Barbara Mikulski

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Clinical Social Work Medicare Equity Act of 2001. I am proud to sponsor this legislation that will ensure that clinical social workers can receive Medicare reimbursement for the mental health services they provide in skilled nursing facilities. This bill will give clinical social workers parity with other mental health providers who are exempted from the Medicare Part B Prospective Payment System. Since my first days in Congress, I have been fighting to protect and strengthen the safety net 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 are not receiving the mental health services they need. For example, depression effects nearly 6 million seniors, but only one-tenth ever get treated. This is unacceptable. 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 many nursing home residents. But unlike other mental health providers, clinical social workers often cannot bill directly for the important services they provide to their patients. This bill will correct this inequity and make sure clinical social workers are paid for the valuable services they provide. 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 new 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, however, were exempted from this new 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. And it is 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 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 2001 is strongly supported by the National Association of Social Workers and the Clinical Social Work Federation. I look forward to the Senate's support of this important legislation.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Clinical Social Work Medicare Equity Act of 2001. I am proud to sponsor this legislation that will ensure that clinical social workers can receive Medicare reimbursement for the mental health services they provide in skilled nursing facilities. This bill will give clinical social workers parity with other mental health providers who are exempted from the Medicare Part B Prospective Payment System. Since my first days in Congress, I have been fighting to protect and strengthen the safety net 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 are not receiving the mental health services they need. For example, depression effects nearly 6 million seniors, but only one-tenth ever get treated. This is unacceptable. 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 many nursing home residents. But unlike other mental health providers, clinical social workers often cannot bill directly for the important services they provide to their patients. This bill will correct this inequity and make sure clinical social workers are paid for the valuable services they provide. 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 new 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, however, were exempted from this new 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. And it is 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 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 2001 is strongly supported by the National Association of Social Workers and the Clinical Social Work Federation. I look forward to the Senate's support of this important legislation.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise in very strong support of the Bipartisan Patient Protection Act of 2001, which has been sponsored by John McCain, John Edwards, and Ted Kennedy. I am a proud sponsor of this legislation because it meets my principles for managed care reform and, yet, at the same time, it meets the day-to-day needs of my constituents in Maryland and the American people. It is also supported by virtually every health care consumer and provider group. Mr. President, the time to act is now--not weeks from now, not months from now, not years from now. We have been considering what is the best approach to have a Patients' Bill of Rights to protect people from the arbitrary, capricious, and often dangerous decisions of insurance companies. We have been considering that now for more than 4 years. Now, nobody said during the debate of the tax bill that we need more time to analyze these amendments. Yet we have irrevocably made a fiscal choice that I think will ultimately shackle us in what we can do for the American people. We did that pretty quickly. They were all set to kind of ram a missile defense shield down our throats, where we were going to spend $80 billion to come up with a ``techno-gizmo'' to shoot a bullet with a bullet that might or might not come to us. Yet after 4 years, we need more time to look at the fine print on the Patients' Bill of Rights. I say the time has come. We have to have this done by the Fourth of July, and I am ready to declare my declaration of independence and really move this bill forward. In the United States of America, we are geniuses at inventing the third way. We don't have a socialist system. We don't have a comrade system. I agree, we don't want comrades and socialism. Also, we did believe people needed a safety net. We didn't want to leave them to the vagaries of who gets health care--where you could have the rich versus those with no health care at all--kind of a Darwinian, predatory, free- market approach; but at the same time we invented the third way-- private insurance that people could buy to protect themselves. We in the United States wanted to give help to those who practice self-help. We invented Medicare and Medicaid for those populations that were either too poor or too at risk for the private market. So now here we are with the third way--private insurance. But some years ago, in a place called Jackson Hole, where the insurance companies met with lots of tax subsidies to support them at that meeting, they came up with managed care. Managed care is nothing but a euphemism for a moat around medical care. That is what managed care is--a moat around medical care. Jackson Hole created a black hole for patients to be able to go in and get the medical care they need. So I think the time to act is now. I hope that we will follow some very basic principles. Mr. President, I think we need to fight for patients, not for profits. Medical decisions should be made in the examining room by the doctor, not in the board room by the insurance executive. Patients