Barbara Mikulski

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. I thank the Senator from Connecticut. I know others are anxious to speak. Madam President, I rise in opposition to the Gramm-Miller amendment. I rise to support the efforts of Senator Joe Lieberman to create a framework for homeland security. I had hoped, when we were working on this legislation, we were not going to be Democrats or Republicans, we were going to be the red, white, and blue party. And I really deeply regret that this argument has been so deeply politicized. I am here to stand up to protect America and vote for a Department of Homeland Security. But I also have to stand up for those who are protecting the United States of America, our brave, our gallant Federal employees who are out there every day on the front line wanting to do their job, whether they are Customs workers, in the Coast Guard, the FBI, or the G men at the Department of Treasury, trying to do their job. I resent that my standing up for them, to have their constitutional right to organize, have freedom of assembly, would be called arrogant and hubris. I listened to an argument that said: Battle? You don't know about it. You are exactly right. I have never gone into battle. I do not bear the permanent wounds of war like some of our dear colleagues, names such as Dole and Inouye. But I do know this. When we are going to send people into battle, I know we are going to think long and hard about it, because I know what it means. When I stand up for America, I also want to stand up, not for a Department, but for what America believes in. Why was it OK to have a union in Poland that brought down the whole Communist empire and not to have a union here? When our firefighters ran up into that burning building at the World Trade Center nobody asked if they were in the union. They didn't look at their clock and wonder if they were working to the rule. When our emergency workers from Maryland dashed over to be part of the mutual aid at the Pentagon, they were mission driven. They weren't there because they were union members--Oops. I am wrong. They were there because they were union members. They belonged to a union. They belonged to a union called the United States of America. That is the union that they belong to, and that is the union they put first. Why are we abusing them as if they are the enemy? I hope we will start to be as hard on terrorists as we are on these union members. It has been over 1 year--where is Bin Laden? We haven't found Bin Laden, but we are going to nitpick over whether or not you have a union. We had an anthrax killer who attacked the Senate and used the post office as a weapon. I have Marylanders dead and I have Marylanders permanently ill because of the anthrax killer. Let's make sure that our workers can go out and do the manhunt they need to do, or to do the money hunt for those who fund them. Let's not worry about whether they belong to a union or they don't. They don't hide behind the union not to do their job. But I tell you, there are those hiding behind a right- wing agenda to get rid of unions in this country or to make unions the problem. The words ``labor boss,'' what do they mean? It is OK to be a CEO and have more perks than a potentate--that is OK, we can have the imperial CEO. But when people organize, they are called labor bosses, as though somehow or another it is the goon squad? I really resent that. I resent that for my customs workers. I resent it for the postal workers after what happened at Brentwood. The postal workers didn't sit down and go on strike because we failed to protect them. They showed up every day, and because they showed up every day and did their job, as I say, two are dead and many are sick. And we are sick at heart because it happened to them. So I am kind of tired of this. I am tired of the politicization of the process. I am tired of the cynical manipulation of this process. I feel as though I am being set up. If we stand up for the workers, we are somehow or another slowing down the debate on homeland security. This national leader, Joe Lieberman, the Senator from Connecticut, has been working on homeland security and an agency to do it long before the White House has. Just like he was calling for a national commission to look at what went wrong on September 11 long before the White House. We have been ahead of the White House, but now we are going to work with the White House. I think we have to defeat the Gramm-Miller amendment--put that aside and no hard feelings. I think we have to then move on to the Lieberman bill, pass it expeditiously to show the world we can organize and mobilize to protect America, and then let's get on to the other debate related to Iraq. And then let's also get back on another debate, such as what is happened to the economy. The stock market has plummeted. It is about as bad as it was when Gerald Ford was President, in 1974. We do not want to go there again and then need a Democrat to bail us out--or maybe we will need a Democrat to bail us out, but I don't want to go there. I want to stand up for this country, but I want to stand up for the people who built this country, and it is the trade union movement. If we don't start protecting the protectors, to make sure they have the right equipment, the right training, and also have the right legislative framework where they can have their constitutional rights, then we have other issues. I want to go back to the bill Joe Lieberman is presenting. I think it is an excellent framework. I will go back to being part of the red, white, and blue party. Let's put the politics of hard feelings behind us, let's get Iraq together, and let's show America we can govern, and let's show the bullies of the world we are going to take them on. God bless the Federal employees who stand sentry every day to protect America. I yield the floor.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize The Enterprise Foundation as it celebrates its 20th year of rebuilding America's communities and creating opportunities for low-income people across America. The Enterprise Foundation was founded in 1982 by renowned developer James Rouse and his wife, Patty, who were inspired by the commitment of members of the Church of the Saviour in Washington, D.C. to create safe housing in one of the most challenged neighborhoods in the District. More than 65,000 hours of volunteer time and $500,000 in grants were invested to clean out rats and garbage and to repair, paint and correct more than 940 housing code violations to create those first 90 apartments affordable to low-income families. Since that humble start, Enterprise has grown to become a national nonprofit with offices in 16 cities, five subsidiaries and a staff of more than 450. Enterprise works with private sector and public partners through a network of more than 2,200 community-based organizations in 820 U.S. locations to provide affordable housing, safer streets and access to jobs and quality child care. Since 1982, The Enterprise Foundation has raised and committed more than $3.9 billion in equity, loans and grants to build or renovate more than 132,000 homes affordable to low- and very low-income people. Since its creation in 1985, Enterprise Homes has completed more than 4,000 homes for low- and moderate-income families totaling more than $350 million in total development. Enterprise has partnered with more than 170 corporate investors and more than 580 nonprofit and for-profit developers to provide affordable homes for families, the elderly and people with special needs. Enterprise's job training and placement programs have helped more than 32,000 low-income residents qualify for work and retain employment. More than 4,500 children have benefited from the Home-Based Child Care Program. Enterprise Child Care has awarded more than $4.5 million in grants and loans since 1999. My own State of Maryland has benefited greatly from the work of the Enterprise Foundation. I have personally seen the results of the Enterprise Foundation's work in the Druid Heights, Lauraville and Garrison/Forest Park neighborhoods in Baltimore. Their comprehensive approach to neighborhood redevelopment is what makes Enterprise an asset in Maryland, and in the Nation. Today I ask that we pay tribute to Mr. Rouse's legacy and to the profound impact that The Enterprise Foundation has had on the lives of thousands of low-income Americans and their communities.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, it is with sadness that I rise today to pay tribute to a man who passed away too soon, the Man with the Golden Arm, the great Baltimore Colt, Hall of Famer Johnny Unitas. He was known to many as the greatest quarterback to ever play in the National Football League. Yet to those of us in Baltimore and Maryland, he was our own Johnny U. He was the man who put professional football on the national map, who embodied the strong spirit of our city and State. Johnny Unitas was born in Pittsburgh, but he spent most of his life in Baltimore. He was as much a part of the fabric of the city as crab cakes and Cal Ripken. After high school, he wanted to play football in college at the University of Notre Dame. Yet the coaches there told him he was too small to play football. Johnny wound up playing at the University of Louisville, and was drafted in 1955 by his hometown Pittsburgh Steelers. The Steelers promptly cut him from the team before the 1955 season started, telling him that he wasn't smart enough to be a quarterback. Pittsburgh's loss was Baltimore's gain. The Baltimore Colts signed him in 1956, and the rest is history. In 1958, he led the Colts to an improbable victory in the NFL Championship Game against the New York Giants, a game that is now referred to as ``The Greatest Ever Played.'' Unitas engineered the famous 80-yard game-tying drive with less than 2 minutes to play in regulation, then led the Colts to victory in overtime. This was the first overtime game ever played in the NFL. The legend of Johnny Unitas was soon born. His trademark crew-cut and black high-top cleats were copied by boys all over Baltimore, Maryland, and the entire country. Every kid wanted to be number 19. His toughness was legendary. Many times he played with broken bones, through unbearable pain. The words he said to his teammates before every game embodied his spirit: ``Talk is cheap, let's go play.'' His accomplishments are too numerous to mention, but among them are these: 3-time Player of the Year; 3- time NFL Champion; first quarterback to pass for over 40,000 yards; a touchdown pass in 47 consecutive games, a feat which is compared to Joe DiMaggio's 56-game hitting streak; 10 Pro Bowl selections; Player of the Decade for the 1960's; Greatest Player in the First 50 Years of the NFL; NFL 75th Anniversary Team; and Hall of Fame Inductee, 1979. When he retired in 1973, Johnny Unitas held 22 NFL records. It is not just his accomplishments on the field that endeared him to the fans in Baltimore. He was an unassuming superstar, a reluctant hero, a regular guy who happened to be a tremendous athlete. He understood that a smile or a handshake or an autograph could make a fan's day. He was generous with charities, too, even as he fell upon difficult financial times. He established the Johnny Unitas Golden Arm Educational Foundation, and supported various organizations dedicated to children's causes, cancer research, and victims of sexual assault and domestic violence. Johnny Unitas was the underdog who became the greatest quarterback in the history of the National Football League. Yet beyond that, he was a fine person who will be sorely missed, not only in Baltimore and Maryland, but across the country. My thoughts and prayers are with his family, his friends, and his many, many fans.