore City Council. The passionate Elijah Cummings, Chair of the Congressional Black Caucus. Clarence Mitchell who was called by many the 101st Senator. Parren Mitchell and Al Wynn, fighting for their constituents. And all the members of the NAACP, which calls Baltimore home. It is fitting that the national Great Blacks in Wax Museum and Justice Learning Center also calls Baltimore home. The museum and learning center is a popular and respected black history museum. Approximately 300,000 people a year from around the country and the world visit the museum. Many are school children, who can see historical figures come to life in the museum's exhibits. Expansion will allow the museum to teach even more visitors about the important contributions of Black Americans. It will also help revitalize a poor neighborhood in East Baltimore. There will be new jobs. There will be more tourists. There will be new small businesses. And most important, there will be new inspiration for our young people. The State of Maryland and City of Baltimore have already contributed over $5 million toward this expansion project. Private donors are contributing too. Now it's time for the Federal Government to do its part. Let's help make this museum a treasure for the entire Nation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.