Barbara Mikulski

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise to speak on the motion to proceed to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, and I yield myself 15 minutes. I hope we will proceed. I intend to vote for the motion to proceed so we can get on the bill and get serious in the Senate about addressing the compelling human needs that exist in America's public schools. I believe education is the most important crucial rung in our Nation's opportunity ladder. During the coming days, we will discuss how we can strengthen this opportunity ladder. The Elementary and Secondary Education Act is only the first step. It sets the framework for reform, and also it will establish how we will address our public education. We do need reform in our public schools, and at the same time we need to have the resources to put the reforms into action. However, if we put the reforms on the Federal law books but do not put the resources in the Federal checkbook, this will be a hollow opportunity. There are some on my side of the aisle who question whether we should embark upon testing. First, I stand squarely in the corner of supporting the concept of accountability. I also stand squarely in the corner of supporting testing, but making sure the Federal Government does pay the bill. In the State of Maryland, we have had testing for more than a decade. Testing enabled us to provide an inventory of where our schools were, what schools needed intervention and what type of intervention. I view testing like a CAT scan. It gives an inventory of where the problems might be and identifies other areas of potential problems. I believe we should proceed with testing and also aggressively fight for the resources. At the same time, we should not hold up on getting an inventory of where we are. In keeping with this principle, I support six priorities for educational reform. One is something I am calling ``digital opportunity.'' I know the Presiding Officer is deeply troubled about the need to have more people educated in math, science and technology in order to meet our growing national security needs. The Rudman-Hart report clearly indicates we need to have children technologically competent, not only for the new economy but also for the new security threats facing the United States of America. Issues such as cyberterrorism are an example of why we need to make the availability of educational technology a priority. I worked very hard to have a series of amendments creating digital opportunity. One, a national goal that every child be computer literate by the time they finish the eighth grade. I enjoyed bipartisan support on this issue in the committee and it passed. To make the goal a reality, I offered an amendment to make technology funds more robust and more effective. The BEST bill authorizing $1 billion for education technology. The new technology block grant that President Bush is advocating is something I will support because it will mean the programs will no longer be scattered through the Department of Education. As we are dealing with the scattered problem, we also have to deal with the skimpy problem and make sure we have the funds for hardware, software, and teacher training. I know, also, we are not considering the e-rate in ESEA. Sometimes in legislation the best thing we can do is do no harm. The Bush administration talked about eliminating the E-rate or consolidating the E-rate with ESEA technology programs. I am pleased that in our discussion with the White House they clarified the E-rate will be a subject of further discussion in the future. I am a big supporter of the E rate. I hope we do not change it. A weakness in the bill is that it focuses entirely on schools and not enough on the communities where children learn. Everybody does not entirely learn in school. Many people learn in structured afterschool activities and in the community. This is why I will offer an amendment on community tech centers, to establish 1,000 community tech centers, throughout the United States of America. That means that they can be run by nonprofits including the Boys and Girls Clubs, faith-based organizations, and Latino heritage organizations. Let's get tech into the community. In some instances our children are in schools that are so dated they cannot be wired. We want to make sure our kids are wired for the future. We also need to focus on teachers, recruiting the best, training the best, and retaining the best. I am pleased the education bill authorizes almost $3 billion for teacher training. At the same time, we could use more. I believe we need at least $2 billion more for teacher training to bring them into the classroom and also to upgrade their skills. Another priority I believe we need to focus on is smaller class size. Everyone will tell you we do need smaller class sizes. I will be supporting Senator Murray's effort to continue to try to hire 100,000 new teachers for our classrooms. Coming back to where children learn, I support structured afterschool activities. Children need structured afterschool activities where they can learn, have fun, and be safe. In many of these neighborhoods this is absolutely crucial. Speaking of safety, this then takes us to school modernization. The average school in the United States of America is 42 years old. Many of them are crumbling. Many are dated. Some are even dangerous. We really need to work out how we can be a partner with State and local governments on the improvement of schools to modernize those facilities. The other area where we also need to keep our commitment is on funding for IDEA, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. The Federal Government passed, some years ago, a mandate that local school districts are supposed to come up with individual education plans for children who are disabled. We promised them if they did that, they would get 40 percent of the cost from the Federal Government. Guess what. We only provide about 15 percent. In Maryland it's 9 percent. I believe we should keep the policy, but let's really, now, meet that mandate. If over the next 3 years we could work every year to increase the funding for IDEA, the money would go right into the school districts. It would help the local communities. It would alleviate a lot of the financial pressure on the state and locals to serve our special kids, without us becoming the schoolmarm or chairman of the school board in local school districts. These are the issues on which I look forward to working. I believe we can move the bill on a bipartisan basis. Let's have reform with resources so we can have results. Those are the three R's I want: Reform, resources, and results. Let's get our kids and our country ready for the 21st century. We have made great progress in the past, and I know we can do so in the future. I yield the floor. I yield back any time I may not have consumed.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I call up amendment number 244 on behalf of myself and my cosponsors--Senators Bingaman, Boxer, Kennedy, Levin, and Sarbanes. My amendment is very simple: it provides $1.5 billion annually for education technology programs, and will be offset by a reduction in the tax cut. It will give every American child a ``digital opportunity ladder'' to climb to success, as well as help every child to be computer literate by the 6th grade, regardless of race, ethnicity, income, gender, geography, or disability. My amendment does 3 things: it provides $1 billion a year for consolidated education technology programs, which will go to states based on formula grants. Schools could use these funds for almost any technology-related activity: wiring, hardware, software, training, maintenance or repair. Second, my amendment doubles teacher training funds by adding $400 million, per year for the next ten years. Teachers want to help their students cross the digital divide but less than 20 percent of them feel confident using technology in their daily lesson plans. Technology without training is a hollow opportunity. Finally, my amendment also provides $100 million to create one thousand community technology centers. Community technology centers are necessary because kids don't just learn in school--they also learn in their communities. Technology centers make it easier for children to do their homework or to surf the web under adult supervision, and also make it easier for parents to upgrade their skills or write a resume. The opportunities here are tremendous: to use technology to improve our lives, to use technology to remove barriers such as income, race, ethnicity, or geography. Every student in America should have access to a digital opportunity ladder. My amendment does that and I urge my colleagues' support. amendment no. 236