should have the right to receive the treatment that is medically necessary by the most appropriate provider using the best practices. Patients need continuity of care. Just because an employer changes insurance companies, you should not have to change your doctor, particularly if you are pregnant or a family member is terminally ill or if you are in a rehab center. Patients should be able to hold their insurance companies accountable for medical decisions in the same way they hold their doctors accountable for medical decisions, and that is by having the opportunity for redress in court. The McCain-Edwards-Kennedy bill meets those principles. Let me give an example of continuity of care. It is absolutely crucial. I worry about people who are undergoing care for serious and complex medical conditions. Often an employer will change insurance companies, but the employee should not be penalized. Again, if a woman is pregnant, she should have continuity of care. If a family has a child who has leukemia, while they are fighting for their child's life, they should not be fighting with their insurance company to keep their doctor. If a family member has a stroke and is getting rehab, certainly they should be able to have continuity in that facility with that rehab team for 90 days or until discharge from the facility. These are the kinds of issues we are talking about in our legislation and what we are fighting for. I came to the Senate to save lives, to save jobs, and to save communities. This is what we want to do: save lives and make sure we stop the horror stories about Americans who are denied medically necessary treatment. Mr. President, 31,000 people every year are forced to change doctors; 35,000 people a year have needed care delayed. Thousands and thousands every day have to wait for permission to get their bills paid. Let me tell you about Jackie from Bethesda, MD. She is a go-getter, as many Marylanders are. She was hiking in the Shenandoah Mountains, lost her footing, and fell down a 40-foot cliff. Thank God there were people there to help her. She was airlifted to a hospital. Guess what. The HMO refused to pay her $10,000 hospital bill because she did not get prior authorization. Then there is the story of a little boy who found his diabetic dad lying unconscious after days and days of trying to get an HMO referral to a specialist. This little genius called 911, but, again, though the father was rescued, they then had to fight with the insurance company while they were fighting to bring him back to health so he could go back to work. Fight, fight, fight always with the insurance company. I am joining with Senator Jack Reed on an ombudsman bill that supports programs like the one in Maryland where we actually pay people to deal with the entanglements of denial and dismissal of benefits to which they think they are entitled. The McCain-Edwards-Kennedy bill is terrific. It guarantees access to emergency care. It provides timely access to specialists. In this bill, if you have a child, you have access to a pediatrician. A woman has direct access to an OB/GYN. We guarantee continuity of care, and we stop that dreaded practice of drive-by mastectomies. That is why we like the McCain-Edwards-Kennedy bill. We know Dr. Frist and Senator John Breaux and even yourself, Mr. President, look at it another way, and we respect that, but we think that bill has too many loopholes. It leaves out too many protections. There is no protection for a health care provider that advocates on behalf of a patient. It does not prohibit coercive financial incentives for physicians to deliver health care. But I do not want to talk about their bill. I want to talk about the McCain-Edwards-Kennedy bill. I want to talk about getting a bill now. I am talking about a bill that removes the moat around medicine. I am talking about putting patients before profits. I conclude by saying we are the discovery nation. In the 20th century, we made more scientific and medical breakthroughs than at any other time in world history, and the breakthroughs came from here. They came because the American people funded the NIH and then the private sector and our universities value added to come up with new ideas and new products that are saving lives. When my mother was first diagnosed with diabetes, she could either go on insulin, oral insulin, or nothing at all. Now there are over 300 different forms of medication to help those patients. We are on our way to finding a cure for Alzheimer's and Parkinson's. While we are so busy discovering lifesaving pharmaceuticals, dramatic new techniques, and new forms of prevention, we should not let the insurance companies prevent our access to the very things we paid to invent. Let's pass this Patients' Bill of Rights. Let's do it before the Fourth of July break, or I believe the American people will foment another revolution, and we will have to stand out of their way. I yield the floor.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise as an enthusiastic cosponsor of the Cantwell-Enzi amendment. For some time, we have been working together to make sure there is not a digital divide in the United States of America. Both in the budget and in other amendments in this bill, we have passed legislation to provide access to technology, but we also have to be sure our children have access to people who know how to teach technology. Bill Gates said that if you have access to technology and know how to use technology, whether you are a person, a county, or a country, your future is bright, but if you do not have that access, your future is dismal. As we are working on our legislation, we want to make sure we have access to technology, but it is not only about gadgets, it is not about gear, it is about opportunity and empowerment. We need to make sure the children do have technology, but the single most important thing is teacher training--that the teachers themselves know how to use technology and then also, through creativity and new ingenious software, get our children ready for the future. We do not have a worker shortage in this country, but we do have a skill shortage. K-12 is the farm team for the future. Just as we have little leagues for baseball, we have to make sure our teachers are big league and ready to teach technology. I am pleased to continue to support the legislation that ensures there is no digital divide. The amendment offered by the Senator from the State of Washington is just what we need to make highest and best use of the technology we are going to provide. I congratulate her on her research, creativity, and the practicality of her amendment. I look forward to voting for it.