Barbara Mikulski

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, my amendment would give a tax credit up to $5,000 to family caregivers. My amendment would help a family dealing with juvenile diabetes, a spouse taking care of someone with Alzheimer's, a parent taking care of an adult son with Down's syndrome. My tax credit would pay for prescription drugs, home health care, durable medical equipment--things that give help to those families practicing self-help. These families face a tremendous financial and emotional burden. Families will deal with their own emotional burden, but I believe America should step up and help them with their financial burden as they deal with caregiving in the United States of America. Mr. President, 125 million Americans have chronic conditions; 18 million of those are children. Family caregivers are often stretched to the limit, often working two jobs. This amendment costs $35 billion. We can afford it and we ought to do it.

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

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Sarbanes- Jeffords-Mikulski-Graham water infrastructure amendment. Our amendment is simple and straightforward: It adds $3 billion to the 2004 budget resolution for a total of $5.2 billion for water and sewer infrastructure in 2004. The amendment increases funding for EPA's Clean Water State Revolving Loan Fund from $1.35 billion to $3.2 billion, and increases funding for EPA's Drinking Water State Revolving Loan Fund from $850 million to $2 billion. Our amendment is necessary for two reasons. First, our Nation's communities are facing enormous needs in their efforts to provide clean and safe water. The need for better sewer and drinking water systems is much greater than what we put in the Federal checkbook each year. These needs have been studied and restudied and the needs are real and valid. In April 2000, the Water Infrastructure Network reported that our Nation's water and wastewater systems will face a funding gap of $23 billion a year over the next 20 years. In November 2001, the general Accounting Office reported that cost range from $300 billion to $1 trillion over the next 20 years. In September 2002, the Environmental Protection Agency reported that demands for improved sewer and drinking water systems will outstrip current levels by $535 billion. And in November 2002, the Congressional Budget Office reported that water and sewer costs could average as much as $40 billion each year. The results are conclusive and the need is real and valid. We are not putting enough funding in the Federal checkbook each year. The current level for water infrastructure is only $2.2 billion. We can't expect communities to comply with growing regulations like arsenic, radon, and new requirements related to security, to name just a few, without increased financial assistance. If we don't help, the entire burden falls on local ratepayers. In many urban and rural low-income areas, rate increases are just not affordable. My hometown of Baltimore is facing a $1 billion cost in order to meet Federal regulations. The second reason that this amendment is necessary is for job creation. The economy lost 300,000 jobs in February. Water infrastructure funding creates jobs. For every $1 billion we spend on water infrastructure, up to 40,000 jobs are created. This amendment is a mini-stimulus package for three reasons: First, it will create and sustain jobs. As I stated, for every $1 billion in SRF funding, about 40,000 jobs are created. Second, the amendment is temporary and targeted. The amendment is a one-time, $3 billion increase of an existing program. It does not create a new bureaucracy. Third, the amendment does not contribute to long-term deficits because the $3 billion is fully offset by reducing the tax cut. This $3 billion increase for water infrastructure is less than one- half of 1 percent of the $726 billion tax cut in this budget resolution. Mr. President, the Sarbanes-Jeffords-Mikulski-Graham amendment helps our communities by providing more funding for immediate water and sewer needs and by creating jobs. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. One of my first milestones in the Senate was the enactment of the Spousal Anti-Impoverishment Act to change the cruel rules of Medicaid so that families would not have to go bankrupt before Medicaid would pay for nursing home care for a spouse. The spouse living in the community could keep the family home, keep a car, and keep some income each month to live on. This has helped one million people. But this was a down payment. Not much has been done since then except the National Family Caregiver Support Program and long-term care insurance for Federal employees. I was proud to sponsor and work on both of these important measures and a bipartisan basis to get them signed into law. Now it is time to make the family caregivers who are the backbone of the long term care system in this country a priority in the Federal law books and the tax code. I urge my colleagues to get behind our Nation's family caregivers and vote for this amendment.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, America is at war. Our priority must be to keep America and Americans safe, both at home and abroad. I look forward to supporting a supplemental budget to pay for the war and to pay for homeland security, and I also voted to reserve the money to do that. That is why I supported the ``patriotic pause'' that said no tax cuts until we know the cost of the war. We know Americans are fighting overseas. The U.S. military should know they have the entire Nation behind them to make sure they have the best weapons, the best strategies, and the best support for their families while they are overseas. We also stand up for what America stands for. That means strengthening the safety net for those who need it the most. That means standing up for America's families. We also need to recognize that families are hurting. We have a weak economy. People are going into debt to put their kids through school; affordable health insurance. Some families are facing extraordinary challenges because they care for a loved one who has a chronic condition: a parent with Alzheimer's, a child with autism, a son with cerebral palsy, a spouse with multiple sclerosis. These families struggle every day to take care of their loved ones. They face a tremendous emotional and financial burden. It is not the job of the Federal Government to help them with their emotional burden, but I believe it is the job of the United States of America to help them with their financial responsibility. For those who are giving care, I believe we should give care. I want to give help to those who practice self-help. Therefore, I will be offering an amendment to provide a tax credit for up to $5,000 for family caregivers, or those needing care who have caregiving expenses. This would cost $3.5 billion a year. My tax credit would pay for the prescription drugs, medical bills, or medical management for juvenile diabetics, the medical bills, or other care needed if a person has someone they are caring for with Parkinson's disease. My amendment would help people with multiple chronic conditions. We are not talking about hay fever, though that is disruptive. We are talking about juvenile diabetes. We are talking about autism. We are talking about multiple sclerosis, people who are unable to perform their activities of daily living, who are severely cognitively impaired, or children with such complex medical conditions they require medical management and coordination of care. Why is this needed? Well, in 2000, over 125 million people had chronic conditions. One in five Americans have multiple chronic conditions. Eighteen million children in this country have chronic physical, developmental, or other conditions that impede their ability to live full lives. Almost 4 million Americans have mental retardation or another severe developmental disability. If the work of family caregivers was replaced with paid services, it would cost the Federal Government close to $200 billion a year. Family caregivers face many demands, emotional, physical, and financial stress. They have stresses with their families, with their marriage, the stress of 36-hour days. They pay the high cost of medication, physical therapy, durable medical equipment such as wheelchairs, daycare for children with special needs, and medical bills from care with specialists. People with serious chronic conditions pay for their health care by either making gradual medical payments over time or using money from savings, mutual funds, or other assets. Families struggle to make ends meet. Let me give an example. A woman in Potomac, MD, was caring for her husband who had a debilitating neurological disease. There was no treatment or cure. Her husband could no longer talk, walk, or feed himself. The family received no financial help. She worked full time to support his full-time home care. She herself is in her early 60s. She sure could have used that tax credit. Or as the mother of two children in Parkville, MD, one of her children is a 4-year-old boy with autism. This family has relied on volunteers from local colleges to assist with respite care for their son. This mother has not been able to return to work because of the amount of time needed to care for her two young children. She has two masters degrees in education. Or like the Maryland woman who cared for a parent with Alzhemer's disease who worked 25 hours per week to pay someone to care for her mother while she worked to have health insurance for herself; saw her own income go from a high of $40,000 a year to a low of $6,000 a year. A tax credit could have helped her with home health care and respite care for her mother. I think my amendment speaks for itself, but I try to speak for the families where we need to give help to those who are practicing self- help. I ask unanimous consent that a list of organizations supporting this amendment be printed in the Record.