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, my amendment is very simple: it provides $1.5 billion annually for education technology programs, and will be offset by a reduction in the tax cut. It will give every American child a ``digital opportunity ladder'' to climb to success, as well as help every child to be computer literate by the 6th grade, regardless of race, ethnicity, income, gender, geography, or disability. My amendment does 3 things: it provides $1 billion a year for consolidated education technology programs, which will go to states based on formula grants. Schools could use these funds for almost any technology-related activity: wiring, hardware, software, training, maintenance or repair. Second, my amendment doubles teacher training funds by adding $400 million, per year for the next ten years. Teachers want to help their students cross the digital divide but less than 20 percent of them feel confident using technology in their daily lesson plans. Technology without training is a hollow opportunity. Finally, my amendment also provides $100 million to create one thousand community technology centers. Community technology centers are necessary because kids don't just learn in school--they also learn in their communities. Technology centers make it easier for children to do their homework or to surf the web under adult supervision, and also make it easier for parents to upgrade their skills or write a resume. The opportunities here are tremendous: to use technology to improve our lives, to use technology to remove barriers such as income, race, ethnicity, or geography. Every student in America should have access to a digital opportunity ladder. My amendment does that and I urge my colleagues' support. amendment no. 335

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 322, As Modified

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, the United States of America every year wins Nobel Prizes. We want to be sure that every year we win the global markets, as well as the Nobel Prizes. By doubling the National Science Foundation, by increasing funding for NASA and increasing funding for the Department of Energy, we are making public investments in great core science and engineering laboratories. This is where we create the new ideas that lead to new products as well as educate the next generation of Sally Rides, of other great scientists, the Dr. Varmuses who go on and lead our Nation. If we don't increase the funding for the National Science Foundation, we are not going to have the mathematicians, the physicists, and the engineers we need. We are the greatest country in the world because we are willing to take risks. We are the greatest country in the world because we are inventors and we are discoverers. Why don't we put our public money where our national values are? Let's pass the Bond-Mikulski amendment and take America right into the 21st century.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise as an original cosponsor of this amendment with my dear colleague, Senator Bond, to increase the function 250 for general science. Our amendment seeks to increase funding for science by $1.4 billion by doubling the funding for the National Science Foundation, increasing the NASA budget by $500 million, as well as the Department of Energy funds. This has strong bipartisan support. We are joined by Senators Lieberman and Rockefeller on my side of the aisle. Why is it this issue enjoys such strong bipartisan support? Both sides of the aisle--Senator Kit Bond and Senator Barbara Mikulski--want to make sure that America not only continues to win the Nobel Prizes but that we win the global markets. In order to do so, we need to invest in our Federal labs to create the new ideas that lead to the new products that lead to us winning those prizes and their markets. We are so proud of the fact we are on target to double the funding at NIH. But NIH is not the only place where we need to increase our funding for science and technology. Our amendment pays for this increase through a $1.4 billion reduction in the proposed contingency fund. This offset does not cut any existing program or agency. Unfortunately, the President's budget cuts NSF research below last year's appropriated level. The President's budget also proposes similar cuts in real terms to NASA and the Department of Energy research programs. This is unacceptable. While we are on target to increase biomedical research at NIH, we must also increase funding in the core areas of science and engineering--the same disciplines that fuel the very biomedical enterprise we seek to strengthen. CAT Scans and MRI's were created by NSF research--not NIH research. As the former head of NIH, Dr. Harold Varmus, said: Scientists can wage an effective war on disease only if we as a nation and as a scientific community harness the energies of many disciplines, not just biology and medicine. The allies must include mathematicians, physicists, engineers and computer and behavioral scientists. Because it is at NSF, NASA, and also DOE that we are supporting basic science that saves lives and generates jobs today and jobs tomorrow. NASA and NSF made the major innovations in the Internet, satellites, and microelectronics. If it were not for federally funded research, none of this would exist today. But supporting basic scientific research is not just about saving lives, it is also about creating the jobs of tomorrow. Federal funding for basic scientific research is absolutely necessary for economic growth and job creation. I couldn't even begin to list the technologies and inventions that were created through Federal research, but I will name just a few: the Internet, satellites, and microelectronics. If it weren't for federally funded research, none of this would exist today. The private sector will always be focused on near-term product development--that is what they have to do. But that allows the Government to focus on long-term basic research to provide industry with the foundation for future product development and future job creation for our country. Mr. President, we are on the verge of historic breakthroughs in science and technology that will revolutionize our economy. Nanotechnology is just one area that could transform our economy. Nanotechnology is the science of creating new materials and devices at the atomic and molecular levels, through the manipulation of individual atoms and molecules. What does this mean? It means inventing new materials that are 10 times stronger than steel--at a fraction of the weight. It means supercomputers the size of a teardrop. It means new sensors that can detect cancer cells at the earliest stages of development. Unfortunately, we may not see the pay-off for 10 or 20 years. Industry on its own cannot support such high risk, long term research. That is why the Federal Government must support long term basic scientific research. For evidence, just look at recent history. The United States had led the world in patenting considered a critical measure of innovation. Entrepreneurial investment in new technologies and services created an estimated one-third of the 10 million new jobs between 1990 and 1997. Since 1995, growth in gross domestic product per capita reached its highest levels in 40 years. We cannot afford to stop now. That is why this amendment is necessary. Not only do we need to increase funding for research, we need to rebuild our research infrastructure. According to NSF, there is an $11 billion backlog in modernizing university research labs and research facilities. How can we push the frontiers of new technology if our laboratories aren't ready? We are seeing a decrease in the numbers of graduates in key science and engineering fields. This puts our future innovation capabilities at risk. We must work to expand the pool of U.S. scientists and engineers by increasing support for K-12 math and science education. We must increase support for the education and training at our 2 year colleges, undergraduate institutions and research universities. Our international competitors won't stand still, and neither can we. With all that is confronting us, now is precisely the wrong time to cut funding for scientific research. I urge all my colleagues to join us by supporting this amendment as a necessary and critical investment in the future well being of the Nation. Mr. President, yesterday I had a great talk with Dr. Sally Ride, the first woman to go into space. When she went into space, she took the hopes and dreams of so many of us. Dr. Ride holds degrees in both English literature as well as astrophysics. If Dr. Ride were here today to consult with the Senators, she would say she could do what she did because of the funding of the National Science Foundation that helped her get the background to be able to go on to be an astronaut. And look at what it has meant. Our own National Science Foundation today is leading a breakthrough effort in a new field called nanotechnology. It could transform our economy. It is the science of creating new materials at the atomic and subatomic level. But what does that mean to those of us who are scientifically literate but not scientists? It means a supercomputer the size of a teardrop, new materials that are 10 times stronger than steel at a fraction of the weight. Think what