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise to join Senator Snowe and Senator Harkin to introduce the Women's Health Office Act of 2001. I am pleased to introduce this bill with my colleagues because it establishes an important framework to address women's health within the Department of Health and Human Services, HHS. Historically, women's health needs have been ignored or inadequately addressed by the medical establishment and the government. A 1990 General Accounting Office, GAO, report stated that: the National Institutes of Health, NIH, had made little progress in implementing its own inclusion policy on women's participation in clinical trials, NIH inconsistently applied this policy, and NIH had done little to implement analysis of research findings by gender. This was unacceptable. Women make up half or more of the population and must be adequately included in clinical research. That's why I fought to establish the Office of Research on Women's Health, ORWH, at the NIH 11 years ago. We needed to ensure that women were included in clinical research, so that we would know how treatments for a particular disease or condition would affect women. Would men and women react the same way to a particular treatment for heart disease? We can't answer this question unless both men and women are being included in clinical trials. While the ORWH began its work in 1990, I wanted to ensure that it stayed at NIH and had the necessary authority to carry out its mission, part of which is to ensure that women are included in clinical research. That's why I authored legislation in 1990 and 1991 to formally establish the ORWH in the Office of the Director of NIH. These provisions were later enacted into law in the NIH Revitalization Act of 1993. In 1999, Senator Harkin, Senator Snowe, and I requested that GAO examine how well the NIH and the ORWH were carrying out the mandates under the NIH Revitalization Act of 1993. The results were mixed. While NIH had made substantial progress in ensuring the inclusion of women in clinical research, it had made less progress in encouraging the analysis of study findings by sex. This means that women are being included in clinical trials, but we are not able to fully reap the benefits of inclusion if the analysis of how interventions affect men and women is not being done or not being reported. While the NIH and others are taking steps to address this, we may be missing information from research done over the last few years about how the outcomes varied or not for men and women. NIH is but one agency in HHS. Other agencies in HHS do not even have women's health offices. How are these other agencies addressing women's health? Only NIH and the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, SAMHSA, have authorizations in law for offices dedicated to women's health. In 1993, I requested language that accompanied the Fiscal Year 1994 Senate Labor, Health and Human Services Appropriations bill and the Agriculture Appropriations bill to establish and provide funding for Offices of Women's Health in the Centers for the Disease Control and Prevention, CDC, the Food and Drug Administration, FDA, the Health Resources and Services Administration, HRSA, and the Agency for Health Care Policy and Research, AHCPR, now the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, AHRQ. Today, there are offices of women's health in HHS, FDA, CDC, and HRSA. AHRQ has a women's health advisor. These offices and advisors are important advocates within the agency for women's health research, programs, and activities. A recent HHS report to Congress describes their roles, responsibilities, and future plans. The degree of support for these offices, in terms of staff and financial resources, varies widely across HHS. This can mean inadequate and inconsistent attention to women's health needs within an agency. I believe we need a consistent and comprehensive approach to address the needs of women's health in the HHS. This bill would do just that. The Women's Health Office Act of 2001 would authorize women's health offices in HHS, CDC, FDA, AHRQ, and HRSA. This legislation establishes an important framework and builds on existing efforts. Under the bill, the HHS Office on Women's Health would take over all functions which previously belonged to the current Office of Women's Health of the Public Health Service. The HHS Office would be headed by a Deputy Assistant Secretary for Women's Health who would also chair an HHS Coordinating Committee on Women's Health. The responsibilities of the HHS Office would include establishing short and long-term goals, advising the Secretary of HHS on women's health issues, monitoring and facilitating coordination and stimulating HHS activities on women's health, establishing a National Women's Health Information Center to facilitate exchange of and access to women's health information, and coordinating private sector efforts to promote women's health. Under this legislation, the Offices of Women's Health in CDC, FDA, HRSA, and AHRQ would be housed in the office of the head of each agency and be headed by a Director appointed by the head of the respective agency. Responsibilities of the offices include: an examination of current women's health activities, the establishment of short-term and long-term goals for women's health, the coordination of women's health activities, and the establishment of a coordinating committee on women's health within each agency to identify women's health needs and make recommendations to the head of the agency. The FDA office would also have specific duties regarding women and clinical trials. The director of each office would serve on HHS's Coordinating Committee on Women's Health. The bill authorizes appropriations for all the offices through 2006. I believe that this bill will establish a valuable and consistent framework for addressing women's health in the Department of Health and Human Services. It will help to ensure that women's health research will continue