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. I am proud to rise in support of the resolution supporting our troops. America is now at war. My thoughts are with our troops. Our men and women in uniform have my steadfast support. They have my respect, my admiration, and my gratitude. Americans have differences over the path that led us to war. Yet Americans are united in support of our men and women in uniform. Each and every member of our military is part of the American family. Their service is a tremendous sacrifice and great risk. These are ordinary men and women called on to act in an extraordinary way. Whatever their nation asks them to do, they will do with bravery, fortitude, and gallantry. All Americans owe them a debt of gratitude. The military doesn't just need our thanks; they need our help. We must support them not only with words, but with deeds. That means ensuring that our troops have the best training and equipment. That means standing up for military families. They are facing long separations and terrible worries about the safety of their loved ones. They shouldn't also be facing financial worries. So while we are talking about tax cuts for Joe Billionaire, let's not forget GI Joe and Jane. I believe the war started the right way: targeting Saddam Hussein and members of his regime in their bunkers. Saddam Hussein is our enemy, not the people of Iraq. Let's not forget why we are at this point: The fault lies squarely with Saddam Hussein. Saddam is dangerous and duplicitous. As part of the gulf war cease-fire agreement, he committed to destroy his weapons of mass destruction. For the past twelve years, Saddam Husssein has ignored UN resolutions by rebuilding his illegal weapons programs. Resolution 1441 gave Saddam Hussein a final opportunity to destroy any prohibited weapons of mass destruction or missiles; to fully report on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs; and to cooperate with inspectors to verify compliance. I have consistently called for robust multinational action to disarm Iraq. Saddam Hussein is a danger to the world, so the world should share the burden of confronting the Iraqi threat. I appreciate the help and support of other nations, including Great Britain, Australia, and Poland. Other countries are allowing access to territory and airspace, providing logistical and intelligence support, or playing other noncombat roles. America must continue diplomacy, even as we continue the war, to expand the coalition of the willing to share the burden of war and to share the responsibility and the economic cost of rebuilding Iraq. Now that America is at war, our troops must know: I am on their side. The American people are on their side. The thoughts and prayers of the American people are with the men and women of our military, and with their families. God bless our troops, and God bless America.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, as America braces for war, my thoughts are with our troops. Our men and women in uniform have my steadfast support. Though there is disagreement about the best way to disarm Saddam, there is something we all agree upon, and that is that America must be united in support for our troops. We must defend our defenders and stand up for the brave men and women of our military. Each and every member of our military is part of an American family. They are about to make tremendous sacrifices and undertake great risks. They need to know that the United States of America is with them, and that we owe them a debt of gratitude. But the military does not need just our words; they need our help. We must support them not only with words but with deeds. That means to ensure our troops have the best training and the best equipment we can provide. We also need to stand up for American families, for the military families who are facing long separations and terrible worries about the safety of their loved ones. While they worry about their spouses overseas, they do not need to be facing financial worries at home. America needs to make sure these families do not face financial hardship. With our U.S. military overseas, their spouses should not be worried about counting pennies. Their spouses should not have to worry about going on food stamps. Their spouses should not have to, as the Guard and Reserve is being called up, worry about if they are going to have to go through their savings and their family's college accounts. So while we are talking about tax cuts for Joe Billionaire, let us make sure we do not forget GI Joe and GI Jane. We need to remember them not only with parades, but we need to remember them in the Federal checkbook and we need to remember them in the Federal Tax Code. We need to get behind those troops and use this budget and other actions we will be taking up to support our troops. Let's not forget why we are at this point. The fault lies squarely with Saddam Hussein. For the last 12 years, he has ignored U.N. resolutions and embargoes while rebuilding his illegal chemical and biological weapons. U.N. Resolution 1441 gave Saddam a final opportunity to come clean and destroy his prohibited weapons and to fully report to the U.N. He continues to ignore that. He is dangerous and duplicitous. He needs to be disarmed. Americans have differing views on how best to do this. Saddam is a danger to the world; therefore, the world should share the burden of defanging him. The risks and consequences of acting alone are much greater than they would be from multilateral action. The risks to our troops are greater, and the challenge in postconflict Iraq will be greater if other nations do not share the burden. That is why, during the debate, I voted against unilateral action but voted for Senator Levin's amendment to demand that Iraq disarm and to authorize the use of multinational force if Iraq refused to comply, and to do this through the United Nations. Once we gave unilateral authority to the President, I believe it let the international community off the hook. Why would members of the U.N. Security Council make any tough decisions? They did not have to. They knew we would go it alone. Why would they stand up and make tough decisions and take tough actions? They did not have to. They knew we would go it alone. I believe by authorizing unilateral action, the Senate actually weakened the negotiating position of our President and the Secretary of State at the U.N. Why would other countries send their troops in harm's way if America was ready to do it without them? Unfortunately, this is what has happened. The U.N. refused to act, and the United States is now poised to act alone with a modest coalition of the willing. We cannot let this be the end of diplomacy. The President must continue to work with other nations to expand that coalition of the willing so that the dangers of war are shared along with the cost. He needs to go back to the U.N. to share the responsibility and the economic cost of rebuilding Iraq. I know we will face a significant humanitarian crisis, and we already are facing significant humanitarian need in the United States of America. While we are going to talk about rebuilding Baghdad, we cannot end up paying the whole bill ourselves. Because while we rebuild Baghdad, I have to worry about rebuilding Baltimore, and Salisbury, and other communities. I face a budget, as an appropriator, that is skimpy, spartan, and takes it out on public housing residents and shrinks opportunity at the very time we want to be able to go it alone. The President has made his choice. We are going to support the decision of the United States of America. We are going to support our troops. Let's support our troops in the budget. When we take a look at the budget, let's take a patriotic pause, and make sure we can afford not only to be a world power and stand up for America but make sure we have a budget where we stand up for what America stands for: Empowerment, hope, and opportunity.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise in support of a patriotic pause amendment to the budget resolution. America stands on the brink of war. Yet this budget resolution ignores the war and ignores the costs of war. We need to take a patriotic pause and not proceed with huge permanent tax breaks when we don't yet know the cost of this war--or the costs that come after the war, in the rebuilding of Iraq. This budget resolution calls for a $1.4 trillion tax cut. These are permanent tax breaks that would add to the structural deficit even without war. The patriotic pause amendment states that before we consider tax cuts, we need to ensure the Federal budget addresses our very real national security needs. That means the cost of deploying our troops; the cost of fighting the war; the cost of keeping troops in the region afterward and the cost of rebuilding Iraq. The budget must also provide for the continuing war on terrorism. It must cover the costs of other conflicts and potential conflicts, such as standing sentry on North Korea. The budget must ensure that we can help our troops and their families face the hardships of deployment. And it must meet the costs of homeland security--and hometown security. I supported a multilateral approach to confronting Iraq--to enable the world to share the costs and the burden. I believe that because Saddam Hussein is a danger to the world the world should share the burden of defanging him. America must redouble our diplomatic efforts to broaden the coalition of the willing. That means returning to the U.N. to share the costs of the war and the costs of rebuilding Iraq. In the meantime, the administration must consider the costs of this war. The former White House economic adviser, Lawrence Lindsay, estimated that the war in Iraq could cost $100 to $200 billion. The fact that some of these costs may be hard to predict does not excuse assuming they won't cost anything at all. One thing we know for sure is that the cost is not zero. We must ensure that our national security needs are covered before considering tax cuts. We need to think about national security--and economic security. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting a patriotic pause in the budget process.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President. Eight years ago today, Dr. Lloyd Ogilvie became our Senate Chaplain. Today, as he leaves the Senate, I wish to thank Dr. Ogilvie for his spiritual guidance and friendship. Dr. Ogilvie is a greet scholar and preacher. Yet he has been so much more to our Senate family. I am particularly grateful for the hospitality Dr. Ogilvie has shown to all religions. He hosted Jewish seders. He invited Cardinals to the Senate. He made sure that religious leaders of all faiths have led the Senate in prayer. I also appreciate the creative and energetic way he reached out to the entire Senate family. He has led Bible study groups and prayer meetings for Senators and staff. He has provided individual counseling for anyone who has asked for it. Since September 11, our Nation and our Senate have faced great stress and uncertainty. On September 11, during the anthrax attacks, and now as our Nation prepares for a possible war, Dr. Ogilvie has helped the Senate family to become stronger through faith and prayer. I also wish to thank Reverend Ogilvie's wife, Mary Jane, who has been such an important partner to him and such a dear friend to all of us in the Senate. I wish the Ogilvies well as they move to California to begin a new chapter in their lives. They will always be in my thoughts and prayers.