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, today I bring your attention to Austin and Lydia Warder. On August 12, 2002, they celebrated their 60th wedding anniversary, and I ask you to join me, their family and friends in congratulating them. The Warders have devoted 60 years to each other, to their family, to their community of Indian Head, MD, and to the service of their country through the United States Navy. Our country could not ask for two more dedicated citizens. Austin Warder was born in Marbury, MD in 1922, just a few miles away from his future bride, Lydia Eastburn, born in 1924. The two met and soon married on August 12, 1942, in Austin's hometown, just before he shipped out for World War II. Austin served his country as a United States Navy Seabee in the South Pacific from 1942 until the war ended in 1945. During that time, Lydia joined the war effort and began working at the Naval Ordinance Station in her hometown of Indian Head, MD. After the war, the Warders settled down in Indian Head. Austin continued his service with the U.S. Navy, joining Lydia at the Naval Ordinance Station where she worked as a housing project manager. Austin began his career there as Director of the Public Works Department, Maintenance Division. Both received numerous letters of commendation and many outstanding performance ratings over their long careers. They worked together over the years. They finally decided to retire, together, in January of 1977. Lydia was retiring after 35 years and Austin after 32 years. The Warders have left an important legacy with the Federal Government. Together, they have 70 years of service, and I am sure the Navy joins me in congratulating them. But their most important legacy, and I know their favorite, is their family. Austin and Lydia have been blessed with a large and loving family. They have one daughter, Sandra Benson, two grandchildren, five great grandchildren and one great-great grandchild. I am honored to share this couple's story of commitment and service with the Senate today. Austin and Lydia Warder are fine Marylanders. Their shared values, hard work, and spirit kept them together through the War, through many years with the Navy, through children and grandchildren and great grandchildren. Please join me in wishing the Warders my most sincere congratulations and best wishes for many more happy years!

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to rename the Brentwood Postal Facility after Joseph Curseen, Jr. and Thomas Morris, Jr., the two postal workers who died in last year's anthrax attack. I have expressed my deepest condolences to the families of these two men, both residents of my State of Maryland. They were true public servants. They were patriots. They died in service to their country. I want to you to know that I will be standing sentry to make sure that we do not forget Joe Curseen and Tom Morris. America must remember the sacrifices they made, the pain felt by their families, and everyone affected by the anthrax attacks. All of our Nation's postal workers deserve our attention and our gratitude for their bravery, steadfastness and dedication to duty. The lives of Joseph Curseen, Jr. and Thomas Morris, Jr. truly exemplify the best qualities of our Nation's postal workers. Joseph Curseen was a native of Washington, DC and a long-time resident of Prince George's County, MD. Mr. Curseen began and ended each day at his job with a handshake and a smile for his colleagues. He enjoyed his job at the postal service so much that he never called in sick during his 15 years there. He was also a leader in his community and in his church. As President of his neighborhood association, he and his wife of 16 years, Celestine, helped build a playground and a park for local children. He was also active in his local church and led a bible study group for his fellow postal workers. He will be missed by many. Mr. Morris, who known as ``Moe'' by his friends at the Brentwood facility, was also a Washington, DC native and long-time resident of Maryland's Prince George's County. He was a veteran, serving over four years in the Air Force. He continued his public service with 23 years at the U.S. Postal Service. His wife Mary says he was a quiet and deeply religious man who led by example. In her eulogy, she said that he was true to others and true to himself. Mr. Morris was a beloved husband, grandfather, father, and stepfather as well as president of his local bowling league. He will also be deeply missed. By renaming Brentwood in their honor, America will pay tribute to their commitment to public service, their families and their communities. At their funeral, these two dedicated public servants were awarded the Postmaster General's Medal of Freedom. Yesterday, Representatives Wynn, Norton and the rest of the Maryland delegation led the charge to pass a bill to rename the Brentwood facility for these two fallen heroes. Today, the Senate takes the next step to make sure that the Brentwood facility is renamed in honor of these fallen heroes. On Friday, I will be going to New York to commemorate last year's terrorists attacks, to honor our public servants, our firemen, postal workers, port authority workers, EMTs, policemen, and all those who assisted in the rescues. I want all postal workers to know that I am on their side. I will not forget how deeply they have suffered. I will continue to fight for them in Congress and make sure that their voice is heard. It is our responsibility as United States Senators to ensure the right people are asking the right questions to protect all Americans from the risks of terrorism, and to ensure that all Americans who are victims of terrorist attacks are treated equally.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to rename the Brentwood Postal Facility after Joseph Curseen, Jr. and Thomas Morris, Jr., the two postal workers who died in last year's anthrax attack. I have expressed my deepest condolences to the families of these two men, both residents of my State of Maryland. They were true public servants. They were patriots. They died in service to their country. I want to you to know that I will be standing sentry to make sure that we do not forget Joe Curseen and Tom Morris. America must remember the sacrifices they made, the pain felt by their families, and everyone affected by the anthrax attacks. All of our Nation's postal workers deserve our attention and our gratitude for their bravery, steadfastness and dedication to duty. The lives of Joseph Curseen, Jr. and Thomas Morris, Jr. truly exemplify the best qualities of our Nation's postal workers. Joseph Curseen was a native of Washington, DC and a long-time resident of Prince George's County, MD. Mr. Curseen began and ended each day at his job with a handshake and a smile for his colleagues. He enjoyed his job at the postal service so much that he never called in sick during his 15 years there. He was also a leader in his community and in his church. As President of his neighborhood association, he and his wife of 16 years, Celestine, helped build a playground and a park for local children. He was also active in his local church and led a bible study group for his fellow postal workers. He will be missed by many. Mr. Morris, who known as ``Moe'' by his friends at the Brentwood facility, was also a Washington, DC native and long-time resident of Maryland's Prince George's County. He was a veteran, serving over four years in the Air Force. He continued his public service with 23 years at the U.S. Postal Service. His wife Mary says he was a quiet and deeply religious man who led by example. In her eulogy, she said that he was true to others and true to himself. Mr. Morris was a beloved husband, grandfather, father, and stepfather as well as president of his local bowling league. He will also be deeply missed. By renaming Brentwood in their honor, America will pay tribute to their commitment to public service, their families and their communities. At their funeral, these two dedicated public servants were awarded the Postmaster General's Medal of Freedom. Yesterday, Representatives Wynn, Norton and the rest of the Maryland delegation led the charge to pass a bill to rename the Brentwood facility for these two fallen heroes. Today, the Senate takes the next step to make sure that the Brentwood facility is renamed in honor of these fallen heroes. On Friday, I will be going to New York to commemorate last year's terrorists attacks, to honor our public servants, our firemen, postal workers, port authority workers, EMTs, policemen, and all those who assisted in the rescues. I want all postal workers to know that I am on their side. I will not forget how deeply they have suffered. I will continue to fight for them in Congress and make sure that their voice is heard. It is our responsibility as United States Senators to ensure the right people are asking the right questions to protect all Americans from the risks of terrorism, and to ensure that all Americans who are victims of terrorist attacks are treated equally.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. I am aware of the problems facing the ASDS. The Carderock Naval Research Laboratory and scientists at Penn State University are working on the solution for screw noise. We believe a solution is well underway for this problem. A solution for the battery problem has been more elusive. The Navy has decided to develop Lithium- Ion batteries for this purpose, but funded only one Lithium-Ion battery developer and a solution has been slow at best. Is the Chairman aware that the ASDS prime contractor funded a competing effort to develop Lithium-Ion batteries? A leading U.S. manufacturer of Lithium-Ion battery technology is close to meeting the ASDS battery need. The Navy program manager is excited by this alternative. As you know, I requested that funds be added to the FY 03 Defense Appropriation bill in order to allow the Navy to fund an alternative solution to help resolve the battery issue.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I would like to engage my friend from Hawaii, the Chairman of the Defense Appropriations subcommittee, Senator Inouye in a colloquy on funding for the Advanced Seal Delivery System (ASDS). I am concerned over the decision to cut advanced procurement funds for this critical special operations program. This will delay this critical program. As you know this manned mini- submarine is used for the clandestine delivery of Special Operations Forces. It is a vast improvement over the current SEAL delivery system.