to have the attention and resources it needs in the coming years. This bill is a priority of the Women's Health Research Coalition. The Coalition is comprised of academic medical, health and scientific institutions, as well as other organizations interested in and supportive of women's health research. The Women's Research and Education Institute recently released a list of 15 high-impact actions Congress could take to improve the health of midlife women, including the establishment of permanent offices of women's health at HHS and related federal agencies. This bill is supported by over 45 other organizations including the YWCA, the Society for Women's Health Research, the National Partnership for Women and Families, Hadassah, and the American Physical Therapy Association. I encourage my colleagues to cosponsor and support this important legislation, and I ask unanimous consent that a letter of support for this bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise to join Senator Snowe and Senator Harkin to introduce the Women's Health Office Act of 2001. I am pleased to introduce this bill with my colleagues because it establishes an important framework to address women's health within the Department of Health and Human Services, HHS. Historically, women's health needs have been ignored or inadequately addressed by the medical establishment and the government. A 1990 General Accounting Office, GAO, report stated that: the National Institutes of Health, NIH, had made little progress in implementing its own inclusion policy on women's participation in clinical trials, NIH inconsistently applied this policy, and NIH had done little to implement analysis of research findings by gender. This was unacceptable. Women make up half or more of the population and must be adequately included in clinical research. That's why I fought to establish the Office of Research on Women's Health, ORWH, at the NIH 11 years ago. We needed to ensure that women were included in clinical research, so that we would know how treatments for a particular disease or condition would affect women. Would men and women react the same way to a particular treatment for heart disease? We can't answer this question unless both men and women are being included in clinical trials. While the ORWH began its work in 1990, I wanted to ensure that it stayed at NIH and had the necessary authority to carry out its mission, part of which is to ensure that women are included in clinical research. That's why I authored legislation in 1990 and 1991 to formally establish the ORWH in the Office of the Director of NIH. These provisions were later enacted into law in the NIH Revitalization Act of 1993. In 1999, Senator Harkin, Senator Snowe, and I requested that GAO examine how well the NIH and the ORWH were carrying out the mandates under the NIH Revitalization Act of 1993. The results were mixed. While NIH had made substantial progress in ensuring the inclusion of women in clinical research, it had made less progress in encouraging the analysis of study findings by sex. This means that women are being included in clinical trials, but we are not able to fully reap the benefits of inclusion if the analysis of how interventions affect men and women is not being done or not being reported. While the NIH and others are taking steps to address this, we may be missing information from research done over the last few years about how the outcomes varied or not for men and women. NIH is but one agency in HHS. Other agencies in HHS do not even have women's health offices. How are these other agencies addressing women's health? Only NIH and the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, SAMHSA, have authorizations in law for offices dedicated to women's health. In 1993, I requested language that accompanied the Fiscal Year 1994 Senate Labor, Health and Human Services Appropriations bill and the Agriculture Appropriations bill to establish and provide funding for Offices of Women's Health in the Centers for the Disease Control and Prevention, CDC, the Food and Drug Administration, FDA, the Health Resources and Services Administration, HRSA, and the Agency for Health Care Policy and Research, AHCPR, now the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, AHRQ. Today, there are offices of women's health in HHS, FDA, CDC, and HRSA. AHRQ has a women's health advisor. These offices and advisors are important advocates within the agency for women's health research, programs, and activities. A recent HHS report to Congress describes their roles, responsibilities, and future plans. The degree of support for these offices, in terms of staff and financial resources, varies widely across HHS. This can mean inadequate and inconsistent attention to women's health needs within an agency. I believe we need a consistent and comprehensive approach to address the needs of women's health in the HHS. This bill would do just that. The Women's Health Office Act of 2001 would authorize women's health offices in HHS, CDC, FDA, AHRQ, and HRSA. This legislation establishes an important framework and builds on existing efforts. Under the bill, the HHS Office on Women's Health would take over all functions which previously belonged to the current Office of Women's Health of the Public Health Service. The HHS Office would be headed by a Deputy Assistant Secretary for Women's Health who would also chair an HHS Coordinating Committee on Women's Health. The responsibilities of the HHS Office would include establishing short and long-term goals, advising the Secretary of HHS on women's health issues, monitoring and facilitating coordination and stimulating HHS activities on women's health, establishing a National Women's Health Information Center to facilitate exchange of and access to women's health information, and coordinating private sector efforts to promote women's health. Under this legislation, the Offices of Women's Health in CDC, FDA, HRSA, and AHRQ would be housed in the office of the head of each agency and be headed by a Director appointed by the head of the respective agency. Responsibilities of the offices include: an examination of current women's health activities, the establishment of short-term and long-term goals for women's health, the coordination of women's health activities, and the establishment of a coordinating