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, I rise in strong support of the Murray-Reid amendment. This amendment protects women's health. It makes abortions more rare--not more dangerous. It tries to find common ground. I acknowledge the seriousness of this debate. My colleagues have raised troubling ethical issues about these grim and ghoulish procedures. But there are other equally troubling ethical issues at stake about who should decide how best to protect a women's health. Proponents of the Santorum bill that we are debating deny that their legislation will have any consequences for women's health. They are wrong. Denying women access to the abortion that could save their life and physical health is unconscionable--and unconstitutional. A pregnant woman facing the most dire circumstances must be able to count on her doctor to do what is medically necessary to protect her from serious physical harm. I want every woman who hears this debate to know: I am on your side. I will fight to protect your health. That is why I am proud to support this amendment. It builds on my two decades of advocacy--to protect women's health, to give women access to appropriate medical treatments, and to make sure women are treated fairly and equally under the law. When I was still a Congresswoman on the House side, there was study after study on how women were not included in the clinical trials at the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Studies were being done with men only. One study examined whether aspirin decreases cardiovascular deaths on 22,000 men. A study on heart disease risk factors was conducted on 13,000 men--and not one woman. But the results of these studies were applied to both men and women. What did this mean for women? Millions of men benefited from a study that found taking aspirin reduced their incidence of heart attacks. But since women weren't included in the clinical trial, we didn't know whether it would hurt us, help us, or have no effect. This policy was unfair. It was harming women. So one day, I called up Pat Schroeder, Connie Morella, and Olympia Snowe. We decided to go to NIH--to light a fire so they would take action. It was a hot day in August. We pulled up in our cars, up to the curb at the front door of NIH. They knew we were there, they knew we were serious. They knew we were going to have a Seneca Falls on NIH if necessary. True story and the rest is history. Within 1 month after that, working with Ted Kennedy, Tom Harkin and the women of the House, there was an Office of Women's Health at NIH. NIH finally moved and I moved Congress. We mow know that men and women often have different symptoms before a heart attack. We know that men and women have biological differences that must be studied and understood so women's symptoms can be recognized and treatments can be developed that are effective for both women and men. Including women in clinical trials and making sure investments in biomedical research benefit men and women equally is about basic fairness. This amendment is also about fairness. It includes the Equity in Prescription Insurance and Contraceptive Coverage Act (EPICC). EPICC requires health plans that cover prescription drugs to provide the same coverage for prescription contraceptives. 98 percent of workers with health insurance have prescription drugs benefits,but only 64 percent of workers have plans that cover birth control pills. Only 40 percent of workers have plans that cover all forms of contraceptives. When health plans cover other prescription drugs but exclude the drugs that only women take, it is gender discrimination. It is wrong. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) agreed. I chaired a hearing of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee on this legislation. The Committee heard testimony from Jennifer Erickson, a 28-year-old pharmacist from Seattle. Jennifer used this EEOC decision to take her employer to court. She won. This was a landmark victory for women. But women should not have to sue their employers to get their health plans to treat them fairly. That is why I am such a strong supporter of this legislation. EPICC protects every woman from illegal gender discrimination. It reaffirms our commitment to basic fairness for women under the law. It leaves medical decisions in the hands of women and their doctors--not legislators, and not insurance company bureaucrats. It expands access to contraceptives that help prevent unwanted pregnancies. EPICC also builds on past successes. In 1998, I worked with Senators Snowe and Reid to require Federal Employee Health Benefit Plans that covered other prescription drugs to also cover prescription contraceptives. I have stood sentry in the Appropriations Committee to keep this promise to Federal employees. Contraceptive equity for Federal employees was a downpayment. It created a model for employers--and other States--to follow, like my own state of Maryland. Maryland was the first state to pass a contraceptive equity law. This legislation will make the final payment--so every woman can count on her health plan to treat her fairly and to cover her basic medical care. This amendment also expands access to medical treatment for women by giving women who have been raped access to emergency contraceptives, and giving low-income pregnant women health insurance through the Children's Health Insurance Program. The Murray-Reid amendment builds on past efforts to make sure every woman has access to the medical care she deserves. In 1990, I fought to make sure low-income women could get screened for breast and cervical cancer. Since this screening program started, over 1.5 women have been screened, more than 9,000 breast cancers have been diagnosed, and over 48,000 precancerous cervical lesions have been detected. This screening program was a good start--but it left a serious gap. The program paid for women to get screened, but it did not pay the costs of treatment for women who were diagnosed with breast and cervical cancer through the program. Women were left to fend for themselves or rely on volunteers to provide free or reduced-cost treatment. I fought to change that. In 2000--after years of effort--Senator John Chafee and I passed a law to give women who were diagnosed with breast and cervical cancer through this program access to the medical treatment they needed. Let's continue to build on these efforts to make sure every woman has access to quality health care. Millions of Americans do not have access to health care, because they cannot afford health insurance. There are 267,000 women in Maryland without health insurance, 11 percent of Maryland women under age 65. The Murray-Reid amendment will expand health insurance coverage. It includes legislation that I strongly support that allows states to expand their children's health insurance program to give pregnant women earning less than $17,000 a year access to the health care they need. This amendment sends a message to women. I am on your side. I will fight to protect your health. I will fight to make sure you get treated fairly. I urge you to support it. I am also here in support of the Murray-Reid amendment because it sends a message about the importance of prevention. This amendment will help prevent unwanted pregnancies--by expanding access to contraceptives through fair, equitable insurance coverage, guaranteeing that women who have been raped can get emergency contraceptives (ECs), and getting information to women and their doctors about ECs. It will prevent abortions. Unlike this amendment, the Santorum bill that we are debating does not prevent a single abortion. It prohibits certain abortion procedures, but allows doctors to use other procedures in its place. The Santorum bill directs doctors to use other procedures that may be more dangerous to women. It is a hollow and ineffective approach. Improving access to contraceptives makes sense. This amendment makes abortions more rare, not more dangerous. Preventing unwanted pregnancies in the first place is something we can all agree on. People of good conscience and good will disagree on some of these difficult issues. I support commonsense ways to find middle ground. The Durbin amendment I will support is a commonsense approach to prohibit late-term abortions and protect women's life and health from serious harm. There is too much at stake to angle for partisan advantage or to be driven by narrow ideology. Let's work together to prevent abortions and protect the health and lives of American women. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, yesterday I spoke on the floor about supporting our armed forces. Support for our troops is particularly important today as our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines are deployed for possible war with Iraq. We must express our support not only with words, but with deeds. We owe that to our armed forces. Our brave men and women of the National Guard and Reserves are experiencing hardships as a result of recent mobilizations. I believe we should do everything we can to reduce unnecessary financial burdens on members of the military, especially when they are putting themselves in harm's way to protect our great Nation. We must stand up for our military; we must also stand up for their families. Our troops will face grave danger. They should not have to face fear for their families, and particularly they should not have to worry about their families' finances. Though America is on the brink of war, American military families must never be on the brink of bankruptcy. That is why we, in the Senate, must take immediate steps to support military families. Today, I am proud to cosponsor the Reservists Pay Security Act with my colleague Senator Dick Durbin. Senator Durbin introduced a similar bill in the House, and I introduced it in the Senate during Desert Storm in 1991. It was the right thing to do then, and it is the right thing to do now. I'm proud to work together again on this worthy cause. The Reservists Pay Security Act of 2003 would ensure that Federal employees who take leave to serve in our military reserves receive the same pay as if no interruption in their employment occurred. Why start with Federal employees? Well, many large companies and local governments continue to pay the full salary of their employees when they are activated. I applaud those excellent corporate citizens and those local governments. Some of the largest employers in my own State are also meeting that responsibility. The Federal Government should be a model employer and set the example for large businesses. This should be a first step. I believe we should move quickly to pass this bill because many members of the Guard and Reserves do work for the Federal Government in highly specialized areas. But the Federal Government needs to do more than that. We need to take a look at those who work for small business and those who are self-employed. A call for duty will be responded to, but a call for duty time and time again in a single-year period places the responsibility on the family. American families should never subsidize our war effort. We should be looking out for those families. We owe reservists our support and a debt of gratitude. This bill is a step toward achieving that. I urge my colleagues to join us and enact this important legislation for the men and women of our National Guard and Reserves.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I am very proud to join Senator Hutchison in submitting this Resolution to designate March 9 through March 15 as National Girl Scout Week. As former girl Scouts, we are so grateful for what Scouting has meant in our lives--and in the lives of millions of girls. Girl Scouts put their values into action. As a Girl Scout, you participate in a broad range of activities--from taking nature hikes to taking in the arts. You serve in local food banks and learn about politics. As your skills grow as a Girl Scout, so does your self- confidence. The badges you earn serve as symbols for success, leadership, accomplishment, and service in your community. With help from the Girl Scouts, you can develop into a solid citizen in mind, body and spirit. As a Girl Scout, you also learn values and attitudes that serve as good guides throughout life. You learn the importance of treating other people fairly and with the dignity they deserve. You develop the confidence to know that you can reach your goals. You learn to be a leader. In today's hectic and uncertain world, Scouts are more important than ever. Young girls and boys need before and after school activities that are safe, educational, and fun. They need adult role models like the girl Scouts, who are dedicated to helping young people. They need to learn the high ideals of leadership, service, character, and good conduct. In sum, America needs the Girl Scouts to help us maintain a civil society. I applaud the Girl Scouts for what you do to help girls and to help communities. I thank you for what you meant to me and what you do for millions of young women across the country. I hope the Resolution that Senator Hutchison and myself have introduced here today raises more public awareness of the good works that you do. Congratulations to the Girl Scouts on your 91st anniversary. I am so proud of who you are and what you do.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, yesterday I spoke on the floor about supporting our armed forces. Support for our troops is particularly important today as our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines are deployed for possible war with Iraq. We must express our support not only with words, but with deeds. We owe that to our armed forces. Our brave men and women of the National Guard and Reserves are experiencing hardships as a result of recent mobilizations. I believe we should do everything we can to reduce unnecessary financial burdens on members of the military, especially when they are putting themselves in harm's way to protect our great Nation. We must stand up for our military; we must also stand up for their families. Our troops will face grave danger. They should not have to face fear for their families, and particularly they should not have to worry about their families' finances. Though America is on the brink of war, American military families must never be on the brink of bankruptcy. That is why we, in the Senate, must take immediate steps to support military families. Today, I am proud to cosponsor the Reservists Pay Security Act with my colleague Senator Dick Durbin. Senator Durbin introduced a similar bill in the House, and I introduced it in the Senate during Desert Storm in 1991. It was the right thing to do then, and it is the right thing to do now. I'm proud to work together again on this worthy cause. The Reservists Pay Security Act of 2003 would ensure that Federal employees who take leave to serve in our military reserves receive the same pay as if no interruption in their employment occurred. Why start with Federal employees? Well, many large companies and local governments continue to pay the full salary of their employees when they are activated. I applaud those excellent corporate citizens and those local governments. Some of the largest employers in my own State are also meeting that responsibility. The Federal Government should be a model employer and set the example for large businesses. This should be a first step. I believe we should move quickly to pass this bill because many members of the Guard and Reserves do work for the Federal Government in highly specialized areas. But the Federal Government needs to do more than that. We need to take a look at those who work for small business and those who are self-employed. A call for duty will be responded to, but a call for duty time and time again in a single-year period places the responsibility on the family. American families should never subsidize our war effort. We should be looking out for those families. We owe reservists our support and a debt of gratitude. This bill is a step toward achieving that. I urge my colleagues to join us and enact this important legislation for the men and women of our National Guard and Reserves.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I come to the Senate floor today to speak about some of the most crucial issues facing our Nation: No. 1, the prospect of war against Iraq, and, No. 2--though it will never be in second place--support for our U.S. military. It has been my longstanding position to support a multinational response to the Iraqi threat. That means building international support to defang Saddam Hussein. We all know he is a duplicitous character, but I believe if the goals of America and the world are to be successful, we need to work in a multilateral way, working through the United Nations, to build international legitimacy, and also to get the world to support us, to share the burden of war, if war is necessary, during the war in terms of the danger, and to share the burden of what would come after the war in terms of the economic cost of rebuilding Iraq. The risks and consequences of acting alone are much greater than they would be for multinational action. The risks to our troops are greater. If allied forces do not join the mission, our troops will be bearing that burden all by themselves. The challenge in post-conflict Iraq will be greater if other nations do not share this responsibility or this burden. Also, I believe the consequences for the war on terrorism will be greater if we lose the essential cooperation of other nations. There is a lot of disagreement about going to war: whether we should go to war now; whether we should go to war at all; whether we should go to war alone or whether we should continue to work through the United Nations. I have stated my own positions. But I believe there is something all Americans agree on; that is, we must support our troops. We must stand up for those who are standing up for us. We must protect our defenders, the brave men and women of our military, and we must support them not only with words but with deeds. That means ensuring that our troops have the best and smartest weapons, that they have the training and the equipment they need. But while we are standing up for our military, we must also stand up for their families. Our troops will face grave danger. They should not have to face fear for their families, and particularly they should not have to worry about their families' finances. Although America is on the brink of war, American military families must never be on the brink of bankruptcy. That is why we, in the Senate, must take immediate steps to support military families. There is legislation pending. Let's provide tax relief to military families. Let's pass legislation to help the families of the National Guard and the Reserves who have been called up for longer periods than at any time in the past 40 years. Each and every member of our military is part of the American family. Their service is a tremendous sacrifice and great risk. These are ordinary men and women called upon to act in an extraordinary way. Whatever their Nation asks them to do, I know they will do it with bravery, fortitude, and gallantry. All Americans owe them a debt of gratitude. Members of the military, though, do not just need our gratitude through words; they need our gratitude through deeds. That is why I support two immediate steps and call upon the Senate to join with me and other like-minded colleagues to advance these steps. I believe the Senate must quickly pass legislation to ease the tax burden on our American military. Our troops should not have to worry about tax deadlines and paperwork when they are preparing to defend our Nation. I urge the Senate to pass, this week, the Armed Forces Tax Fairness Act, without loading it down with any special interest giveaways. While some are preoccupied with tax cuts for ``Joe Millionaire,'' we should be preoccupied with GI Joe and GI Jane. At the same time, we need to look at the financial burden many of the families are facing. Let's talk about the National Guard and the Reserves. The Senate also has to help the Guard and Reserves. They have been called up in record