Ms. MIKULSKI. I appreciate the Committee's increase in procurement for ASDS batteries. As you are aware the House provided $12 million for procurement of a Lithium-Ion Polymer battery and shifted $22.5 million from advanced procurement to research and development. I hope we will be able to fulfill the Navy's request to move $23.2 million from advanced procurement to research and development in Conference. Nonetheless, I am concerned that restricting the battery procurement to a Lithium-Ion Polymer battery will result in less competition.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, today I thought very long and hard making up my mind with respect to the legislation we are presently debating. I tell my colleagues that I am going to support the Graham-Stabenow plan. The reason I am going to support this benefit is that it provides catastrophic coverage for those who have drug bills over $3,300 a year. For a $25 annual fee, it will provide catastrophic coverage for those who have prescription drug bills over $3,300 a year. This is absolutely essential to those seniors who have illnesses that cause them to pay this tremendous amount of money and who fear they could lose their life savings just to stay alive. This benefit also provides a comprehensive benefit for seniors with meager incomes. For the middle class, it provides a discount, ranging from 20 to 30 percent, plus a 5-percent subsidy. This bill has three parts to it: Catastrophic coverage, which I really like; help for those with meager incomes, which I think is a national necessity; and discounts for those in the middle class. For those who worked very hard on this bill, I salute them. It is a beginning. It is the first step. It is a downpayment on a comprehensive drug coverage. But it cannot be the only step. Today we are giving the middle-class seniors a discount card, but we cannot discount the middle class. They are the ones who are going to get squeezed between shrinking savings and rising prescription costs, and they are the ones I will fight to help. I think about ordinary Americans, those in manufacturing whose jobs are either on a fast track to Mexico or a slow boat to China, where they are afraid their companies, like my steelworkers, are going to go into bankruptcy and they are going to lose their pension, they are going to lose their health care. Then I think about the retail clerks who work in little shops, many of whom are in Baltimore, and in my little rural communities. Many of them work for 25 or 30 years, barely making the minimum wage, and though they had some savings, they are now just over the line in terms of qualifying for the benefit. Yet at the same time, we are going to give them a discount. I could go through example after example. My preference was expressed last week when we voted for a universal Medicare coverage bill, one that was under Medicare, covered all seniors, no means testing, no deductibles, and modest copays. I supported that plan without reservation. We got 52 votes, a majority of the Senate, but we have a new Senate now, and the majority is not good enough. We now need to have a supermajority, or 60 votes, to waive the Budget Act. We did not get those last eight votes because some of my colleagues thought the benefit was too expensive to provide a universal prescription drug benefit. Last year, many of those same colleagues who now say we do not have the wallet, were the first in line to pass excessive tax cuts. Those tax cuts went to the top 1 percent. Those who got it did not need it, and it certainly did not help the economy. When we were deliberating those tax bills last year, I knew this year would come. I knew we would come to the point where we would not have enough revenue to pass a prescription drug benefit. I am really agitated about this because for many years, particularly working with President Bill Clinton, we exercised fiscal discipline. I personally worked for balanced budgets. I worked very hard to create a surplus, the first surpluses since the Johnson administration. Why did I work so hard? I mended old ways and old habits. Well, I worked because I knew it was going to be good for the economy and that also one day we would need it for a prescription drug coverage. Instead, Congress gave the tax cut to the wealthiest, those who live off of expense accounts, while I worry about the middle class who have to live off a budget. So we cannot afford it? I am not so sure about it because when we have the will, we often find the wallet. Today is not the day where we are going to be able to find that wallet. I believe with the catastrophic coverage for those with the situation over $3,300, we do take a very important step. I think the sensitivity to those meager incomes is what we in America should be all about. For the middle class, we get them started, but we need to let them know we have to be able to do more. The limited coverage bill that I am supporting today is not everything I wanted, but it does give seniors peace of mind that an illness with huge drug bills will not push them into financial ruin. For that $25 annual fee, there will be catastrophic coverage. For some time, the whole issue of the consequences of health care has been an obsession of mine. I know the costs of long-term care. I know that when I came to this Senate the cost of nursing home care was enormously expensive, but to qualify for Government help under Medicaid families often had to push themselves into family bankruptcy, couples made out better if they divorced, or seniors were forced to spend down their savings to get help for nursing home care. Widows were impoverishing themselves so their husbands could qualify for Medicaid and nursing home care. I said then, as I say now, I believe in family and personal responsibility but not family bankruptcy because of the cruel rules of Government. The cruel rules of Government should not force people into family impoverishment. When it came to long-term care, I wrote something called the Spousal Anti-Impoverishment Act. I made sure the senior could keep the home or the family farm and some savings to get help when a spouse was in a nursing home. That was a very important step. I hope we can do more. Today, seniors are worried about going broke for their prescriptions. This limited coverage will help lift that fear and ease the burden of many seniors. For that catastrophic coverage alone, this bill is worth voting for. In closing, later on this week the Senate will be voting on legislation to defend the homeland. It is called homeland security. But I ask, What does the ``homeland'' stand for and what are we trying to make secure? I absolutely salute our military, law enforcement, and intelligence agencies that are working against terrorism, but I have senior citizens living in terror of whether they can afford their prescription drugs. I believe not only in universal freedom, I believe in universal public education, and universal health care for seniors. If we want Americans to live free from fear, we need to take the fear away of losing their savings and not keeping up with the cost of prescription drugs. Today is a downpayment. We must do more. I intend to vote for this bill today and return to find other alternatives later. I yield the floor.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, in the last 2 weeks the Senate has taken up two of the most important issues facing the American people. First, we took on the issue of corporate governance. We passed a tough, new regulatory framework to deal with the cronyism and corruption in America's private sector. Now we are moving on to deal with prescription drugs for seniors. I have talked to many seniors in my State. They are really worried. They are worried about corporate scandals and they are worried about the impact these scandals are having on the market. They are watching the Dow Jones go down along with their life savings. While they see their life savings evaporating, they also see the cost of their prescription drugs going up. These two issues are linked. The crisis in corporate governance and the crisis in our markets, and also the whole issue of making affordable prescription drugs available to seniors, are linked together. Seniors now are talking about their own lives and times and families. The two things they do not want to worry about at this point in their lives are outliving their savings and the rising cost of prescription drugs. With the evaporation of their savings and the escalation of the cost of prescription drugs, they are really scared. We have faced many fears in the United States of America this year. We salute our military and others who are working on homeland defense. But we really need to provide another defense, a defense against the fear of outliving your savings and not being able to afford the prescription drugs you need. In my