it means for new materials for our airplanes and our automobiles. Unfortunately, we will not see this payoff for 10 or 20 years. Industry cannot be the venture capitalists in this area. Government needs to get into it. By getting involved in nanotechnology and infotech technology, we are really taking America to the future. We lead the world in patenting and innovation. Since 1995, our gross domestic product has increased more. Why? Because of innovation that has led to new products and new productivity. So we really need to focus our research on what will generate this type of activity. At the same time, while we are looking at the funding of research, there is an $11 billion backlog in modernizing university research labs and research facilities. How can we push these frontiers of new technology if our laboratories are not ready? This program will help with those laboratories. I think all here know of my passion for bringing often left out constituencies into science and technology--women, people of color. It is the National Science Foundation that reaches out to bring them into the field of science, mathematics, and engineering. The NSF has done a fantastic job reaching out to historically black colleges and to women. At the same time we see, particularly with some of the NIH money that doesn't necessarily come to States with large rural populations, EPSCoR, an excellent program at NSF that brings high-tech research opportunities to our smaller rural States, that enables them to come up with the new ideas and maybe even jump start efforts of the stodgy universities. This is the competition we love. It is the competition of ideas, the competition for new products.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise to join with my colleague, Senator Tim Hutchinson, today to introduce the Nursing Employment and Education Development or ``NEED'' Act. This bill is sorely needed, because we have a nursing shortage. In Maryland, 15% of the nursing jobs are vacant. Last year, it took an average of 68 days to fill a nurse vacancy, and we need about 1,600 more full-time nurses to fill those vacancies. There were 2,000 fewer nurses in Maryland in 1999 than there were in 1998. The shortage exists across the United States, and will get worse in the future. Nationwide, we will need 1.7 million nurses by the year 2020, but only about 600,000 will be available. We depend on nurses every day to care for millions of Americans, whether in a hospital, nursing home, health center, hospice, or through home health. They are the backbone of our health care system. If we don't effectively address the crisis in nursing, those hospitals, nursing homes and clinics will soon be on life support. This bill is a downpayment. It doesn't address the fact that nurses are underpaid, overworked, and undervalued, but it does focus on education. The NEED Act seeks to help bring men and women into the nursing profession, and help them advance within it. The bill does this under five major approaches: Nurse Corps: Creates a Nurse Corps Scholarhip Program, which provides scholarships in exchange for at least 2 years of service in a critical nurse shortage area, authorizes increased funding for the nursing education loan repayment program, Nurse Recruitment and Retention: Creates a public awareness and education campaign, to be carried out on the state and national level, to enhance the image of nursing, promote diversity in the nursing workforce, and encourage people to enter the nursing profession, enables Area Health Education Centers (AHECs) to expand their junior and senior high school mentoring programs for nurses and develop ``models of excellence'' for community-based nurses, creates networks between health care facilities and community organizations that will recruit and retain nurses in the community. Nurse Training: Creates ``career ladder'' programs that will encourage nurses and nursing students to pursue additional education and training and advance within the profession, encourages students to enter the nursing profession with a focus on long-term care develops internship and residency programs that encourage mentoring and the development of specialties such as labor and delivery and emergency room nursing. Nursing Faculty Development: Provides scholarships and loans for graduate-level education in nursing, to help ensure that we have enough teachers at our nursing schools. National Commission on the Nursing Crisis: Creates a National Commission on the Nursing Crisis, modeled after the Maryland Commission on the Crisis in Nursing, which will study and make recommendations to Congress within 1 year on how to address the nursing shortage in the short and long term. This bill is about nursing education, but it's also about empowerment. We can empower people to have a better life and go into a career to save lives. The bill will empower the single mom who has been working in a dead- end retail job to forge a better life for herself and her family. It will help her get a scholarship to help pay for tuition, books, and lab fees, and by funding child care programs to help her balance work and family. The bill empower the nurse who has a baccalaureate degree, but wants to get a Master's degree so she can teach nursing at a community college. It will help her get loans, scholarships, and living stipends to pursue that degree. This bill also will fund partnerships between schools and health care providers to inspire the next generation of nurses. For example, a 12- year old boy or girl in Suitland, Maryland who is interested in nursing, could like up with a ``buddy'' or mentor at the local hospital. That mentor could help the student with science homework, or even let the student ``shadow'' the mentor at work. It is important that we add these programs to the federal law books. But as a member of the Appropriations Committee, I know how important it is that we fund them and our existing programs in the federal checkbook. That's why I was disturbed to read in the newspaper yesterday that President Bush plans to cut funding for education and training programs for doctors, nurses, pharmacists, and other health professionals from $353 million to just $140 million. That's a cut of $213 million! Such a move would be penny-wise and pound-foolish. President Bush wants to slow the growth of federal spending, but he can't slow the growth of illness, or of our aging population. He adds money for community health centers, which I support. But who will staff them? Without nurses, more community health centers are a hollow opportunity. He adds more money for medical research at the National Institutes of Health, which I support. But he doesn't fund the programs that will train the pharmacists who will dispense the medicines that come from that medical research, or a real Medicare prescription drug benefit so that seniors can afford them. Again, this is a hollow opportunity. I urge the President to reconsider, and the Congress to reject his approach. I hope to work with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to enhance opportunity for nurses and recruit new nurses into the profession by enacting this bill into law this year. Thank you.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise to join with my colleague, Senator Tim Hutchinson, today to introduce the Nursing Employment and Education Development or ``NEED'' Act. This bill is sorely needed, because we have a nursing shortage. In Maryland, 15% of the nursing jobs are vacant. Last year, it took an average of 68 days to fill a nurse vacancy, and we need about 1,600 more full-time nurses to fill those vacancies. There were 2,000 fewer nurses in Maryland in 1999 than there were in 1998. The shortage exists across the United States, and will get worse in the future. Nationwide, we will need 1.7 million nurses by the year 2020, but only about 600,000 will be available. We depend on nurses every day to care for millions of Americans, whether in a hospital, nursing home, health center, hospice, or through home health. They are the backbone of our health care system. If we don't effectively address the crisis in nursing, those hospitals, nursing homes and clinics will soon be on life support. This bill is a downpayment. It doesn't address the fact that nurses are underpaid, overworked, and undervalued, but it does focus on education. The NEED Act seeks to help bring men and women into the nursing profession, and help them advance within it. The bill does this under five major approaches: Nurse Corps: Creates a Nurse Corps Scholarhip Program, which provides scholarships in exchange for at least 2 years of service in a critical nurse shortage area, authorizes increased funding for the nursing education loan repayment program, Nurse Recruitment and Retention: Creates a public awareness and education campaign, to be carried out on the state and national level, to enhance the image of nursing, promote diversity in the nursing workforce, and encourage people to enter the nursing profession, enables Area Health Education Centers (AHECs) to expand their junior and senior high school mentoring programs for nurses and develop ``models of excellence'' for community-based nurses, creates networks between health care facilities and community organizations that will recruit and retain nurses in the community. Nurse Training: Creates ``career ladder'' programs that will encourage nurses and nursing students to pursue additional education and training and advance within the profession, encourages students to enter the nursing profession with a focus on long-term care develops internship and residency programs that encourage mentoring and the development of specialties such as labor and delivery and emergency room nursing. Nursing Faculty Development: Provides scholarships and loans for graduate-level education in nursing, to help ensure that we have enough teachers at our nursing schools. National Commission on the Nursing Crisis: Creates a National Commission on the Nursing Crisis, modeled after the Maryland Commission on the Crisis in Nursing, which will study and make recommendations to Congress within 1 year on how to address the nursing shortage in the short and long term. This bill is about nursing education, but it's also about empowerment. We can empower people to have a better life and go into a career to save lives. The bill will empower the single mom who has been working in a dead- end retail job to forge a better life for herself and her family. It will help her get a scholarship to help pay for tuition, books, and lab fees, and by funding child care programs to help her balance work and family. The bill empower the nurse who has a baccalaureate degree, but wants to get a Master's degree so she can teach nursing at a community college. It will help her get loans, scholarships, and living stipends to pursue that degree. This bill also will fund partnerships between schools and health care providers to inspire the next generation of nurses. For example, a 12- year old boy or girl in Suitland, Maryland who is interested in nursing, could like up with a ``buddy'' or mentor at the local hospital. That mentor could help the student with science homework, or even let the student ``shadow'' the mentor at work. It is important that we add these programs to the federal law books. But as a member of the Appropriations Committee, I know how important it is that we fund them and our existing programs in the federal checkbook. That's why I was disturbed to read in the newspaper yesterday that President Bush plans to cut funding for education and training programs for doctors, nurses, pharmacists, and other health professionals from $353 million to just $140 million. That's a cut of $213 million! Such a move would be penny-wise and pound-foolish. President Bush wants to slow the growth of federal spending, but he can't slow the growth of illness, or of our aging population. He adds money for community health centers, which I support. But who will staff them? Without nurses, more community health centers are a hollow opportunity. He adds more money for medical research at the National Institutes of Health, which I support. But he doesn't fund the programs that will train the pharmacists who will dispense the medicines that come from that medical research, or a real Medicare prescription drug benefit so that seniors can afford them. Again, this is a hollow opportunity. I urge the President to reconsider, and the Congress to reject his approach. I hope to work with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to enhance opportunity for nurses and recruit new nurses into the profession by enacting this bill into law this year. Thank you.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the Baucus- Graham amendment. This amendment reserves $311 billion for a Medicare prescription drug benefit that will be reliable for seniors, affordable for the taxpayers, and will be undeniable when it comes to being able to buy a prescription drug. It will put us on a road to a benefit that meets patient needs, can be sustained by our U.S. Government, and yet is affordable with seniors. Honor your father and mother is not only a good commandment by which to live, but it is a very good policy by which to govern. We believe we ought to put it in the Federal law books. We should honor our fathers and our mothers by adopting the Baucus-Graham amendment to create a prescription drug benefit that does mean something for America's seniors. Regrettably, the Bush plan is rather spartan and skimpy. It includes only $153 billion for a prescription drug benefit. That seems to be a lot of money, and it is, but when one estimates what it would take to provide a real prescription drug benefit, the cost is much more. That comes from reliable experts in the field. First of all, I am concerned about how the President's plan would work. It would provide block grants to States to develop programs, but these programs would only be for the very low-income seniors, despite the fact that half of the seniors who need help are in the middle- income bracket. What do I mean by low income? I mean $11,000 a year or less. If you are a senior and you have an income of $11,000 or less, you might be eligible for President Bush's plan. However, as we have all gone throughout our communities, what is one of the issues we hear the most? We need a prescription drug benefit, say the seniors. The ``sandwich'' generation is caught in the middle of providing tuition for their children's education and looking out for their moms and dads. They are saving for their own retirement, helping mom and dad pay for their prescription drugs, and trying to afford the rising costs of college tuition for their children. The middle class is, once again, caught in the vice. If you are in the middle class, you cannot afford it. If you are very wealthy, you can buy your own prescription drugs. Under the Bush plan, if you are very poor, your Government will help you. I want to be on the side of all senior citizens, and that is why we are for the Baucus-Graham approach. Under the Bush plan, coverage will vary--where you live; what kind of plan your State set up. If my colleagues think we have had problems with the Patients' Bill of Rights, wait until we get into the Bush plan on prescription drugs. This means that a senior in Maryland might have generous coverage, but if that senior visits a sister in Virginia, just over the Potomac bridge, they might not have as good of a benefit. We cannot have a prescription drug benefit for seniors based on the zip code of where they live. We are ``one nation under God, indivisible . . . .'' How about having one Medicare prescription drug program that is also indivisible. President Bush is choosing a lavish tax cut over creating a real Medicare prescription drug benefit. Let me give you a hypothetical constituent: A 75-year-old widow, on an income of $20,000 a year, has a stroke. Her prescription drugs will cost about $4,200 a year. That comes out to $350 a month. The Democratic drug benefit would save her her about $150 a month or $1,700 a year. Remember, under Graham-Baucus, the Democratic plan would save her $1,700. That is almost a $1,600 difference from what she would get in the Bush tax cut. That is what she could get in a Bush tax cut. Remember, at $20,000 a year, with a tax break based on income, she would get $141 a year. I think if you would ask the American people what they want, they would want a prescription drug benefit that would help pay the bills as well as keep the money in the senior's pocketbook. Another example. An elderly couple with an income of $30,000 a year. Their combined drug costs, say, are $6,000 a year. Their daughter is helping pay drug bills, taking money from the kids' college fund. Under the Democratic plan we could save them $2,000 a year. The Bush tax cut would save them practically nothing. These examples show that the Democrats have their priorities in order. First, we must make good on the promises we have made to our seniors. Second, we must make sure we balance the books not only today but into tomorrow. The Democratic alternative is making a down payment on that balloon payment that is coming due on Social Security and Medicare. The constituents who have written and called me to ask why they or their parents cannot get the medicines they need do not want to hear about a lavish tax cut. They want to hear about Medicare, about a Medicare prescription drug benefit that will be reliable, affordable, and undeniable. America is the nation that invented most of the miracle drugs. This was done through the brilliance of American science and really public investments. They came through the Tax Code, the way we work with NIH. No one should have to choose between lifesaving medication or putting food on the table. No one should have to cut their pills in half to make them last longer. No one should have to spend half of their pension on drugs. That is why we need to pass Baucus-Graham, because we have really a compelling need. Anywhere I go in Silver Spring, MD the senior citizens would rather have a prescription drug benefit that will save $1,700 a year and, more importantly, save a life than a $141-a- year tax credit. I hope we can get our priorities in order, our books balanced, help get some money into the pocketbooks of our citizens, but let's also make sure we meet the compelling needs of our constituents. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I yield myself 10 minutes off the resolution.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about an issue that is very important to me, very important to my constituents in Maryland and very important to government workers and retirees across the Nation. I am reintroducing a bill to modify a cruel rule of government that is unfair and prevents current workers from enjoying the benefits of their hard work during retirement. Under current law, a Social Security spousal benefit is reduced or entirely eliminated if the surviving spouse is eligible for a pension from a local, State or Federal Government job that was not covered by Social Security. This policy is known as the Government Pension Offset. This is how the current law works. Consider a surviving spouse who retires from government service and receives a government pension of $600 a month. She also qualifies for a Social Security spousal benefit of $645 a month. Because of the Pension Offset law (which reduces her Social Security benefit by 2/3 of her government pension), her spousal benefit is reduced to $245 a month. So instead of $1245, she will receive only $845 a month. That is $400 a month less to pay the rent, purchase a prescription medication, or buy groceries. I think that is wrong. My bill does not repeal the government pension offset entirely, but it will allow retirees to keep more of what they deserve. It guarantees that those subject to the offset can keep at least $1200 a month in combined retirement income. With my modification, the 2/3 offset would apply only to the combined benefit that exceeds $1200 a month. So, in the example above, the surviving spouse would face only a $30 offset, allowing her to keep $1215 in monthly income. Unfortunately, the current law disproportionately affects women. Women are more likely to receive Social Security spousal benefits and to have worked in low-paying or short-term government positions while they were raising families. It is also true that women receive smaller government pensions because of their lower earnings, and rely on Social Security benefits to a greater degree. My modification will allow these women who have contributed years of important government service and family service to rely on a larger amount of retirement income. In the last Congress, the Senate unanimously voted for and passed H.R. 5, The Senior Citizens' Freedom to Work Act of 1999. This legislation ensured that senior citizens who choose to work or who must work can earn income after retirement without losing a portion of their Social Security benefit. That law helps senior citizens who earn above $17,000 per year. In contrast, my bill specifically targets those with much lower retirement incomes, around $13,000 per year and less. I believe that we must work to ensure a safety net for all of our seniors, including those retired federal employees who every day are forced to make difficult choices between rent, food, and prescription drugs due to the drastic effects of the government pension offset. Why do we punish people who have committed a significant portion of their lives to government service? We are talking about workers who provide some of the most important services to our community, teachers, firefighters, and many others. Some have already retired. Others are currently working and looking forward to a deserved retirement. These individuals deserve better than the reduced monthly benefits that the Pension Offset currently requires. Government employees work hard in service to our Nation, and I work hard for them. I do not want to see them penalized simply because they have chosen to work in the public sector, rather than for a private employer, and often at lower salaries and sometimes fewer benefits. If a retired worker in the private sector received a pension, and also received a spousal Social Security benefit, they would not be subject to the Offset. I think we should be looking for ways to reward government service, not the other way around. I believe that people who work hard and play by the rules should not be penalized by arcane, legislative technicalities. Frankly, I would like to repeal the offset all together. But, I realize that budget considerations make that unlikely. As a compromise, I hope we can agree that retirees who have worked hard all their lives should not have this offset applied until their combined monthly benefit, both government pension and Social Security spousal benefit, exceeds $1,200. I also strongly believe that we should ensure that retirees buying power keeps up with the cost of living. That's why I have also included a provision in this legislation to index the $1,200 amount to inflation so retirees will see their minimum benefits increase along with the cost of living. The Social Security Administration recently estimated that enacting the provisions contained in my bill will have a negligible long-term impact on the Social Security Trust Fund, about 0.005 percent of taxable payroll. Additionally, my bill is bipartisan and is strongly supported by CARE, the Coalition to Assure Retirement Equity with 43 member organizations including the National Association of Retired Federal Employees, NARFE, the American Federation of Federal State County and Municipal Employees, AFSCME, the National Education Association, NEA, and the National Treasury Employees Union, NTEU. I urge my colleagues to join me in this effort and support my legislation to modify the Government Pension Offset.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I am proud to join Senator Snowe in submitting a resolution calling for action to help the enclaved people in the occupied areas of Cyprus. This legislation puts the Congress on record in support of human rights and freedom for all the people of Cyprus. In 1974 Turkish troops invaded Cyprus and divided the island. For decades, the people of Cyprus have lived under an immoral and illegal occupation. The enclaved people in the northern part of the island have suffered most. Their travel is restricted. They may not attend the schools of their choice. Their access to the religious sites is restricted. They are often harassed and discriminated against. The United Nations and the European Union have documented these human rights abuses and have called on the Turkish Cypriots to respect the basic freedom of the Greek Cypriots and Maronites living in the northern part of the island. Our foreign policy must reflect our values. The legislation we are introducing urges the President to work to end restrictions on the freedom of the enclaved people in the occupied part of Cyprus. It states that commitment of Congress to pursue this issue until the human rights and fundamental freedoms of the enclaved people of Cyprus are restored, respected and safeguarded. We all hope peace will come to Cyprus, ending the occupation which divides it. But our efforts to improve human rights on the island cannot wait. I urge my colleagues to join me supporting this legislation.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about an issue that is very important to me, very important to my constituents in Maryland and very important to government workers and retirees across the Nation. I am reintroducing a bill to modify a cruel rule of government that is unfair and prevents current workers from enjoying the benefits of their hard work during retirement. Under current law, a Social Security spousal benefit is reduced or entirely eliminated if the surviving spouse is eligible for a pension from a local, State or Federal Government job that was not covered by Social Security. This policy is known as the Government Pension Offset. This is how the current law works. Consider a surviving spouse who retires from government service and receives a government pension of $600 a month. She also qualifies for a Social Security spousal benefit of $645 a month. Because of the Pension Offset law (which reduces her Social Security benefit by 2/3 of her government pension), her spousal benefit is reduced to $245 a month. So instead of $1245, she will receive only $845 a month. That is $400 a month less to pay the rent, purchase a prescription medication, or buy groceries. I think that is wrong. My bill does not repeal the government pension offset entirely, but it will allow retirees to keep more of what they deserve. It guarantees that those subject to the offset can keep at least $1200 a month in combined retirement income. With my modification, the 2/3 offset would apply only to the combined benefit that exceeds $1200 a month. So, in the example above, the surviving spouse would face only a $30 offset, allowing her to keep $1215 in