committee on women's health within each agency to identify women's health needs and make recommendations to the head of the agency. The FDA office would also have specific duties regarding women and clinical trials. The director of each office would serve on HHS's Coordinating Committee on Women's Health. The bill authorizes appropriations for all the offices through 2006. I believe that this bill will establish a valuable and consistent framework for addressing women's health in the Department of Health and Human Services. It will help to ensure that women's health research will continue to have the attention and resources it needs in the coming years. This bill is a priority of the Women's Health Research Coalition. The Coalition is comprised of academic medical, health and scientific institutions, as well as other organizations interested in and supportive of women's health research. The Women's Research and Education Institute recently released a list of 15 high-impact actions Congress could take to improve the health of midlife women, including the establishment of permanent offices of women's health at HHS and related federal agencies. This bill is supported by over 45 other organizations including the YWCA, the Society for Women's Health Research, the National Partnership for Women and Families, Hadassah, and the American Physical Therapy Association. I encourage my colleagues to cosponsor and support this important legislation, and I ask unanimous consent that a letter of support for this bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to the tax bill currently being debated on the floor today. Everybody agrees that we need tax relief. But we must do it in a way that is affordable, responsible, and ensures that we are on sound fiscal footing. Unfortunately, the Republican tax cut does none of these things. I will vote against this tax cut for three reasons: It is irresponsible, premature, and it does not meet the compelling needs of our Nation. The Republican tax cut is irresponsible because it mortgages our future for lavish tax cuts. It is premature, there is no way to guarantee that the Republican tax cut will be here today and that the American people can count on it tomorrow. Unfortunately, the size of this tax cut will put an extra strain on this country's cashflow just when we will need it the most, when baby boomers will retire. Finally, this tax bill makes it impossible to meet the compelling needs of our Nation. It does not have an economic stimulus in 2001; the size of the tax cut will make it difficult to make balloon payments coming due on Social Security and Medicare; and it will be extremely unlikely that the money will be there to create a meaningful and reliable Medicare prescription drug benefit. I support the Democratic alternative because it ensures that we are meeting the day to day needs of our constituents and the long range needs of our country. What does the democratic alternative provide? First, Democrats want to put $300 in your checkbook right away, today, this year. Or $600 per family. This would provide an immediate economic stimulus and help all Americans who are struggling to pay for skyrocketing gasoline and energy prices. Democrats would also provide tax cuts for all income taxpayers by reducing the 15 percent tax bracket to 10 percent on the first $6,000 income. Additionally, we include significant marriage penalty and estate tax relief, we raise IRA and 401(k) contribution limits, double the child tax credit, make college tuition tax deductible and provide resources to schools and communities modernize and build new facilities. I am also pleased that our bill includes an extension of the adoption tax credit and makes permanent the Research and Development tax credit. The democratic plan is balanced, fiscally prudent, and leaves resources so we can continue to pay down our debt, and make the balloon payments coming due on Social Security and Medicare. Unfortunately, the Republican tax plan papers over the fiscal realities of our country. We need to get back to basics, to save lives, save communities, and save America. What do I mean by this? Well, while we are in the midst of debating bloated tax cuts, we have Marines who are on food stamps. I don't see how we can meet our national security commitment, do a $1.35 trillion tax cut, and have Marines on food stamps. The Marines say ``semper fi,'' ``always faithful.'' They are faithful to the United States and we have to be always faithful to the Marine Corps and to the military. That's why we must ensure that we have the resources to invest in core infrastructure programs, like the military, that will pay dividends in the future. Democrats want to put money in people's pocketbooks, but we want to do it is a way that it is here today and in people's checkbooks tomorrow. We believe we're on the side of people who are middle class and those who are working their heart out to be able to get there. I hope that my colleagues will join me in opposing the Republican tax cut. We should do what's responsible, honest, and allows us to meet the compelling human need in our nation today. The democratic alternative will put us on the right track to doing just that.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Veterans Burial Benefits Improvement Act of 2001. I am pleased that my colleague, Senator Hutchison, joins me in introducing this legislation today. During the upcoming Memorial Day holiday, we will honor our U.S. soldiers who died in the name of their country. These service men and women are America's true heros and on this day we pay tribute to their courage and sacrifice. Some have given their lives for our country. All have given their time and dedication to ensure our country remains the land of the free and the home of the brave. We owe a special debt of gratitude to each and every one of them. This holiday serves as an important reminder that our nation has a sacred commitment to honor the promises made to soldiers when they signed up to serve our country. As the Ranking Member of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee that funds veterans programs, I fight hard to make sure promises made to our service men and women are promises kept. These promises include access to quality, affordable health care and a proper burial for our veterans. I am deeply