State, my constituents are fairly conservative investors. They put money in CDs. I don't mean the kind that are rock and roll recordings, I mean certificates of deposit. Or they put money into conservative mutual funds. We had many of those family funds run right in Maryland. What did they see? They saw as Greenspan lowered interest rates, it meant a lower return on their conservative investments. Again, what is happening in the stock market, they see the downside of the Dow Jones and no one is trusting the numbers and no one is trusting the CEOs. Because of what was happening to the cost of prescription drugs, many families got help from their adult children. But their own adult children are worried about the loss of jobs and the loss of economic security as well. What we see in the private sector is that it is being squeezed in terms of the benefits it had hoped to provide. In my own State, what we see is that American manufacturing, such as the American automobile industry, is competing against Japanese companies that do not have to pay for prescription drug benefits because they have a national health care system. Steel in my State is in bankruptcy because of predatory foreign competition. It is struggling to keep its promises to workers and retirees, providing pensions and health care. I even see it as someone who appropriates funds for the veterans health care system. More and more veterans who do not have service- connected disabilities are turning to VA because of the prescription drug benefit. The collapse of the system in which they were able to afford that benefit is having them turn to other systems. We need a prescription drug benefit, and we need it now. Considering the possibility of passing a prescription drug benefit, it has to be a meaningful benefit, not just slogans and sound bites. Seniors need a benefit they can count on, and it needs to follow these criteria. First, any benefit we pass has to be voluntary. It must be run by Medicare, not by insurance companies that simply gatekeep, that privatize profits and socialize risks. The second thing is the benefit must be the same for all seniors, no matter where they live. No benefit should vary from State to State. Then, who should decide what medications a senior gets? The decision should be made by the doctor, not an insurance gatekeeper. Of course, it needs to be affordable to seniors and also to the taxpayer. I believe the Democratic plan, the Graham-Miller plan, which I support, meets these criteria. It answers the questions that seniors ask me as I am out and about talking to them. Who runs it? Our plan is run by Medicare. Is it available anywhere I live? Our plan says yes. Who decides what medicines I get? Your doctor. Is it affordable? You bet. There is no deductible; premiums are $25; copays are defined, specific, and reasonable; catastrophic drug costs are covered if you have to spend more than $4,000 on prescription drugs. This is what our plan is. It is voluntary. It is available anywhere. It is going to be run by Medicare, not by insurance companies. The other plans fail those criteria and therefore I believe fail seniors. The Republican and tripartisan plans do not provide a benefit under Medicare. They turn it over to the insurance companies. Remember them? They are the same people who brought us Medicare+Choice, and they pulled out, leaving seniors without coverage throughout my State. People had signed up believing it was going to be a benefit, but after they squeezed their profits, they dumped the seniors. We cannot have the same experience in this bill. Another problem is the benefit will not be the same for all seniors. It will vary according to different plans and different States. If in fact it is going to be a Federal program, it should be uniform and available in every State. Who decides the prescription drugs? Once again, insurance companies will be the gatekeepers, not doctors, and their decisions will be based on profits, not patient care. These plans will not be affordable for seniors. They are going to have a high deductible, copayments that fluctuate, and also an enormous, huge gap in coverage. The tripartisan plan--on which I know there was serious effort--leaves people without a drug coverage between the costs of $3,400 to $5,000 a year. For $1,500, you are on your own. These plans raise more questions than they answer. How would a senior know what he or she is getting? How would they know what is covered? Who will make sure that insurance companies stick by the plans they offer? And how do seniors pay for their medicine in the gap months? America's seniors need their questions answered. They deserve more than that. They deserve--and they need--a real benefit under Medicare. I know the Presiding Officer could tell me stories he hears in his own State of Rhode Island. I hear them wherever I go in my home State. I hear them from seniors, and I hear them from their families. When you listen to the families, you hear heart-wrenching stories. With the collapse of manufacturing in my State, it is even worse. The fact is that the farmers in my State are facing drought and will have to turn to Federal assistance. The fact is that watermen, who are out there on the Chesapeake Bay during this heat trying to forage for crabs, are foraging for their health care. We have to help meet those needs. I held a hearing earlier this year on the healthcare benefits of steelworker retirees where I heard from retired steelworkers and their widows. If steel goes under, these people will lose their prescription drug coverage. I was particularly touched by a story from a steel-widow--Gertrude Misterka. She has diabetes, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, asthma, and periodic chest pains. She asked her pharmacist how much her medications would cost her without her retiree coverage. He told her--about $5,800. Gertrude may lose her health care from Beth Steel. Under the Republican and the Tripartisan plan, assuming she could get coverage from a Maryland insurer, she'd pay a $250 deductible and up to $33 in monthly premiums. That is $646 a year, before buying a single pill, and, she could still have no coverage for total drug costs between $3,450 and $5,300. How does that help her? She needs a benefit that she can count on. Beth Steel and other American manufacturing companies need the Federal Government to offer a Medicare benefit so their workers are taken care of. By passing a Medicare prescription drug benefit Congress will deliver real security to America's senior. Retirement security means more than pension security. Seniors need healthcare security to be at ease in their retirements. Congress created Medicare as a promise to our seniors. It guaranteed meaningful healthcare coverage. Medicare kept seniors healthy and relieved their fears of being bankrupt by huge hospital bills. But Medicare didn't keep up with medical advances. To be a meaningful safety net, Medicare must include a prescription drug benefit. To be a meaningful benefit, Congress can't leave it up to insurance companies. Promises made to our seniors must be promises kept. I really hope we will pass a senior prescription drug benefit that is meaningful, affordable, available nationwide, and that we do it now. Truly honor your father and mother. It is a great Commandment to live by, and it is a great Commandment to govern by. I yield the floor.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I am proud to rise in support of final passage of the Nurse Reinvestment Act. This bill addresses the critical nursing shortage in our country by getting behind the nurses who take care of us every day. It provides incentives to encourage people to enter the nursing profession and make it a career. This legislation is based on the Nurse Reinvestment Act, S. 1864, that I sponsored with Senators Tim Hutchinson, John Kerry, and Jim Jeffords. Since the Senate passed the Nurse Reinvestment Act in December of last year, there is new information showing that the nursing shortage has become even more severe. In Maryland, almost 16 percent of nursing jobs are unfilled, up from 3.3 percent in 1997. There are over 2,000 registered nurse vacancies in Maryland hospitals. Since the average age of a Maryland nurse is 47 years, we face the possibility that the shortage will soon get worse if young nurses do not enter and stay in the profession. The nursing shortage is not unique to Maryland. It is nationwide. In 2001, the average American hospital vacancy rate was 13 percent for registered nurses. The average age of an American nurse is 44 years, with many retiring in their fifties or working part time due to the physical demands of the job. At the same time, the labor force is shrinking and baby boomers will soon retire and place additional demands on our health care system. The nursing shortage can have grave consequences