monthly income. Unfortunately, the current law disproportionately affects women. Women are more likely to receive Social Security spousal benefits and to have worked in low-paying or short-term government positions while they were raising families. It is also true that women receive smaller government pensions because of their lower earnings, and rely on Social Security benefits to a greater degree. My modification will allow these women who have contributed years of important government service and family service to rely on a larger amount of retirement income. In the last Congress, the Senate unanimously voted for and passed H.R. 5, The Senior Citizens' Freedom to Work Act of 1999. This legislation ensured that senior citizens who choose to work or who must work can earn income after retirement without losing a portion of their Social Security benefit. That law helps senior citizens who earn above $17,000 per year. In contrast, my bill specifically targets those with much lower retirement incomes, around $13,000 per year and less. I believe that we must work to ensure a safety net for all of our seniors, including those retired federal employees who every day are forced to make difficult choices between rent, food, and prescription drugs due to the drastic effects of the government pension offset. Why do we punish people who have committed a significant portion of their lives to government service? We are talking about workers who provide some of the most important services to our community, teachers, firefighters, and many others. Some have already retired. Others are currently working and looking forward to a deserved retirement. These individuals deserve better than the reduced monthly benefits that the Pension Offset currently requires. Government employees work hard in service to our Nation, and I work hard for them. I do not want to see them penalized simply because they have chosen to work in the public sector, rather than for a private employer, and often at lower salaries and sometimes fewer benefits. If a retired worker in the private sector received a pension, and also received a spousal Social Security benefit, they would not be subject to the Offset. I think we should be looking for ways to reward government service, not the other way around. I believe that people who work hard and play by the rules should not be penalized by arcane, legislative technicalities. Frankly, I would like to repeal the offset all together. But, I realize that budget considerations make that unlikely. As a compromise, I hope we can agree that retirees who have worked hard all their lives should not have this offset applied until their combined monthly benefit, both government pension and Social Security spousal benefit, exceeds $1,200. I also strongly believe that we should ensure that retirees buying power keeps up with the cost of living. That's why I have also included a provision in this legislation to index the $1,200 amount to inflation so retirees will see their minimum benefits increase along with the cost of living. The Social Security Administration recently estimated that enacting the provisions contained in my bill will have a negligible long-term impact on the Social Security Trust Fund, about 0.005 percent of taxable payroll. Additionally, my bill is bipartisan and is strongly supported by CARE, the Coalition to Assure Retirement Equity with 43 member organizations including the National Association of Retired Federal Employees, NARFE, the American Federation of Federal State County and Municipal Employees, AFSCME, the National Education Association, NEA, and the National Treasury Employees Union, NTEU. I urge my colleagues to join me in this effort and support my legislation to modify the Government Pension Offset.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. I thank the Senator and I salute him and Senator McCain.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, today I rise in support of S. 27, the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act of 2001. I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate both Senators McCain and Feingold on developing such an excellent bipartisan bill and also to Senators Dodd and McConnell for bringing this bill to the Senate floor. I hope we can consider it expeditiously and pass it. I absolutely support this legislation. Even if it is a disadvantage for incumbents, I believe, we, the Senate, should be more worried about protecting democracy than protecting ourselves. I want a Congress that is unbought and unbossed. Our current campaign finance system contributes now to a culture of cynicism. It hurts our institutions, it hurts our government, and it is an attack on the integrity of our political process. When big business blocks agencies such as the Department of Labor from issuing important regulations on ergonomics, it adds to the culture of cynicism. I am not saying there is a quid pro quo, but what are the American people to think when some of the biggest campaign contributors were able to stop legislation that they oppose? Is it any wonder Americans don't trust their elected officials to act in the public interest; instead, they believe Congress is preoccupied with pandering to the special interest. That's why I support the following principles for campaign finance reform, regardless of what bill is before the Senate: I want to stop the flood of unregulated and unreported money in campaigns. I want to eliminate the undue influence of special interests in elections. I want to encourage strong grassroots participation. I would like to return power to where it belongs --with the people. This is why I support the McCain-Feingold bill. My support for this legislation is nothing new. During my entire political career, both in the House and the Senate, I have always supported campaign finance reform and other measures to open up our democratic process. The McCain-Feingold bill does several things. It bans soft money raised by national parties and by candidates for Federal office. It ends issue ads, which are really attack ads under the guise of ``issues.'' I want to close the loophole which allows groups to skirt the current election laws - and this bill does just that. Finally, it clarifies what election activities non-profits can do on behalf of our candidates for Federal office. Why should we ban soft money? We hear ``soft'' money. Is it like a soft pretzel? What does ``soft'' mean? Is it soft currency? Really, it is a backdoor way to avoid the contribution limits that are now placed on candidates. Right now soft money is influencing our process almost as much as direct contributions to candidates do. Republicans and Democrats raised over $460 million in last year's soft money race or, soft money chase. Right now, Federal candidates spend so much time and so much attention raising money that we sometimes wonder if we have the time to do the work of our constituents. Candidates must constantly work to raise money. Special interest groups that contribute large sums have an influence on the political process. Let's face it, those people with the golden Rolodex who can approach a candidate and say, ``I'll be able to get 100 people in the room and raise $1,000 for you,'' have influence. Those who then say, ``I'll get 10 people in the room and have 10,000 people give soft money,'' which is the unregulated but legal way of giving money to parties, funding the issue ads that are really attack ads, are also in high demand. This is why we need to pass McCain-Feingold because I think it deals with these issues and deals with them in a constructive way. Thirty years ago I decided to run for political office. I was a social worker who was strongly considering a doctorate in public health. I joined a wonderful group of people in Baltimore to fight a highway. The more we knocked on doors, the more we saw that the doors were closed to us. At that time, Baltimore was dominated by political machines. It was dominated by political bosses. Grassroots, nonprofit organizations couldn't break into that process. I was so tired of banging on doors I decided to open doors, and that's when I announced I was going to run for the Baltimore city council. The smart money was against me. How could a woman run in an ethnic blue-collar neighborhood, someone who had a strong record in civil rights and also had no personal money? While they were so busy laughing at me, I got to work. Because I had no money, I had no choice, I organized a group of volunteers and we went door-to-door, one hot summer in Baltimore, and I knocked on over 10,000 doors. By knocking on those doors with my volunteers, I rolled over the political machine and I beat those two political bosses. That is how I got into politics. And because of how I started, I want the voices and votes of strong grassroots volunteers still to count. I want the small contributor to still count. I found ways to bring people into the process. Using not only door-to-door but techno door-to-door, using the Internet, chatrooms for discussions on issues, new