concerned that the Federal Government has not increased veterans' burial benefits for the families of our wounded or disabled veterans in over a decade. We are losing over 1,100 World War II veterans each day, but Congress has failed to increase veterans' burial benefits to keep up with rising costs and inflation. While these benefits were never intended to cover the full costs of burial, they now pay for only a fraction of what they covered in 1973, when the Federal Government first started paying burial benefits for our veterans. That's why I am introducing the Veterans Burial Benefits Improvement Act. This bill will increase burial benefits to cover the same percentage of funeral costs as they did in 1973. It will also provide for these benefits to be increased annually to keep up with inflation. In 1973, the service-connected benefit payed for 72 percent of veterans' funeral costs. But this benefit has not been increased since 1988, and it now covers just 29 percent of funeral costs. My bill will increase the service-connected benefit from $1,500 to $3,713, bringing it back up to the original 72 percent level. In 1973, the non-service connected benefit payed for 22 percent of funeral costs. It has not been increased since 1978, and today it covers just 6 percent of funeral costs. My bill will increase the non- service connected benefit from $300 to $1,135, bringing it back up to the original 22 percent level. In 1973, the plot allowance payed for 13 percent of veterans' funeral costs. This benefit has never been increased, and it now covers just 3 percent of funeral costs. My bill will increase the plot allowance from $150 to $670, bringing it back up to the original 13 percent level. Finally, the Veterans Burial Benefits Improvement Act will also ensure that these burial benefits are adjusted for inflation annually, so veterans won't have to fight this fight again. This legislation is just one way to honor our nation's service men and women. I want to thank the millions of veterans, Marylanders, and people across the Nation for their patriotism, devotion, and commitment to honoring the true meaning of Memorial Day. U.S. soldiers from every generation have shared in the duty of defending America and protecting our freedom. For these sacrifices, America is eternally grateful. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a letter from several veterans advocacy groups supporting it, be printed in the Record.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Veterans Burial Benefits Improvement Act of 2001. I am pleased that my colleague, Senator Hutchison, joins me in introducing this legislation today. During the upcoming Memorial Day holiday, we will honor our U.S. soldiers who died in the name of their country. These service men and women are America's true heros and on this day we pay tribute to their courage and sacrifice. Some have given their lives for our country. All have given their time and dedication to ensure our country remains the land of the free and the home of the brave. We owe a special debt of gratitude to each and every one of them. This holiday serves as an important reminder that our nation has a sacred commitment to honor the promises made to soldiers when they signed up to serve our country. As the Ranking Member of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee that funds veterans programs, I fight hard to make sure promises made to our service men and women are promises kept. These promises include access to quality, affordable health care and a proper burial for our veterans. I am deeply concerned that the Federal Government has not increased veterans' burial benefits for the families of our wounded or disabled veterans in over a decade. We are losing over 1,100 World War II veterans each day, but Congress has failed to increase veterans' burial benefits to keep up with rising costs and inflation. While these benefits were never intended to cover the full costs of burial, they now pay for only a fraction of what they covered in 1973, when the Federal Government first started paying burial benefits for our veterans. That's why I am introducing the Veterans Burial Benefits Improvement Act. This bill will increase burial benefits to cover the same percentage of funeral costs as they did in 1973. It will also provide for these benefits to be increased annually to keep up with inflation. In 1973, the service-connected benefit payed for 72 percent of veterans' funeral costs. But this benefit has not been increased since 1988, and it now covers just 29 percent of funeral costs. My bill will increase the service-connected benefit from $1,500 to $3,713, bringing it back up to the original 72 percent level. In 1973, the non-service connected benefit payed for 22 percent of funeral costs. It has not been increased since 1978, and today it covers just 6 percent of funeral costs. My bill will increase the non- service connected benefit from $300 to $1,135, bringing it back up to the original 22 percent level. In 1973, the plot allowance payed for 13 percent of veterans' funeral costs. This benefit has never been increased, and it now covers just 3 percent of funeral costs. My bill will increase the plot allowance from $150 to $670, bringing it back up to the original 13 percent level. Finally, the Veterans Burial Benefits Improvement Act will also ensure that these burial benefits are adjusted for inflation annually, so veterans won't have to fight this fight again. This legislation is just one way to honor our nation's service men and women. I want to thank the millions of veterans, Marylanders, and people across the Nation for their patriotism, devotion, and commitment to honoring the true meaning of Memorial Day. U.S. soldiers from every generation have shared in the duty of defending America and protecting our freedom. For these sacrifices, America is eternally grateful. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a letter from several veterans advocacy groups supporting it, 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 fourth 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 an 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.

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 fourth 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 an 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.