numbers. Right this minute, 168,000 Guard and Reservists are serving alongside our active-duty military. Since September 11, over 230,000 of our National Guardsmen and Reservists have been mobilized. In my own home State of Maryland, that number is at least 4,000. And not only have they been called up, but many have been called up more than once over the past year and a half. The Guard and Reserves are ready to serve. They are our citizen soldiers. They are called up in times of national emergency. Yet they are being asked to serve for longer periods of time. Many have been called up three or four times since September 11. This places a tremendous burden on their families. There are financial burdens of losing pay and losing businesses. Let me give you some examples from my own home State of Maryland. The 115th Military Police Battalion of the Maryland Army National Guard has been deployed repeatedly since September 12, after the attack on the United States of America. That is when they were called up to stand guard at the Pentagon. When I went over to the Pentagon after the attack, I saw Maryland responding: I saw on the perimeters our own National Guard protecting the Pentagon, and Maryland first responders doing the rescue and recovery. When they were called up, they wanted to be there. Then they had a two-week breather. But then they were called up to guard the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, and now they are deployed in Afghanistan. The long periods of mobilization are hard not only on them but on their families. Let me give you some examples of what the families are facing. I will talk about a reservist in Columbia, MD. He is a wonderful guy, and he owns a small home improvement business. After the terrible snows, this business would be booming, but he is not there to fix gutters or sidings, or help seniors repair those leaky basements. He has been called up most of the year. He has already been called up three times, and now he has been called up once again. He has been called up so often that he has had to shut down his home improvement business, where he was the sole employee. His family is now forced to borrow against their home to make ends meet. They have already gone through their savings, and they have already gone through their children's tuition money for college. We have to think about this man and his family. In a family in Centreville, the husband has been activated four times over the past year and a half. He is the main breadwinner. The family has already lost half of their income this year. They are having a difficult time making payments on their home and, in fact, the wife and children are now considering moving in with her parents. Then there is the National Guardsman in St. Mary's County, who has been deployed 9 months out of the last 18 months. In February, he was deployed again. His wife is now working two jobs to make ends meet. We have to face this challenge. For years we have faced the challenge of how we had been shortchanging our military. We have increased pay for full-time duty and we have improved benefits. We needed to do that and that was the right thing to do. Now we are facing a unique challenge, looking at the Guard and the Reserves who are ready to do their duty, but they are now being deployed as frequently as if they were on active duty and their families are facing hardship. As part of this response, I will be joining Senator Dick Durbin to introduce legislation called the Reservists Pay Security Act of 2003. It would ensure that Federal employees who take leave to serve in our military reserves receive the same pay as if no interruption in their employment occurred. Why start with Federal employees? Well, many large companies and local governments continue to pay the full salary of their employees when they are activated. I applaud those excellent corporate citizens and those local governments. Some of the largest employers in my own State are also meeting that responsibility. The Federal Government should be a model employer and set the example for large businesses. This should be a first step. I believe we should move quickly to pass this bill because many members of the Guard and Reserves do work for the Federal Government in highly specialized areas. But the Federal Government needs to do more than that. We need to take a look at those who work for small business and those who are self-employed. A call for duty will be responded to, but a call for duty time and time again in a single-year period places the responsibility on the family. American families should never subsidize our war effort. We should be looking out for those families. Supporting our troops should be more than speeches, it should be more than parades. Sure, when the war begins--if it does begin--I believe there will be an outpouring of great American sympathy. But we need to put it into action to help the men and women defending our Nation; and for the full-time active duty, continue raising pay and improving benefits; and for our Reserves and our Guardsmen, to close the gap between the income they are leaving behind and the country they are working to defend. Please, let's pass that Tax Fairness Act. Our military should not even be paying taxes when they are at war in Iraq. There should be shared sacrifice in the United States of America, and that means not only shared sacrifice in terms of those who are willing to go and fight, but we need to fight for those who are fighting for us. I urge my colleagues to join me in putting the men and women of our military at the top of our agenda, whether as we look at the issues facing the economy or facing taxes, because, remember, as our budget is strained, theirs is near the breaking point. I conclude by saying God bless our troops and God bless America.

Mr. MIKULSKI

Mr. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Alzheimer's Disease Research, Prevention, and Care Act of 2003. I am pleased that Senators Bond, Kennedy, Lincoln, Breaux, and Dodd are joining me as original cosponsors of this legislation. This bill expands research on Alzheimer's disease at the National Institute on Aging and reauthorizes the Alzheimer's Demonstration Grant Program that helps patients and families get services like respite care and adult day care. I believe that ``honor thy mother and father'' is not only a good commandment to live by, it's also a good policy to govern by. That's why I authored the Alzheimer's Disease Research, Prevention, and Care Act--to put values into action and get behind our Nation's families. In 1998, the Federal Government was spending just $323 million on Alzheimer's disease research, a disease that affects about 4 million Americans. I fought for more funding for Alzheimer's disease and the National Institute on Aging. Not just an incremental increase--I fought to double the funding. I am proud that the National Institute on Aging was funded at $1 billion this year. That's double what it was 5 years ago. The Federal Government will spend more than $600 million on Alzheimer's research this year. This investment in Alzheimer's disease research is paying off. Scientists have found evidence that a cholesterol-lowering drug may prevent Alzheimer's. Researchers are testing a vaccine on mice that may prevent the disease in humans. Seven clinical trials are currently underway to find out whether estrogen, vitamin E, gingko biloba, and aspirin can prevent the disease. Even with these victories, there is still a lot more to do. Alzheimer's disease is a devastating illness. Four million Americans suffer from Alzheimer's, including one in ten people over age 65 and nearly half of those over age 85. Nineteen million Americans say they have a family member with the disease. The Medicare program alone spent $31.9 billion for the care of people with Alzheimer's disease in the year 2000. Without a cure, the number of Alzheimer's patients will more than triple in the next 50 years. Fourteen million Americans will suffer from Alzheimer's by 2050. If science can help delay the onset of Alzheimer's by even five years, it would improve the lives of millions of families and save billions of dollars. This legislation is about more than just statistics--it's about helping to meet the day-to-day needs of patients with Alzheimer's and the long range needs of the nation. Last year, I chaired a hearing at the Gerontology Research Center at the Johns Hopkins Bayview Medical center in Baltimore. I heard from Peter Savage, a Baltimore man caring for his wife, Ina. Mrs. Savage was diagnosed with early onset Alzheimer's disease at just 53 years old. I heard Mr. Savage's pain and frustration as he told the Subcommittee on Aging about his family's long struggle: watching his wife's slow decline; trying to care for Mrs. Savage by himself and with the help of daughters; the difficulty of finding someone to help them when the caregiving responsibilities were more than the family alone could bear; and the looming costs of nursing home care. The bill I am introducing gets behind families like the Savages and millions of others struggling with this disease. My bill reauthorizes and expands the Alzheimer's Demonstration grant Program. This program helps patients and families get support services like respite care and home health care. These grants connect help states leverage private resources to fill in gaps in existing services and make sure that programs reach the most vulnerable families. This important program needs to be renewed this year. I'm fighting to expand this program to nearly every state, to keep our promises to America's families. This bill also helps to meet the long-range needs of our Nation by increasing the Federal Government's commitment to Alzheimer's disease research at the National Institutes of Health and the National Institute on Aging. It puts the Alzheimer's Disease Prevention Initiative in our Federal law books to speed up the discovery of new ways to prevent the disease. My bill sets up a cooperative clinical research program to stretch our Federal research dollars, by making it easier for researchers across the country to share data and enroll patients in clinical trials. It also authorizes research on ways to improve the health of Alzheimer's caregivers--and ease some of their burden. This bill gets behind our Nation's families--both in the lab and in the community. I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass this important legislation.