forms of town halls. But we can't do that if every single day our focus is on raising big money, soft money, or any kind of money that we can get our hands on. Does McCain-Feingold solve all the problems of this situation? No. Is it more than a downpayment on reform? You bet. What McCain-Feingold does is dry up the soft money and focus on getting real contributors. I hope we can even do more reform and innovative thinking, such as broadcast vouchers, for the small contributors. The more people we can bring in, the more people are participating in the process. The best cure for democracy is more democracy and more participation. That is why I am so strong about McCain-Feingold. We need to stop worrying about protecting incumbents and start worrying about protecting democracy. Last year we spent $3 billion on election activities. The average Senate race now costs $6 million. That is compared to $1 million over 20 years ago. It seems like the cost of campaigns is going up more than health care costs. Just look at my own State of Maryland where advertising is big business. For me to go on TV in the Baltimore- Washington corridor, it is about $300,000 or $350,000 a week. Let's look at what it takes to raise $6 million--the average cost of a Senate campaign. When you think about a 6-year term, that means you have to raise $1 million a year. You take 2 weeks off for religious holidays or vacation; that is $20,000 a week. That means a Senator has to think about raising $20,000 a week. Can you really believe we can focus all the time we need to on our national security interests, raising 20 grand a week? Can you really devote all of your time to thinking about how we can solve the health care crisis? Can we really think about how we could end the trafficking in drugs when we are in the trafficking of fundraisers? It weakens our institution. Let's look at it among ourselves. Why romanticize the old days of the Senate or talk about the club? The club has a new look. There are 13 women in the Senate, people coming from a variety of backgrounds, some very wealthy and some who got here because of strong grassroots support, all bringing their passion to engage in public debate and fashion public policy. That is what we want to do. But where are we now? When we used to engage in conversation, the things that promote civility and creative thinking, now we are all dashing to either our own fundraisers or someone else's. This is why I hope we pass McCain-Feingold. For all of you who do not like campaign finance reform, be worried, as I am, that the largest voting block in America now is the no-shows. The way we can deal with the cynicism is to be able to clean up our own act, do some of the election reforms on which Senators Dodd and McConnell are working. They are very able Senators. Let's continue to open up the process but don't think about opening up the process where we have to pursue open wallets. I would rather pursue open minds and keep knocking on those doors. I urge my colleagues in the strongest way I can to pass McCain- Feingold. It will be one of the best things we can do for democracy. I yield the floor.

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

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise to join my colleagues Senators Harkin, Snowe, Murkowski, Murray, Schumer, and Reid in introducing the Assure Access to Mammography Act of 2001. The goal of this bill is to help ensure that women have access to screening mammograms. Breast cancer mortality has decreased because of early detection, diagnosis, and treatment. Mammography is vital to early detection, yet I have seen press reports about women having to wait weeks or months for a mammogram. In Maryland, waiting times for mammograms at some facilities have increased from one to two weeks to six to eight weeks. In addition, some wait times have increased from one to two days to two weeks for a diagnostic mammogram. In these cases, usually a woman has already had a suspicious finding from a screening mammogram and has to wait longer to get the results of a diagnostic mammogram to determine if she has breast cancer or not. I have also heard about mammography facilities closing down because they could no longer make ends meet. In fact, a couple mammography facilities in the Baltimore area have closed their doors. This coincides with a national trend. Over the last 18 months, close to 250 mammography facilities have closed down, with almost 100 facilities closing between October 2000 and February 2001. Women living in areas with no or few mammogram facilities are less likely to have mammograms than those living in areas with more facilities. At the same time, the size of the population requiring annual mammograms is increasing about one million per year. The American population is aging. There will be 70 million Americans aged 65 and over in 2030. Age is also the most important risk factor for breast cancer. A woman's chance of getting breast cancer is 1 out of 2,212 by age 30. This increases to 1 out of 23 by age 60 and 1 out of 10 by age 80. More than 85 percent of breast cancers occur in women over the age of 50. This means that more and more women will be on Medicare and need screening mammograms. Screening mammograms have been shown to reduce breast cancer mortality by 25-30 percent in women age 50-70. About 68 percent of Maryland women age 65 and older had a mammogram within the last year. More women will need this screening at the same time that we are seeing fewer mammography facilities available to provide this valuable service to women. Eleven years ago, I introduced the Medicare Screening Mammography Amendments of 1990 to provide Medicare coverage of annual screening mammography. This bill set out the conditions under which Medicare would cover screening mammograms and how they would be reimbursed. My legislation was included in the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990. Before that, Medicare did not cover routine annual screening mammograms. The Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA) reimburses screening mammograms at a rate of $55 indexed to inflation. This means that for 2001, Medicare pays $69.23 for screening mammograms. Last year, Congress changed how Medicare pays for screening mammograms. Starting in 2002, screening mammograms will be reimbursed through the Medicare physician fee schedule like diagnostic mammograms and other services. Mammography is a unique procedure. Screening mammography has been reimbursed differently under Medicare than diagnostic mammography. Mammography is also one of the most technically challenging radiological procedures. Ensuring the quality of the image is difficult and mammograms are the most difficult radiologic images to read. I authored the mammography Quality Standards Act of 1992 to set uniform quality standards for mammography facilities, personnel, and equipment so that women would have safe and reliable mammograms. These standards are unique to mammography. A study has found that allegation of error in the diagnosis of breast cancer is now the most prevalent reason for medical malpractice lawsuits among all claims against physicians and is associated with the second highest indemnity payment size. Last week, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) released a report entitled ``Mammography and Beyond: Developing Technologies for the Early Detection of Breast Cancer''. Among the IOM's recommendations is that HCFA should analyze the current Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement rates for mammography, including a comparison with other radiological techniques, to determine whether they adequately cover the total costs of providing the procedure. The cost analysis should include the costs associated with meeting the requirements of the Mammography Quality Standards Act. The bill we are introducing today would delay for one year (until 2003) the inclusion of screening mammography in the Medicare physician fee schedule. This would give time for HCFA to collect data and review Medicare reimbursement rates for screening mammography before moving it into the physician fee schedule and to help ensure a smooth transition into the fee schedule. This is important given the unique characteristics of mammography that I have already outlined. In the meantime, the bill would increase Medicare reimbursement for screening mammograms to $90 in 2002 to help decrease waiting times and the closure of mammography facilities so that women have timely access to screening mammograms. In addition, there is evidence that fewer numbers of radiologists and technologists are going into mammography. That's why this bill increases Medicare Graduate Medical Education funding for additional radiology residency slots and increases funding for Allied Health Professions programs to increase the supply of radiologic technologists (RTs) able to conduct mammograms. The IOM report last week acknowledges this concern by recommending that the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) should