on patient care. A recent study published in the New England Journal of Medicine found that nursing shortages in hospitals are associated with a higher risk of complications and even death. It is our duty to take steps to make sure our health care system is staffed with enough qualified nurses. Nurses care for Americans from the cradle to the grave. We depend on them to care for our parents, our children, our siblings and sometimes ourselves. We turn to them in hospitals, nursing homes, community health centers, hospices, and for home health. These organizations truly could not exist without nurses. This bill is a significant step in addressing the nursing shortage. It helps men and women obtain the education they need to become nurses, provides training and career ladder programs to help nurses advance in the profession, and helps ensure that there are enough nursing faculty to teach more nursing students. Highlights of this bill include: National Nurse Service Corps To Serve in Areas With Critical Nurse Shortages: The bill creates a scholarship program, which provides scholarships for nursing education in exchange for at least two years of full time service, or the equivalent amount of part time service, in a facility with a critical shortage of nurses; and The bill extends the Loan Repayment Program for nurses: nurses have their nursing education loans paid back in exchange serving as a nurse for at least two years in a facility with a critical shortage of nurses. Public Service Announcements To Recruit Nurses and Promote Nursing: The legislation creates State and national public service announcements to promote nursing, encourage people to enter the nursing profession, and inform the public of financial assistance for nursing education programs. Building Career Ladders and Retaining Quality Nurses: The bill provides grants to improve nurse education, practice, and retention including: Career ladder programs with schools of nursing and health care facilities to encourage individuals to pursue additional education and training to enter and advance within the nursing profession, including certified nurse assistants, CNAs; Internship and residency programs that encourage mentoring and the development of specialties; Retention programs that enhance collaboration among nurses and other health care professionals and promote nurse involvement in organizational and clinical decisionmaking. Geriatric Education To Train Individuals To Care for the Elderly: The bill creates a program to award grants to train and educate individuals in providing geriatric care to the elderly. Financial Help to Recruit Faculty To Teach in Nursing Schools: The legislation provides loans for graduate-level education in nursing--cancels up to 85 percent of the loan and interest, in exchange for teaching at a school of nursing, to help ensure that we have enough faculty at our nursing schools. This bill is about nursing education, but it is also about empowerment. We can empower people to improve their lives and go into a career that saves lives. The bill will empower the single mom stuck in a dead end retail job to get a nursing degree at the local community college to forge a better life for herself and her family. She can receive a scholarship that enables her to work around the needs of her family by going to nursing school either full or part-time. She would also have the opportunity to receive additional training or assistance in getting her bachelor's degree in nursing. A mentoring program could help her advance in her profession and help keep her in the profession. She could even get a master's degree and teach nursing at her local community college, while most of her loans for her advanced degree are cancelled. This bill also addresses the health care needs of a growing population in our country: the elderly. This bill provides training for individuals involved in caring for the elderly by funding schools of nursing, health care facilities, programs leading to CNA certification, and partnerships of these to provide education and training in geriatric care for the elderly. Our population is aging--more than 70 million Americans will be over age 65 by 2030. Their care will be improved by nurses and other health care professionals who are specifically trained to care for the unique health needs of older Americans. As a senior member of the Appropriations Committee, I will fight for funding for the Nurse Reinvestment Act. We are putting these important programs on our law books to address the nursing shortage. We must put these same priorities in our federal checkbook. This bill gets behind our Nation's nurses. It will improve patient care by bringing more nurses to communities across the country. I thank my colleagues for their support of this important legislation. I also want to acknowledge and thank Senators Kennedy, Gregg, Hutchinson, Kerry, Jeffords, Frist, and Clinton for their hard work in moving this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the accompanying statement of managers be printed in the Record.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, today I pay tribute to the 50th anniversary of the Estonian American National Council. On July 19, 1952, Estonian Americans founded this Council to preserve the Estonian cultural heritage. For 50 years, it has provided an independent voice for the Estonian people in their successful campaign for human rights and democracy in their homeland. The Estonian American National Council combined the strong spirits of America and Estonia in its fight for Estonian independence. Forcibly annexed and occupied by the Soviet Union in 1940, Estonians could not speak freely for themselves in their own homeland. But as the leader of the free world, the United States never recognized the Soviet Union's oppressive regimes in Estonia or its Baltic neighbors, Latvia, and Lithuania. So with the start of the cold war, Americans of Estonian descent established their own organization. Half a century later, I visited Estonia. I was so happy to see the tremendous strides the country was making toward developing its democratic and market-based systems. Estonia is proving its abilities through high-tech initiatives in everything from cellular phones to paperless government. I also appreciate the Baltic States' renewed senses of culture while respecting the rights of Russian-speaking minorities. As a founding member of the Senate Baltic Freedom Caucus, I applaud the work of the Estonian American National Council, a critical member of the Joint Baltic American National Committee. Together, America, Estonia and the other Baltic States are doing all they can in the war against terrorism. With America's support, Estonia, Lithuania, and Latvia are already contributing to our mutual security by developing modern armed forces, air surveillance systems, and participating in peacekeeping activities. I believe Estonia and its Baltic partners will make a wonderful contribution to NATO. Since Estonia achieved independence in 1991, the Estonian American National Council has been instrumental in bringing America and Estonia together to make both countries more secure. The council has funded scholarships, schools, cultural activities, youth programs and exchange missions that have enhanced the ties that it began to build between America and Estonia many years ago. I am proud of the partnerships Maryland had built with Estonia through our National Guard and their Armed Forces, and the trade between our great cities and ports. Everywhere I look, America's interest in strengthening its ties with Estonia and the other Baltic States is growing. I congratulate the council on its 50th anniversary, and I send my best wishes to the Estonia American community in Maryland and nationwide. You can count on me to continue to help promote a closer and more comprehensive relationship between the United States and Estonia. I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating the Estonian American National Council on its contributions to America and Estonia for the last 50 years.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. The legislative language permits the members of the LLC to ``contribute funds to the corporation, accept contribution of funds for the corporation, and provide materials, services, and use of facilities for research, technology, and infrastructure of the corporation,'' if doing so will improve the efficiency of the performance of research, test, and evaluation functions of the Department of Defense.

Ms. MIKULSKI. How will the membership from the private and academic sectors be determined?

Ms. MIKULSKI. I thank the chairman for his support on this important issue.

Ms. MIKULSKI. The language stipulates that not more than one partnership may be established as a limited liability corporation, or LLC. Has that site been designated?

Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, I am pleased to join the chairman of the Armed Services Committee in a colloquy regarding the extending authorization of pilot programs for revitalizing Department of Defense laboratories. I seek to clarify the congressional intent of Section 241 of the bill before the Senate.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, today I pay tribute to Thomas E. Bratten, Jr., the National Disabled American Veterans, DAV, Veteran of the Year. Captain Bratten has distinguished himself as a champion for veterans and the disabled throughout his career as a public servant and in his volunteer contributions to the community. Captain Bratten's dedication continues today through his service as the Secretary of Maryland's Department of Veterans Affairs. As an Army artillery liaison officer in the Americal Division, the famous 1st Battalion 6th Infantry, Secretary Bratten served under Colonel Norman Schwarzkopf. They were serving together on May 28, 1970, when Secretary Bratten lost both his left arm and leg when a land mine exploded while they attempted to aid wounded soldiers. But that didn't prevent Secretary Bratten from continuing to serve his country. Secretary Bratten has improved his nation and community through an impressive number of volunteer appointments. He served on the Garrett County Council on Alcohol and Drug Abuse, the Governor's Commission for Employment of the Handicapped, the Governor's Commission to Study the Needs of the Handicapped, the Maryland World War II Memorial Commission, the Maryland Military Monument Commission, and the Maryland Veterans Memorial Commission. As one of Maryland's most highly decorated veterans, Secretary Bratten boasts life membership in nine congressionally chartered veterans organizations, including the Military Order of Foreign Wars, the Americal Veterans Association and the distinguished Military Order of the Purple Heart. He has served as the Director of the Maryland Veterans Commission, is a member of the National Association of State Directors of Veterans Affairs, and has sat on countless other committees dedicated to improving the lives of America's veterans. I am so proud of Tom. His record of service in America's military and in Maryland civic life as an advocate for veterans and the disabled are unique and unparalleled. He is the best example of what Marylanders can accomplish when they dedicate themselves to their communities, state, and country, no matter what the circumstances. He has served America with honor. I congratulate Tom as he continues to bear the mantle of leadership and service as the DAV's veteran of the year.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to urge my colleagues to continue to work for full funding of the Food and Drug Administration, FDA, consolidation and improvement at White Oak, MD in fiscal year 2003. I strongly believe that ensuring the safety of America's food and drug supply is a matter of national security. Yesterday, Senator Hatch and I offered then withdrew an amendment that we hoped would have provided the funding needed for this project which is vital to ensure the safety of America's food and drug supply. We are told that the our amendment would have increased the cost of the homeland security supplemental appropriations bill. However, we have been assured that Senators Dorgan and Campbell, the chair and ranking members of the Treasury General Government Appropriations Subcommittee, are committed to looking at trying to help to continue to find a way to fund the FDA consolidation at White Oak as a part of the fiscal year 2003 appropriations process. Why is completing this project vital? FDA's mission is to review and regulate more than $1 trillion worth of products, many of which are vital to human health. FDA cannot fulfill its mission because FDA has to work in obsolete facilities that are not equipped to handle today's advanced laboratory and administrative functions. Currently, over 6,000 FDA employees are scattered among 40 different buildings at 20 different locations in the Greater Washington, D.C. area. These facilities are being consolidated into one integrated facility at the former U.S. Naval Surface Weapons Center. Not only will the consolidation greatly improve FDA's operating efficiencies, but timely construction of the new facilities also will save approximately $32 million per year in commercial lease costs. We need consolidate FDA on one campus, just like the NIH and the CDC, in order for the FDA to take its place alongside these institutions as a world class health and food research and safety facility. What is FDA's role in national security? The recent anthrax attacks on U.S. citizens have heightened FDA's critical role in ensuring the safety of our food and drug supplies. Indeed, the FDA is on the front lines of this effort and must have proper, modern facilities to enable them to best perform their mission. The consolidation will provide state-of-the-art laboratories and facilities for that mission. What is the status of the project? Congress has already appropriated $146 million for the first phases of this vital project, fiscal year 2000, $35 million; fiscal year 2001, $92.1 million; fiscal year 2002, $19.06 million. Construction has started on phase I, the laboratory for FDA's Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. However, approximately $450 million is still needed to complete this vital project. Why is full funding important? This project has already been delayed due to funding cutbacks. If the General Services Administration's fiscal year 2003 construction request for FDA consolidations is not fully funded, completion of the consolidation will be delayed even further. These delays will add considerably to the overall cost of the project due to inflation and other factors. For example, scheduled to be constructed in phase III is the Center for Devices and Radiological Health, CDRH. The CDRH laboratories are badly in need of improvements, but FDA has been holding off such work in anticipation of building new laboratories as part of the consolidation. Further delay, we are advised, would likely necessitate FDA's spending several million dollars renovating the existing CDRH laboratories. These would be non- recoverable costs. What is the next step? We hope that your colleagues will agree that, from the perspectives of public safety and fiscal responsibility, we can not afford to delay the timely completion of this project. We hope that our colleagues will support full funding for FDA consolidation in fiscal year 2003. I look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues, Senators Hatch, Dorgan, and Campbell toward completing this project which will provide better security of two of the most essential daily needs of all Americans, our food and drugs.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. I appreciate the support of the Senator from Hawaii and look forward to working together with him in conference to fund the accelerated chemical demilitarization effort.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Mammography Quality Standards Reauthorization Act of 2002. This important bipartisan bill will continue a valuable program that helps save women's lives. I am proud that my good friend, Senator Snowe, and other colleagues have joined on a bipartisan basis to introduce this legislation. Mammography is not perfect, but it is the best screening tool we have now. Mammograms must be as safe and accurate as possible. A mammogram is worse than useless if it produces a poor-quality image or is misinterpreted. That's why I have fought over the last 10 years to make them even better. The Mammography Quality Standards Act, MQSA, that I authored has improved the quality of mammograms in this country over the last 10 years. MQSA has brought facilities nationwide into compliance with Federal quality standards. Before MQSA, tests were misread, women were misdiagnosed, and people died as a result of sloppy work. This year Congress must reauthorize the Mammography Quality Standards Act, because women must continue to have safe, quality mammograms. Until there are more effective screening tools, mammography is still the front line against breast cancer. Ten years ago before the Mammography Quality Standards Act, MQSA, first became law, there was an uneven patchwork of standards for mammography in this country. Image quality of mammograms varied widely. The first rule of all medical treatment is: Above all things, do no harm. And a bad mammogram can do real harm by leading a woman and her doctor to believe that nothing is wrong when something is. The result can be unnecessary suffering or even a death that could have been prevented. That is why this legislation is so important. What MQSA does is require that all facilities that provide mammograms meet key safety and quality-assurance standards in the area of personnel, equipment, and operating procedures. Before the law passed, tests were misread, women were misdiagnosed, and people died as a result of sloppy work. Since 1992, MQSA has been successful in raising the quality of mammography services that women receive. What are these national, uniform quality standards for mammography? Well, facilities are required to use equipment designed specifically for mammography. Only radiological technologists can perform mammography. Only qualified doctors can interpret the results of mammography. Facilities must establish a quality assurance and control program to ensure reliability, clarity and accurate interpretation of mammograms. Facilities must be inspected annually by qualified inspectors. Finally, facilities must be accredited by an accrediting body approved by the Secretary of Health and Human Services. MQSA also ensures that women receive direct written notification of their mammogram results. Women will not assume that ``no news is good news'' when this is not always the case. They know what their results are, so that they can get any follow up care they need. The bill that I am introducing today extends the successful MQSA program for another five years. It also allows the Secretary of Health and Human Services to issue a temporary certificate to a mammography facility if certain conditions have prevented the facility from completing the reaccreditation process before its certificate expires. What does this mean? If a facility acquires new mammography equipment and this prevents the facility from meeting reaccreditation time frames, the facility could get a temporary certificate that would allow it to continue to perform mammograms for up to 45 days. The temporary certificate can only be issued if the facility's accreditation body has issued a 45-day accreditation extension. This will provide protection in the law, so that in certain circumstances a mammography facility will not have to close its doors when its certificate expires before it is reaccredited. This bill also brings to bear the expertise of the Institute of Medicine and the General Accounting Office to further improve MQSA and provide Congress with expert recommendations to consider during the next reauthorization of MQSA. I look forward to working with my colleagues to reauthorize this important program this year. Last year, an estimated 192,200 women were diagnosed with breast cancer in this country and about 39,600 women died from breast cancer. Early detection and treatment are essential to reducing breast cancer deaths. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this important bill, and I look forward to its enactment this year.