Mr. MIKULSKI

Mr. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Alzheimer's Disease Research, Prevention, and Care Act of 2003. I am pleased that Senators Bond, Kennedy, Lincoln, Breaux, and Dodd are joining me as original cosponsors of this legislation. This bill expands research on Alzheimer's disease at the National Institute on Aging and reauthorizes the Alzheimer's Demonstration Grant Program that helps patients and families get services like respite care and adult day care. I believe that ``honor thy mother and father'' is not only a good commandment to live by, it's also a good policy to govern by. That's why I authored the Alzheimer's Disease Research, Prevention, and Care Act--to put values into action and get behind our Nation's families. In 1998, the Federal Government was spending just $323 million on Alzheimer's disease research, a disease that affects about 4 million Americans. I fought for more funding for Alzheimer's disease and the National Institute on Aging. Not just an incremental increase--I fought to double the funding. I am proud that the National Institute on Aging was funded at $1 billion this year. That's double what it was 5 years ago. The Federal Government will spend more than $600 million on Alzheimer's research this year. This investment in Alzheimer's disease research is paying off. Scientists have found evidence that a cholesterol-lowering drug may prevent Alzheimer's. Researchers are testing a vaccine on mice that may prevent the disease in humans. Seven clinical trials are currently underway to find out whether estrogen, vitamin E, gingko biloba, and aspirin can prevent the disease. Even with these victories, there is still a lot more to do. Alzheimer's disease is a devastating illness. Four million Americans suffer from Alzheimer's, including one in ten people over age 65 and nearly half of those over age 85. Nineteen million Americans say they have a family member with the disease. The Medicare program alone spent $31.9 billion for the care of people with Alzheimer's disease in the year 2000. Without a cure, the number of Alzheimer's patients will more than triple in the next 50 years. Fourteen million Americans will suffer from Alzheimer's by 2050. If science can help delay the onset of Alzheimer's by even five years, it would improve the lives of millions of families and save billions of dollars. This legislation is about more than just statistics--it's about helping to meet the day-to-day needs of patients with Alzheimer's and the long range needs of the nation. Last year, I chaired a hearing at the Gerontology Research Center at the Johns Hopkins Bayview Medical center in Baltimore. I heard from Peter Savage, a Baltimore man caring for his wife, Ina. Mrs. Savage was diagnosed with early onset Alzheimer's disease at just 53 years old. I heard Mr. Savage's pain and frustration as he told the Subcommittee on Aging about his family's long struggle: watching his wife's slow decline; trying to care for Mrs. Savage by himself and with the help of daughters; the difficulty of finding someone to help them when the caregiving responsibilities were more than the family alone could bear; and the looming costs of nursing home care. The bill I am introducing gets behind families like the Savages and millions of others struggling with this disease. My bill reauthorizes and expands the Alzheimer's Demonstration grant Program. This program helps patients and families get support services like respite care and home health care. These grants connect help states leverage private resources to fill in gaps in existing services and make sure that programs reach the most vulnerable families. This important program needs to be renewed this year. I'm fighting to expand this program to nearly every state, to keep our promises to America's families. This bill also helps to meet the long-range needs of our Nation by increasing the Federal Government's commitment to Alzheimer's disease research at the National Institutes of Health and the National Institute on Aging. It puts the Alzheimer's Disease Prevention Initiative in our Federal law books to speed up the discovery of new ways to prevent the disease. My bill sets up a cooperative clinical research program to stretch our Federal research dollars, by making it easier for researchers across the country to share data and enroll patients in clinical trials. It also authorizes research on ways to improve the health of Alzheimer's caregivers--and ease some of their burden. This bill gets behind our Nation's families--both in the lab and in the community. I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass this important legislation.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the nomination of Miguel Estrada to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. The President has the right to make judicial nominations. The Senate has the Constitutional responsibility to advise and consent. I take this responsibility very seriously. This is a lifetime appointment for our nation's second most important court. Only the Supreme Court has a greater impact on the lives and rights of every American. The District of Columbia Circuit is the final arbiter on many cases that the Supreme Court refuses to consider. That means it's responsible for decisions on fundamental constitutional issues involving freedom of speech, the right to privacy and equal protection. In addition, the D.C. Circuit has special jurisdiction over Federal agency actions. That means the D.C. Circuit is responsible for cases on issues of great national significance involving labor rights, affirmative action, clean air and clear water standards, health and safety regulations, consumer privacy and campaign finance. The importance of this court highlights the importance of placing skilled, experienced and moderate jurists on the court. I base my consideration of each judicial nominee on three criteria: competence, integrity and commitment to core Constitutional principles. I don't question Mr. Estrada's character or competence. He is clearly a skilled lawyer. Yet the Senate does not have enough information to judge Mr. Estrada's commitment to core Constitutional principles. He has refused to answer even the most basic questions during his hearing in Senate Judiciary Committee. For example, he was asked to give examples of Supreme Court decisions with which he disagreed. He refused to answer. He was asked basic questions on his judicial philosophy. He refused to answer. The Constitution gives the Senate the responsibility to advise and consent on judicial nominations. This consent should be based on rigorous analysis. The nominee doesn't have to be an academic with a paper trail. Yet the nominee must be open and forthcoming. He or she must answer questions that seek to determine their commitment to core Constitutional principles. This is a divisive nomination--at a time when our Nation should be united. Our Nation is preparing for a possible war in Iraq. We are already engaged in a war against terrorism. We are also facing a weak economy. Americans are stressed and anxious. The Senate should be working to reduce this stress--to make America more secure; to strengthen our economy and to deal with the ballooning cost of health care. I urge the administration to nominate judicial candidates who are moderate and mainstream--and to instruct those nominees to be forthright and forthcoming with the Senate so the Senate can address the significant issues that face our Nation today.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about an issue that is very important to me, very important to my constituents in Maryland and very important to government workers and retirees across the Nation. I am reintroducing a bill to modify a cruel rule of government that is unfair and prevents current workers from enjoying the benefits of their hard work during retirement. My bill has bipartisan support and the House companion bill had nearly 300 cosponsors last year. With this strong bipartisan support, I hope that we can correct this cruel rule of government this year. Under current law, a Social Security spousal benefit is reduced or entirely eliminated if the surviving spouse is eligible for a pension from a local, State or Federal Government job that was not covered by Social Security. This policy is known as the Government Pension Offset. This is how the current law works. Consider a surviving spouse who retires from government service and receives a government pension of $600 a month. She also qualifies for a Social Security spousal benefit of $645 a month. Because of the Pension Offset law, which reduces her Social Security benefit by 2/3 of her government pension, her spousal benefit is reduced to $245 a month. So instead of $1245, she will receive only $845 a month. That is $400 a month less to pay the rent, purchase a prescription medication, or buy groceries. I think that is wrong. My bill does not repeal the government pension offset entirely, but it will allow retirees to keep more of what they deserve. It guarantees that those subject to the offset can keep at least $1200 a month in combined retirement income. With my modification, the 2/3 offset would apply only to the combined benefit that exceeds $1200 a month. So, in the example above, the surviving spouse would face only a $30 offset, allowing her to keep $1215 in monthly income. Unfortunately, the current law disproportionately affects women. Women are more likely to receive Social Security spousal benefits and to have worked in low-paying or short-term government positions while they were raising families. It is also true that women receive smaller government pensions because of their lower earnings, and rely on Social Security benefits to a greater degree. My modification will allow these women who have contributed years of important government service and family service to rely on a larger amount of retirement income. The last time Congress passed a bill significantly effecting Social Security benefits was in 1999. At that time, the Senate unanimously voted for and passed H.R. 5, The Senior Citizens' Freedom to Work Act of 1999. This legislation ensured that senior citizens who choose to work or who must work can earn income after retirement without losing a portion of their Social Security benefit. That law helps senior citizens who earn above $17,000 per year. In contrast, my bill specifically targets those with much lower retirement incomes around $13,000 per year and less. I believe that we must work to ensure a safety net for all of our seniors--including those retired federal employees who every day are forced to make difficult choices between rent, food, and prescription drugs due to the drastic effects of the government