Ms. MIKULSKI

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

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, the cosponsors of my amendment are Senators Kennedy, Bingaman, Sarbanes, Wellstone, and Reid.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise to ask the support of my colleagues for my amendment to create 1,000 community tech-based centers around the country. The BEST Act creates a national goal to ensure that every child is computer literate by the 8th grade regardless of race, ethnicity, income, gender, geography, or disability. My amendment will help make this goal a reality. What does this amendment do? My amendment builds on the excellent work of Senator Jeffords, Senator Kennedy, and Senator Gregg. It expands 21st Century Learning Centers by authorizing $100 million to create 1,000 community based technology centers around the country. The Department of Education would provide competitive grants to community based organizations such as a YMCA, the Urban League, or a public library. Up to half the funds for these centers must come from the private sector, so we'll be helping to build public/private partnerships around the country. What does this mean for local communities? It means a safe haven for children where they could learn how to use computers and use them to do homework or surf the web. It means job training for adults who could use the technology centers to sharpen their job skills or write their resumes. Why is this amendment necessary? Because even with dot coms becoming dot bombs, we badly need high tech workers. In fact, we have a skill shortage, not a worker shortage. Senators Specter and Harkin have provided funds for Community Technology Centers in Appropriations but the program has never been authorized, so it has been skimpy. Only 90 centers were created last year, although over 700 applied. We need to bring technology to where kids learn, not just where we want them to learn. They don't just learn in school, they learn in their communities. Not every family has a computer in their home, but every American should have access to computers in their community. My amendment is endorsed by: the NAACP, the American Library Association, the National Council of La Raza, the YMCA, the American Association of Community Colleges, and the Computer and Communications Industry Association. I urge my colleagues to join me in ensuring that no child is left out or left behind in the technology revolution.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, this amendment is very simple. It is very straightforward. It is a great public investment in getting our children ready for their future. What this amendment does is provide for the establishment of community technology centers in the United States under the provisions of th Elementary and Secondary Education Act. It would authorize $100 million to create 1,000 community-based tech centers around the country. These centers would be created and run by community-based groups, such as the YMCA, the Urban League, or even a public library. The Federal Government would provide competitive grants to these community-based groups. By the third year of funding at least half of the funds come from the private sector. In year one, 30 percent comes from private sector and in year two, 40 percent must come from the private sector. Again, by year three the funding would be 50-50; 50 percent from the Federal Government and 50 percent from the community- based groups. This is truly an excellent example of a public private- partnership and maximization of federal funds. By funding community technology centers, we will be helping to build public-private partnerships around the country. I want to stress that the private, nonprofit sector is eager to form these partnerships. Why do we need this amendment? First of all, in the President's education bill there is no provision for community technology centers. The President's budget indicates he would make it a permissible use under HUD to be taken out of community development block grant money. So why do we want this in ESEA? We want it in ESEA because essentially it takes technology education to where people learn in their communities. What would this mean for local communities? It would mean a safe haven for children where they could learn how to use computers--use them to do homework--use them to access the Internet. It means job training for adults who could use the technology centers to either get new skills and new tools to enter the new economy or to upgrade their skills. Also, these centers would serve all regions, races, and ethnic groups. They will be where they are needed, where there is often limited access to technology. They will be in urban, rural, and suburban areas. They will be in Appalachia and Native American reservations, and urban centers. Why do we need those? First of all, I want to acknowledge the fantastic work that Senator Jeffords has done in advocating something called the 21st century learning centers. He has, indeed, been a great advocate of that, along with his colleague, Senator Judd Gregg. They really have been excellent in establishing these learning centers. They are excellent programs, but they are primarily in schools. Most of them are only for children. And most of them operate during very specific hours. Some are open just a few hours a day; most do not necessarily focus on technology. I want to acknowledge that the one in Vermont is open weekends and even in the summer. So Vermont is really doing a great job. But why do we need these community tech centers in the community? In some places schools are either too worn out or too dated to be wired for the future. We have school facilities in desperate need of modernization. And the poorer the community, usually the poorer the physical condition of the school. Community Technology Centers would ensure that technology is in the community. Second, it is multigenerational. This means it could be used during the day for adults and seniors and in the afternoons for structured afterschool activities for children, bringing them to technology. It also could be open at night and on weekends. Also, it removes barriers to learning. In many of our communities, new immigrants are shy about coming into schools, particularly adults. There is the need to reach out to men who very often want to upgrade their skills, to be able to come into a new workforce. Certainly, in my own community of Baltimore we see that. But they can sometimes feel awkward at age 28, 38, or 48 walking into a school building. But they would walk into a community tech center. This is why we believe that in addition to the 21st century learning centers, these community technology centers are needed. Let me cite a few examples. The Baltimore Urban League received a grant to create a community tech center. They created a computer clubhouse, an afterschool computer center for teenagers. The young people were taught computer skills. They also then teach other young people. They are engaging in desktop publishing. During the day, it is used for career development, focused on Welfare-to-Work. In rural Odem, TX, we have another example of a community tech center that both worked with the people in the community but was also a source for distance learning. In a school district in Arizona, it helped young Native Americans enter the high-tech workforce. I could go on with example after example. Let me tell my colleagues this: Thanks to the leadership of Senators Harkin and Specter, and Labor-HHS, they funded community tech centers through appropriations. Be aware that they were never authorized. Essentially, Harkin and Specter just went ahead and did it. God bless them for doing it. But they could only, because of the lack of authorization, fund very few of these programs. In 1999, over 750 community organizations applied for community technology center money. Under the great leadership of Harkin-Specter, there was only enough money to give grants to 40 of these community organizations. There is so much pent-up need, it points to why my legislation is needed. I believe we do not have a worker shortage in the United States--we have a skills shortage. Even with dot-coms now dot-bombing, there still is a great need for technology workers. In fact, in practically every field technology literacy is needed. Manufacturing in my own State has gone from smokestack to cyberstack. We must have people with the skills who are ready. We don't have a worker shortage in this country; we have a skill shortage in this country. In addition to schools and libraries, to have 1,000 community technology centers would be a welcome addition into these communities and neighborhoods for people to have the opportunity to truly enter this new world. My legislation is endorsed by groups such as the National Council of La Raza, the NAACP headquartered in my own State, the American Library Association, the American Association of Community Colleges, and also the Computer and Communications Industry Association. I ask unanimous consent that their letters be printed in the Record.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending Voinovich amendment be laid aside.