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Mammography Quality Standards Reauthorization Act of 2002. This important bipartisan bill will continue a valuable program that helps save women's lives. I am proud that my good friend, Senator Snowe, and other colleagues have joined on a bipartisan basis to introduce this legislation. Mammography is not perfect, but it is the best screening tool we have now. Mammograms must be as safe and accurate as possible. A mammogram is worse than useless if it produces a poor-quality image or is misinterpreted. That's why I have fought over the last 10 years to make them even better. The Mammography Quality Standards Act, MQSA, that I authored has improved the quality of mammograms in this country over the last 10 years. MQSA has brought facilities nationwide into compliance with Federal quality standards. Before MQSA, tests were misread, women were misdiagnosed, and people died as a result of sloppy work. This year Congress must reauthorize the Mammography Quality Standards Act, because women must continue to have safe, quality mammograms. Until there are more effective screening tools, mammography is still the front line against breast cancer. Ten years ago before the Mammography Quality Standards Act, MQSA, first became law, there was an uneven patchwork of standards for mammography in this country. Image quality of mammograms varied widely. The first rule of all medical treatment is: Above all things, do no harm. And a bad mammogram can do real harm by leading a woman and her doctor to believe that nothing is wrong when something is. The result can be unnecessary suffering or even a death that could have been prevented. That is why this legislation is so important. What MQSA does is require that all facilities that provide mammograms meet key safety and quality-assurance standards in the area of personnel, equipment, and operating procedures. Before the law passed, tests were misread, women were misdiagnosed, and people died as a result of sloppy work. Since 1992, MQSA has been successful in raising the quality of mammography services that women receive. What are these national, uniform quality standards for mammography? Well, facilities are required to use equipment designed specifically for mammography. Only radiological technologists can perform mammography. Only qualified doctors can interpret the results of mammography. Facilities must establish a quality assurance and control program to ensure reliability, clarity and accurate interpretation of mammograms. Facilities must be inspected annually by qualified inspectors. Finally, facilities must be accredited by an accrediting body approved by the Secretary of Health and Human Services. MQSA also ensures that women receive direct written notification of their mammogram results. Women will not assume that ``no news is good news'' when this is not always the case. They know what their results are, so that they can get any follow up care they need. The bill that I am introducing today extends the successful MQSA program for another five years. It also allows the Secretary of Health and Human Services to issue a temporary certificate to a mammography facility if certain conditions have prevented the facility from completing the reaccreditation process before its certificate expires. What does this mean? If a facility acquires new mammography equipment and this prevents the facility from meeting reaccreditation time frames, the facility could get a temporary certificate that would allow it to continue to perform mammograms for up to 45 days. The temporary certificate can only be issued if the facility's accreditation body has issued a 45-day accreditation extension. This will provide protection in the law, so that in certain circumstances a mammography facility will not have to close its doors when its certificate expires before it is reaccredited. This bill also brings to bear the expertise of the Institute of Medicine and the General Accounting Office to further improve MQSA and provide Congress with expert recommendations to consider during the next reauthorization of MQSA. I look forward to working with my colleagues to reauthorize this important program this year. Last year, an estimated 192,200 women were diagnosed with breast cancer in this country and about 39,600 women died from breast cancer. Early detection and treatment are essential to reducing breast cancer deaths. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this important bill, and I look forward to its enactment this year.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the trade bill. I oppose this trade bill because it seeks trade that is more free than fair. It sends a very mixed message to America's working men and women and their families. The good news is that the bill includes a real expansion of trade adjustment assistance benefits for Americans who lose their jobs as a result of trade agreements. The House trade bill doesn't provide these trade adjustment assistance benefits. I am proud to be a cosponsor of the TAA bill and I commend Senators Bingaman and Daschle for their leadership to help workers harmed by trade. The Trade Adjustment Assistance for Workers, Farmers, Communities, and Firms Act strengthens the existing TAA program. It broadens eligibility to cover workers who lose their jobs due to increased imports, even if they don't directly work for a company that closes down due to trade. It extends benefits to laid-off workers from 52 weeks to 78 weeks and increases job training funds. This bill also helps communities adjust, because when a factory shuts down, it isn't just the workers at the plant who are affected. Healthcare is a critical addition to the TAA program. People who lose their jobs can't afford healthcare on their own. This bill will help laid-off workers buy healthcare coverage by covering 70 percent of the cost. I would have been happier with the 75 percent level in the Committee-passed bill, but this is a very important step. Wage insurance for older workers is another key addition to the TAA program. Experienced workers, even with training in new skills, often cannot get another job that pays them anything close to what they were earning. This bill will supplement wages to help these workers get a new start in a new job. That is the good news. The bad news is that the bill includes a renewal of Fast Track negotiating authority. That means more Americans will lose their jobs in the name of free trade. More people will get TAA benefits, but more people will need them. Let me be very clear on one point. I support trade. I encourage trade. Trade is very important to my state. Maryland workers can compete successfully in a global marketplace, if they're given a level playing field. That's why I support expansion of fair trade. I oppose fast-track trade promotion authority now for the same reasons I opposed fast track when a Democrat was in the White House. I don't believe Congress should give away our right and responsibility to fully consider trade agreements. The Bush administration has the authority to negotiate trade agreements. U.S. Trade Representative Bob Zoellick doesn't need fast track. He went to Doha to start another round of multilateral trade talks without fast track. He can negotiate a free trade agreement of the Americas without fast track. Hundreds of trade agreements have been reached and implemented without fast track. What the Bush administration wants is to cut trade deals and limit the power of Congress to review those deals. That is what fast track really means. Why is the role of Congress so important? To make sure the American people get a good deal. I am ready to support trade agreements that are good for America, agreements that are good for workers and good for the environment. Congress should consider trade legislation--and amendments--to it using the same procedures we use to consider other international agreements and implementing legislation. Proponents of trade agreements say it is inevitable that there will be winnners and losers. The problem is America's workers and their families always seem to be the losers. They lose their jobs. They lose their healthcare. If they keep their jobs or find new jobs, they lose the wage rates they have earned. American workers aren't the only losers. American consumers also lose. I am particularly concerned that we don't regulate and inspect the safety of imported food the way USDA regulates and inspects domestic food products. Our trading partners set their own meat inspection standards. Shouldn't we use our trade policy as leverage to make our food safer? Workers and children around the world also lose. We should use the leverage of our trade agreements to ensure fair competition. That means workers in other countries should have the right to organize into unions. Without the strength of collective bargaining, their wages will always be below ours. They should also have worker safety protection and retirement and healthcare benefits. Children should be in school, learning the skills to be good citizens and participants in the global economy. Instead, children as young as six years old put in full days of work. More than 350 million children under the age of 18 work, according to the International Labor Organization. More alarming is the fact that over 111 million of them are children between the ages of 5 and 14 engaged in ``hazardous work.'' And 5.7 million children are in forced and bonded labor. How can we enter into trade agreements with countries that do nothing to protect their children? Is it fair for a 45-year-old on Maryland's Eastern Shore to compete with a 12-year-old in Southern China? Protecting against child labor and forced labor should be the core of any trade agreement. I am proud to have cosponsored and supported amendments on labor rights, child labor, environmental protection, and other issues which I firmly believe must be addressed in agreements to strengthen fair trade. I am particularly proud to have joined with colleagues on both sides of the aisle in an effort to provide a safety net for steel retirees who lose their healthcare coverage due to unfair trade. A clear majority in the Senate supported that amendment. We were blocked procedurally by Senators who support trade and are unwilling to address its human consequences. I have said before that I don't want to put American jobs on a Fast Track to Mexico or a slow boat to China but that is exactly what is happening as a result of NAFTA and China's admission to the World Trade Organization. Black and Decker closed down a manufacturing plant on Maryland's Eastern Shore because they could get cheaper labor abroad. They literally moved those jobs to Mexico and China. I am glad the expanded trade adjustment assistance will help these workers but they shouldn't have lost their jobs in the first place. I intend to stand up for American workers and consumers. I intend to stand up for the right and responsibility of Congress to fully consider trade agreements. I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing the trade bill.