pension offset. Why do we punish people who have committed a significant portion of their lives to government service? We are talking about workers who provide some of the most important services to our community--teachers, firefighters, and many others. Some have already retired. Others are currently working and looking forward to a deserved retirement. These individuals deserve better than the reduced monthly benefits that the Pension Offset currently requires. Government employees work hard in service to our nation, and I work hard for them. I do not want to see them penalized simply because they have chosen to work in the public sector, rather than for a private employer, and often at lower salaries and sometimes fewer benefits. If a retired worker in the private sector received a pension, and also received a spousal Social Security benefit, they would not be subject to the Offset. I think we should be looking for ways to reward government service, not the other way around. I believe that people who work hard and play by the rules should not be penalized by arcane, legislative technicalities. Frankly, I would like to repeal the offset all together. But, I realize that budget considerations make that unlikely. As a compromise, I hope we can agree that retirees who have worked hard all their lives should not have this offset applied until their combined monthly benefit, both government pension and Social Security spousal benefit, exceeds $1,200. I also strongly believe that we should ensure that retirees buying power keeps up with the cost of living. That's why I have also included a provision in this legislation to index the $1,200 amount to inflation so retirees will see their minimum benefits increase along with the cost of living. The Social Security Administration recently estimated that enacting the provisions contained in my bill will have a minimal long-term impact on the Social Security Trust Fund--about 0.01 percent of taxable payroll. Additionally, my bill is bipartisan and is strongly supported by CARE, the Coalition to Assure Retirement Equity with 43 member organizations including the National Association of Retired Federal Employees, NARFE, the American Federation of Federal State County and Municipal Employees, AFSCME, the National Education Association, NEA, and the National Treasury Employees Union, NTEU. I urge my colleagues to join me in this effort and support my legislation to modify the Government Pension Offset. I ask unanimous consent that the text of my bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, today, I rise to talk about an issue that is very important to me, very important to my constituents in Maryland and very important to the people of the United States of America. For the fifth Congress in a row, I am joining in a bipartisan effort with my friend and colleague, Senator Olympia Snowe, to end an unfair policy of the Social Security System. Senator Snowe and I are introducing the Social Security Family Protection Act. This bill addresses retirement security and family security. We want the middle class of this Nation to know that we are going to give help to those who practice self-help. What is it I am talking about? I was shocked when I found out that Social Security does not pay benefits for the last month of life. If a Social Security retiree dies on the 18th of the month or even on the 30th of the month, the surviving spouse or family members must send back the Social Security check for that month. I think that is a harsh and heartless rule. That individual worked for Social Security benefits, earned those benefits, and paid into the Social Security trust fund. The system should allow the surviving spouse or the estate of the family to use that Social Security check for the last month of life. This legislation has an urgency. When a loved one dies, there are expenses that the family must take care of. People have called my office in tears. Very often it is a son or a daughter that is grieving the death of a parent. They are clearing up the paperwork for their mom or dad, and there is the Social Security check. And they say, ``Senator, the check says for the month of May. Mom died on May 28. Why do we have to send the Social Security check back? We have bills to pay. We have utility coverage that we need to wrap up, mom's rent, or her mortgage, or health expenses. Why is Social Security telling me, `Send the check back or we're going to come and get you'?'' With all the problems in our country today, we ought to be going after drug dealers and tax dodgers, not honest people who have paid into Social Security, and not the surviving spouse or the family who have been left with the bills for the last month of their loved one's life. They are absolutely right when they call me and say that Social Security was supposed to be there for them. I've listened to my constituents and to the stories of their lives. What they say is this: ``Senator Mikulski, we don't want anything for free. But our family does want what our parents worked for. We do want what we feel we deserve and what has been paid for in the trust fund in our loved one's name. Please make sure that our family gets the Social Security check for the last month of our life.'' That is what our bill is going to do. That is why Senator Snowe and I are introducing the Family Social Security Protection Act. When we talk about retirement security, the most important part of that is income security. And the safety net for most Americans is Social Security. We know that as Senators we have to make sure that Social Security remains solvent, and we are working to do that. We also don't want to create an undue administrative burden at the Social Security Administration--a burden that might affect today's retirees. But it is absolutely crucial that we provide a Social Security check for the last month of life. How do we propose to do that? We have a very simple, straightforward way of dealing with this problem. Our legislation says that if you die before the 15th of the month, you will get a check for half the month. If you die after the 15th of the month, your surviving spouse or the family estate would get a check for the full month. We think this bill is fundamentally fair. Senator Snowe and I are old-fashioned in our belief in family values. We believe you honor your father and your mother. We believe that it is not only a good religious and moral principle, but it is good public policy as well. The way to honor your father and mother is to have a strong Social Security System and to make sure the system is fair in every way. That means fair for the retiree and fair for the spouse and family. We strongly feel that the current system is an injustice to spouses and families across the Nation. Just because a beneficiary passes away, it does not mean that their bills can go unpaid. Join us to correct this policy and to ensure that families and recipients are protected during this difficult time. That is why we support making sure that the surviving spouse or family can keep the Social Security check for the last month of life. We urge our colleagues to join us in this effort and support the Social Security Family Protection Act. I ask unanimous consent that the text of my bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Clinical Social Work Medicare Equity Act of 2003.'' I am proud to sponsor this legislation that will include clinical social workers among other mental health providers that are exempted from the Medicare Part B Prospective Payment System. This bill will ensure that clinical social workers can receive Medicare reimbursements for the mental health services they provide in skilled nursing facilities. Since my first days in Congress, I have been fighting to protect and strengthen the safety for our Nation's seniors. Making sure that seniors have access to quality, affordable mental health care is an important part of this fight. I know that millions of seniors do not have access to, or are not receiving, the mental health services they need. For example, depression affects nearly 6 million seniors, but only one-tenth ever get treated. This is unacceptable. Clinical social workers may also be the only mental health providers in some rural areas. Protecting seniors' access to clinical social workers can help make sure that our most vulnerable citizens get the quality, affordable mental health care they need. Clinical social workers, much like psychologists and psychiatrists, treat and diagnose mental illnesses. In fact, clinical social workers are the primary mental health providers for nursing home residents. But unlike other mental health providers, clinical social workers cannot bill directly for the important services they provide to their patients. This bill will correct this inequity and make sure clinical social workers get the payments and respect they deserve. Before the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, clinical social workers billed Medicare Part B directly for mental health services provided in nursing facilities to each patient they served. Under the Prospective Payment System, services provided by clinical social workers are lumped, or ``bundled,'' along with the services of other health care providers for the purposes of billing and payments. Psychologists and psychiatrists, who provide similar counseling, were exempted from this system and continue to bill Medicare directly. This bill would exempt clinical social workers, like their mental health colleagues, from the Prospective Payment System, and would make sure that clinical social workers are paid for the services they provide to patients in skilled nursing facilities. The Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP Benefits Improvement and Protection Act addressed some of these concerns, but this legislation would remove the final barrier to ensuring that clinical social workers are treated fairly and equitably for the care they provide. This bill is about more than paperwork and payment procedures. This bill is about equal access to Medicare payments for the equal and important work done by clinical social workers. It is also about making sure our Nation's most vulnerable citizens have access to quality, affordable mental health care. Without clinical social workers, many nursing home residents may never get the counseling they need when faced with a life threatening illness or the loss of a loved one. I think we can do better by our nation's seniors, and I'm fighting to make sure we do. The Clinical Social Work Medicare Equity Act of 2003 is strongly supported by the National Association of Social Workers. I ask unanimous consent that a letter of endorsement from the National Association of Social Workers be printed in the Record. I also want to thank Senators Johnson, Murray, Stabenow, Corzine, Inouye, and Bingaman for their cosponsorship of this bill. I look forward to working with my colleagues to enact this important legislation.