Ms. MIKULSKI. If I might respond to the Democratic Chair of the Education Committee, I intend to speak no more than 10 minutes and probably even less.

Ms. MIKULSKI. I move to reconsider the vote.

Ms. MIKULSKI. I yield the floor.

Ms. MIKULSKI. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Ms. MIKULSKI. I could elaborate on this, but I know the Senator from Alabama is waiting to speak. I urge the adoption of my amendment. Perhaps after we hear from the distinguished chairman, who has really been a leader in new ways to teach and educate children, I will subsequently ask for the yeas and nays.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I now call up amendment No. 379.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to the life and legacy of Page Groton. He was a native of Baltimore who served his country with pride. Page Groton spent his career working to improve the lives of working men and women. He played an important role in America's labor movement. He understood why unions are so important. He put his values into action. Page enjoyed a long career as a trade union member, leader and lobbyist. He began working in Baltimore as a member of the Civilian Conservation Corps before becoming an electrician at a shipyard in Pennsylvania. Page answered his country's call to duty by joining the Navy in the Pacific during World War II. After returning to the shipyard when the war ended, Page was elected union president of his boilermakers local. In 1962, Page Groton moved to Washington and became vice president of the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers Union. Once in Washington, Page found the time to share his knowledge of labor issues with students from the University of Wisconsin School for workers. He finished his career as a lobbyist for the Metal Trades Department of the AFL-CIO. I am so grateful for Page's friendship and support. In 1986, I found myself in a tough Senate primary campaign against two good friends of mine: Congressman Mike Barnes of Montgomery County, and Governor Harry Hughes of Maryland. Page was instrumental in helping the statewide AFL- CIO to know me. Page Groton's life is an example of dedication to a cause higher than oneself. His legacy is his family, as well as an ethic of service that Americans and Marylanders may follow with pride. His beloved wife Mayrene Williams Groton and their two children, seven grandchildren, and five great grandchildren are in my thoughts and prayers.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. May I have 5 minutes?

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, yesterday I talked about the three R's that are needed in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. If we have reform--which I am firmly in support of--plus resources, that equals results. But if we have reform minus resources, all we end up with is rhetoric. So I believe we need to practice the three R's that give us the right results: reform, plus resources, equals the right results. One of the ways that we can really help have reform is by really backing what we need to do to help our special needs children. We are going to be debating very shortly the expansion of the funding for something called IDEA, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Some years ago, under the leadership of a former colleague, Senator Weicker, we passed legislation that said every child in the United States of America who had a special need required an individual education plan. We gave that as a mandate to States and local school districts. We also said we would provide 40 percent of the money to help pay that bill. In over the 20-plus years that IDEA has been in existence, we have only funded roughly 15 percent of the cost to local school districts to pay for these individual education plans for our children. I hope that as we continue the debate on the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, and as we work on the bill, that one of our tools for really increasing the resources, without us becoming the new schoolmarms or a Federal school board, is to fund the mandate that we have given local school districts--to meet the individual educational needs of our special needs children. Some of these services can cost as much as $75,000 a year. In my own State, the average cost to educate a special needs child is roughly 13,000 and the costs are rising steadily. I will tell you, funding for IDEA is not about being a Democrat or a Republican. But I can tell you, everywhere in my own State--Democrats and Republicans, parents and teachers, doctors and school counselors, county executives, mayors, commissioners at the local level keep saying: Please increase the funding for the IDEA. I believe that if we pass the Harkin/Hagel amendment, we could increase the percentage of Federal IDEA funds to school districts and by giving them greater flexibility--open up the opportunity to make sure we cross the digital divide, hire the right teachers, and reduce class size. I do hope we have reform, plus resources, to get the results. And one of the ways to do that is to dramatically increase the funding for our special needs children. I do believe there is very strong bipartisan support to be able to do this. I look forward to supporting that effort and trying to find a way to pass this bill in a way that we can be proud of and that the parents in America can count on, so that the children in America will believe that the Federal Government is on their side. Mr. President, I yield the floor and any time I might have remaining.