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I rise to urge my colleagues to support the Rockefeller-Mikulski-Wellstone amendment and to vote for cloture to provide a safety net for American steelworkers. These steelworkers and retirees have been battered by decades of unfair illegal trade practices. I thank Senator Rockefeller and his staff for the excellent leadership they have provided in crafting this amendment. This amendment is simple, straightforward, and affordable. Our amendment would simply provide a 1-year temporary extension of health care benefits to steel retirees who have lost their health insurance because of documented, trade-related bankruptcy of their company and documented predatory practices that caused their companies to go into bankruptcy. Our amendment seeks to help those steelworkers who suffered the most from these predatory trade practices. We use the term ``unfair'' to the point where nobody pays any attention to it anymore. I want to make clear what happened to them. These practices were predatory. They were predatory practices against American steel in which there were foreign countries engaged in practices of dumping their steel below the cost of production in the American markets. When Asia had its economic crisis, they dumped. When Russia was trying to get out of its economic crisis, they dumped. Often this dumping was strategic, subsidized, and predatory. Who were the casualties of this trade? We did not even declare it a trade war. We just wimped, whined, and surrendered while all this foreign steel came in. Mr. President, I am so proud of our country. We keep winning Nobel Prizes, but we keep losing markets, and one of the markets we have lost is steel. Our amendment seeks to help those who have been injured because of these predatory and internationally illegal actions against us. Whom are we trying to protect? Simply the retirees, many who were laid off or forced to take early retirement because their companies are now bankrupt and their health care is now at risk. American steelworkers and their retirees worked hard, played by the rules, served their country in war, served the armed services building our ships and our tanks, and in peace they made steel for our buildings, our bridges, and our cars. Steel built the United States of America. Steel helped save the United States of America. Should we not honor this by providing a safety net for the retired steelworkers who are victims of international predatory practices? For nearly 50 years, our Government has watched the steel industry wither. It accelerated particularly in the 1970s and then in the 1990s, not because steel was unproductive, not because steel was overpriced, but because of these documented predatory practices: Dumping cheap, subsidized foreign steel into our markets. Our opponents say we should not put this amendment on the trade bill; and look for something else; do not tie up trade. I disagree. Illegal trade created the problem, so let's solve it in the trade bill. Unfair competition brought American steel to its knees. These foreign steel companies are subsidized by their government. They dumped excess steel into our markets. Let me just give an example about our new friends, the Russians. I thank the Russians for cooperating with President Bush in the war against terrorism, but while we are dealing with one predator, they should look at themselves. Russia keeps open 1,000 unprofitable steel plants through their subsidies. That is not 1,000 steelworkers. That is 1,000 steel factories are kept open by their subsidies. What do they do with what they produce? Dump, dump, dump. I think we ought to dump the unfair trade practices. We have to remember whose steel is in our country and the fact that we need to be steel independent. Maybe we can call one of those Russians the next time our Navy needs steel. The Presiding Officer might be interested to know that Bethlehem Steel in my own hometown of Baltimore produced the steel to repair the U.S.S. Cole. If we needed steel to repair the U.S.S. Cole, I am sure the Russians would get right on it and we would pay any price for it, but I really do not want to have to turn to foreign steel to build the weapons to protect America as we reinvigorate our military. Somehow or another this is not right, it is not logical, it is not strategic, and I think we are going to really rue the day we let steel go down. For some people in this body that is okay. There are those outside who say we do not need American steel, and they do not even worry about the American steelworker. Opponents of our amendment say it is unfair to target a specific group of Americans for assistance. Well, our steelworkers have been targeted, but it is by decades of these illegal trading practices. This problem has been ignored by Presidents of both parties. However, I thank President Bush for taking the first step to impose temporary limited tariffs on imported steel to give us a breather. Now we need President Bush to take the next step to support us as we try to work our way out of something called legacy costs, the costs of pensions and health care. We wanted a temporary 1-year bridge to do this in the same way that the tariffs are temporary. We are not looking for handouts, give-backs, giveaways. We are looking for the opportunity to work our way out of it, and I think we could do it in a bipartisan way. I am really disappointed the President is working directly against me. He had to call in some Republicans to try to convince them to vote otherwise. This should not be about those kinds of battles because I think the President took the first step. I think he is getting bad advice, and I am sorry he is opposing us on this amendment. Hopefully, we can change his mind on the long-range issues. But if President Bush had joined us in the fight, as I say, I would be the first to applaud him. Opponents of our amendment say a specific industry should not be singled out. Well, we do that in this Congress. We single out specific industries and then talk about their value to America. I agree with that. Our Government singles out specific industries all the time when it is in our national interest. We single out industries when it is in our national interest because we need them as part of our economy or as part of our national production. That way, we can talk about the fact that when we help farmers or airlines. The national interest means national responsibility. I absolutely agree with that. I have been in the Senate when I have heard my colleagues speak eloquently about the need to save the family farm. Why do we talk about saving the family farm? Because it is important to food production in the United States of America and it is part of our core values. It is part of our heartland. Absolutely, we should look out for saving the family farms. At the same time, how about the steelworker families? We need to be steel independent. We need to find ways to help the steel industry to consolidate, and that means temporary tariffs in dealing with the health care benefits. Farmers are important. So are steelworkers. Now let's talk about the airlines. Airlines, again, turned to us at a time of national crisis. Gosh knows, they took a terrible hit, and indeed it was a situation where we were concerned that our airline industry would go bankrupt because of the terrorist attacks on the United States of America: We need to look out for our economy. We need to look out for the airlines, the people who work for them, and the people who depend on them. I supported that. What about steel? Are they not in the same category? Are they not part of our national economy? Are they not part of the fact we have to be independent? Were they not, too, hit by predatory practices? I do not mean to say that the two are parallel, but there has been direct documented injury. In a few minutes, the Senate will vote on cloture. I am so sorry the Senate has come to this. Opponents of this amendment are afraid to bring it for a vote. Two weeks ago, everybody said we did not have a chance; we did not have a vote; who cared? Well, America cares; my colleagues care; and I really want to thank my colleagues who listened to Senator Rockefeller, Senator Wellstone, and myself as we have talked on the floor, as we have talked in the halls, as we have talked in our offices. I thank my bipartisan colleagues such as Senator Specter, Senator Voinovich, and Senator DeWine. We thank our colleagues for listening to our arguments. We wanted to have a discussion, a debate, and do it the Senate way and let's see where the votes came out. But instead of doing it in what I consider the majority way, we are going to hide behind a complicated procedure called cloture. For those watching on C-SPAN, cloture means debate is shut off, which essentially means the amendment is shut off, the amendment is ended. In a regular vote, we only need a majority. I think we are going to have that majority because I think the majority of the Senate acknowledges the rationale of our argument both in terms of trade and human cost. Instead, we are going to hide behind a parliamentary procedure that creates an obstacle of 60 votes in order to overcome it. I am disappointed in that, and I am disappointed there is no one present to argue with us. Are there no real arguments against us? Are there no real bona fide arguments? I came today with something called a battle book. I was all set to debate, refute, and argue about what is in the best interest of our national economy, in both the short-range interest of our steelworkers and their health care and the long-range needs of America. But hello, empty Chamber. Where are my colleagues? Is there no one to dispute us? If no one is present to dispute us, then give us a straight up-or-down vote. Maybe we are too far down the line for that, but the fact is we are going to have our vote, and we very likely might win it. We have been working very hard, and so have those who support steel, the American labor movement, the steel unions, the families and districts such as in Pennsylvania, Minnesota, Indiana, Utah, and Ohio. We will take our vote, though. I want to think about for whom I am here. One hundred and twenty-five thousand steel retirees have already lost their health care. They worked for many years in our Nation's steel mills. Veterans and widows of veterans, senior citizens who live on as little as $10,000 a year. Americans who thought that promises made should be promises kept. These are Americans who did not run off to Bermuda to avoid paying taxes. When their country needed them, they were there. The American steelworkers have one of the greatest histories of generosity, of give and take, the American way, than any other corporate organizational entity. The American labor movement had the highest rate of compliance, particularly during the Vietnam war, in service to their country. They did not run away. They fought. When they came back, they did not get a parade. Now they ought to at least get their health care. When their country needed them, they were there, working hard every day, serving their country and their community, believing they would have a secure retirement and health care. This issue is here to stay. This is a very real issue. It will not go away. There is a need for the steelworkers who have diabetes; the diabetes will not go away. The high blood pressure will not go away. The prostate cancer will not go away. All that will happen is steelworkers will go to emergency rooms, a place already overburdened, placing the responsibility on the emergency rooms. I ask my colleagues to stand up for working Americans who are on the verge of losing everything they worked for. I urge Members to vote for cloture for the Rockefeller-Mikulski- Wellstone amendment. Stand up for steel, America, the way the workers stood up for America over the last several generations. I yield the floor.