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about an issue that is very important to me, very important to my constituents in Maryland and very important to government workers and retirees across the Nation. I am reintroducing a bill to modify a cruel rule of government that is unfair and prevents current workers from enjoying the benefits of their hard work during retirement. My bill has bipartisan support and the House companion bill had nearly 300 cosponsors last year. With this strong bipartisan support, I hope that we can correct this cruel rule of government this year. Under current law, a Social Security spousal benefit is reduced or entirely eliminated if the surviving spouse is eligible for a pension from a local, State or Federal Government job that was not covered by Social Security. This policy is known as the Government Pension Offset. This is how the current law works. Consider a surviving spouse who retires from government service and receives a government pension of $600 a month. She also qualifies for a Social Security spousal benefit of $645 a month. Because of the Pension Offset law, which reduces her Social Security benefit by 2/3 of her government pension, her spousal benefit is reduced to $245 a month. So instead of $1245, she will receive only $845 a month. That is $400 a month less to pay the rent, purchase a prescription medication, or buy groceries. I think that is wrong. My bill does not repeal the government pension offset entirely, but it will allow retirees to keep more of what they deserve. It guarantees that those subject to the offset can keep at least $1200 a month in combined retirement income. With my modification, the 2/3 offset would apply only to the combined benefit that exceeds $1200 a month. So, in the example above, the surviving spouse would face only a $30 offset, allowing her to keep $1215 in monthly income. Unfortunately, the current law disproportionately affects women. Women are more likely to receive Social Security spousal benefits and to have worked in low-paying or short-term government positions while they were raising families. It is also true that women receive smaller government pensions because of their lower earnings, and rely on Social Security benefits to a greater degree. My modification will allow these women who have contributed years of important government service and family service to rely on a larger amount of retirement income. The last time Congress passed a bill significantly effecting Social Security benefits was in 1999. At that time, the Senate unanimously voted for and passed H.R. 5, The Senior Citizens' Freedom to Work Act of 1999. This legislation ensured that senior citizens who choose to work or who must work can earn income after retirement without losing a portion of their Social Security benefit. That law helps senior citizens who earn above $17,000 per year. In contrast, my bill specifically targets those with much lower retirement incomes around $13,000 per year and less. I believe that we must work to ensure a safety net for all of our seniors--including those retired federal employees who every day are forced to make difficult choices between rent, food, and prescription drugs due to the drastic effects of the government pension offset. Why do we punish people who have committed a significant portion of their lives to government service? We are talking about workers who provide some of the most important services to our community--teachers, firefighters, and many others. Some have already retired. Others are currently working and looking forward to a deserved retirement. These individuals deserve better than the reduced monthly benefits that the Pension Offset currently requires. Government employees work hard in service to our nation, and I work hard for them. I do not want to see them penalized simply because they have chosen to work in the public sector, rather than for a private employer, and often at lower salaries and sometimes fewer benefits. If a retired worker in the private sector received a pension, and also received a spousal Social Security benefit, they would not be subject to the Offset. I think we should be looking for ways to reward government service, not the other way around. I believe that people who work hard and play by the rules should not be penalized by arcane, legislative technicalities. Frankly, I would like to repeal the offset all together. But, I realize that budget considerations make that unlikely. As a compromise, I hope we can agree that retirees who have worked hard all their lives should not have this offset applied until their combined monthly benefit, both government pension and Social Security spousal benefit, exceeds $1,200. I also strongly believe that we should ensure that retirees buying power keeps up with the cost of living. That's why I have also included a provision in this legislation to index the $1,200 amount to inflation so retirees will see their minimum benefits increase along with the cost of living. The Social Security Administration recently estimated that enacting the provisions contained in my bill will have a minimal long-term impact on the Social Security Trust Fund--about 0.01 percent of taxable payroll. Additionally, my bill is bipartisan and is strongly supported by CARE, the Coalition to Assure Retirement Equity with 43 member organizations including the National Association of Retired Federal Employees, NARFE, the American Federation of Federal State County and Municipal Employees, AFSCME, the National Education Association, NEA, and the National Treasury Employees Union, NTEU. I urge my colleagues to join me in this effort and support my legislation to modify the Government Pension Offset. I ask unanimous consent that the text of my bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, today, I rise to talk about an issue that is very important to me, very important to my constituents in Maryland and very important to the people of the United States of America. For the fifth Congress in a row, I am joining in a bipartisan effort with my friend and colleague, Senator Olympia Snowe, to end an unfair policy of the Social Security System. Senator Snowe and I are introducing the Social Security Family Protection Act. This bill addresses retirement security and family security. We want the middle class of this Nation to know that we are going to give help to those who practice self-help. What is it I am talking about? I was shocked when I found out that Social Security does not pay benefits for the last month of life. If a Social Security retiree dies on the 18th of the month or even on the 30th of the month, the surviving spouse or family members must send back the Social Security check for that month. I think that is a harsh and heartless rule. That individual worked for Social Security benefits, earned those benefits, and paid into the Social Security trust fund. The system should allow the surviving spouse or the estate of the family to use that Social Security check for the last month of life. This legislation has an urgency. When a loved one dies, there are expenses that the family must take care of. People have called my office in tears. Very often it is a son or a daughter that is grieving the death of a parent. They are clearing up the paperwork for their mom or dad, and there is the Social Security check. And they say, ``Senator, the check says for the month of May. Mom died on May 28. Why do we have to send the Social Security check back? We have bills to pay. We have utility coverage that we need to wrap up, mom's rent, or her mortgage, or health expenses. Why is Social Security telling me, `Send the check back or we're going to come and get you'?'' With all the problems in our country today, we ought to be going after drug dealers and tax dodgers, not honest people who have paid into Social Security, and not the surviving spouse or the family who have been left with the bills for the last month of their loved one's life. They are absolutely right when they call me and say that Social Security was supposed to be there for them. I've listened to my constituents and to the stories of their lives. What they say is this: ``Senator Mikulski, we don't want anything for free. But our family does want what our parents worked for. We do want what we feel we deserve and what has been paid for in the trust fund in our loved one's name. Please make sure that our family gets the Social Security check for the last month of our life.'' That is what our bill is going to do. That is why Senator Snowe and I are introducing the Family Social Security Protection Act. When we talk about retirement security, the most important part of that is income security. And the safety net for most Americans is Social Security. We know that as Senators we have to make sure that Social Security remains solvent, and we are working to do that. We also don't want to create an undue administrative burden at the Social Security Administration--a burden that might affect today's retirees. But it is absolutely crucial that we provide a Social Security check for the last month of life. How do we propose to do that? We have a very simple, straightforward way of dealing with this problem. Our legislation says that if you die before the 15th of the month, you will get a check for half the month. If you die after the 15th of the month, your surviving spouse or the family estate would get a check for the full month. We think this bill is fundamentally fair. Senator Snowe and I are old-fashioned in our belief in family values. We believe you honor your father and your mother. We believe that it is not only a good religious and moral principle, but it is good public policy as well. The way to honor your father and mother is to have a strong Social Security System and to make sure the system is fair in every way. That means fair for the retiree and fair for the spouse and family. We strongly feel that the current system is an injustice to spouses and families across the Nation. Just because a beneficiary passes away, it does not mean that their bills can go unpaid. Join us to correct this policy and to ensure that families and recipients are protected during this difficult time. That is why we support making sure that the surviving spouse or family can keep the Social Security check for the last month of life. We urge our colleagues to join us in this effort and support the Social Security Family Protection Act. I ask unanimous consent that the text of my bill be printed in the Record.