undertake or fund a study that analyzes trends in specialty training for breast cancer screening among radiologists and radiologic technologists and that examines the factors that affect practitioners' decision to enter or remain in the field. Finally, this bill would require a General Accounting Office study of the Medicare reimbursement structure for gender-specific procedures and require a Medicare Payment Advisory Commission study of Medicare reimbursement for screening services. These studies will provide important information for Congress and HCFA to consider as we look at ways to improve and modernize Medicare. I'm pleased that this legislation has the support of the American Cancer Society, the American College of Radiology, the American Society of Radiologic Technologists, and the Society of Breast Imaging. I hope this bill will begin a conversation about the adequacy of Medicare reimbursement of screening mammograms. I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I urge my colleagues on the Finance Committee to consider this bill as they craft Medicare reform legislation. A decade ago Congress provided coverage of annual mammograms to women under Medicare. This legislation will help ensure that the promise we made a decade ago remains a meaningful promise to current and future Medicare beneficiaries. Without it, some women at risk for breast cancer may not have access to screening that could detect cancer earlier and help them live longer.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise to join my colleagues Senators Harkin, Snowe, Murkowski, Murray, Schumer, and Reid in introducing the Assure Access to Mammography Act of 2001. The goal of this bill is to help ensure that women have access to screening mammograms. Breast cancer mortality has decreased because of early detection, diagnosis, and treatment. Mammography is vital to early detection, yet I have seen press reports about women having to wait weeks or months for a mammogram. In Maryland, waiting times for mammograms at some facilities have increased from one to two weeks to six to eight weeks. In addition, some wait times have increased from one to two days to two weeks for a diagnostic mammogram. In these cases, usually a woman has already had a suspicious finding from a screening mammogram and has to wait longer to get the results of a diagnostic mammogram to determine if she has breast cancer or not. I have also heard about mammography facilities closing down because they could no longer make ends meet. In fact, a couple mammography facilities in the Baltimore area have closed their doors. This coincides with a national trend. Over the last 18 months, close to 250 mammography facilities have closed down, with almost 100 facilities closing between October 2000 and February 2001. Women living in areas with no or few mammogram facilities are less likely to have mammograms than those living in areas with more facilities. At the same time, the size of the population requiring annual mammograms is increasing about one million per year. The American population is aging. There will be 70 million Americans aged 65 and over in 2030. Age is also the most important risk factor for breast cancer. A woman's chance of getting breast cancer is 1 out of 2,212 by age 30. This increases to 1 out of 23 by age 60 and 1 out of 10 by age 80. More than 85 percent of breast cancers occur in women over the age of 50. This means that more and more women will be on Medicare and need screening mammograms. Screening mammograms have been shown to reduce breast cancer mortality by 25-30 percent in women age 50-70. About 68 percent of Maryland women age 65 and older had a mammogram within the last year. More women will need this screening at the same time that we are seeing fewer mammography facilities available to provide this valuable service to women. Eleven years ago, I introduced the Medicare Screening Mammography Amendments of 1990 to provide Medicare coverage of annual screening mammography. This bill set out the conditions under which Medicare would cover screening mammograms and how they would be reimbursed. My legislation was included in the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990. Before that, Medicare did not cover routine annual screening mammograms. The Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA) reimburses screening mammograms at a rate of $55 indexed to inflation. This means that for 2001, Medicare pays $69.23 for screening mammograms. Last year, Congress changed how Medicare pays for screening mammograms. Starting in 2002, screening mammograms will be reimbursed through the Medicare physician fee schedule like diagnostic mammograms and other services. Mammography is a unique procedure. Screening mammography has been reimbursed differently under Medicare than diagnostic mammography. Mammography is also one of the most technically challenging radiological procedures. Ensuring the quality of the image is difficult and mammograms are the most difficult radiologic images to read. I authored the mammography Quality Standards Act of 1992 to set uniform quality standards for mammography facilities, personnel, and equipment so that women would have safe and reliable mammograms. These standards are unique to mammography. A study has found that allegation of error in the diagnosis of breast cancer is now the most prevalent reason for medical malpractice lawsuits among all claims against physicians and is associated with the second highest indemnity payment size. Last week, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) released a report entitled ``Mammography and Beyond: Developing Technologies for the Early Detection of Breast Cancer''. Among the IOM's recommendations is that HCFA should analyze the current Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement rates for mammography, including a comparison with other radiological techniques, to determine whether they adequately cover the total costs of providing the procedure. The cost analysis should include the costs associated with meeting the requirements of the Mammography Quality Standards Act. The bill we are introducing today would delay for one year (until 2003) the inclusion of screening mammography in the Medicare physician fee schedule. This would give time for HCFA to collect data and review Medicare reimbursement rates for screening mammography before moving it into the physician fee schedule and to help ensure a smooth transition into the fee schedule. This is important given the unique characteristics of mammography that I have already outlined. In the meantime, the bill would increase Medicare reimbursement for screening mammograms to $90 in 2002 to help decrease waiting times and the closure of mammography facilities so that women have timely access to screening mammograms. In addition, there is evidence that fewer numbers of radiologists and technologists are going into mammography. That's why this bill increases Medicare Graduate Medical Education funding for additional radiology residency slots and increases funding for Allied Health Professions programs to increase the supply of radiologic technologists (RTs) able to conduct mammograms. The IOM report last week acknowledges this concern by recommending that the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) should undertake or fund a study that analyzes trends in specialty training for breast cancer screening among radiologists and radiologic technologists and that examines the factors that affect practitioners' decision to enter or remain in the field. Finally, this bill would require a General Accounting Office study of the Medicare reimbursement structure for gender-specific procedures and require a Medicare Payment Advisory Commission study of Medicare reimbursement for screening services. These studies will provide important information for Congress and HCFA to consider as we look at ways to improve and modernize Medicare. I'm pleased that this legislation has the support of the American Cancer Society, the American College of Radiology, the American Society of Radiologic Technologists, and the Society of Breast Imaging. I hope this bill will begin a conversation about the adequacy of Medicare reimbursement of screening mammograms. I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I urge my colleagues on the Finance Committee to consider this bill as they craft Medicare reform legislation. A decade ago Congress provided coverage of annual mammograms to women under Medicare. This legislation will help ensure that the promise we made a decade ago remains a meaningful promise to current and future Medicare beneficiaries. Without it, some women at risk for breast cancer may not have access to screening that could detect cancer earlier and help them live longer.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to the life and legacy of Mrs. Matina Sarbanes, the mother of our dear colleague, Senator Paul Sarbanes. Mrs. Sarbanes personified the American dream. She came to this county from Greece in 1930 to build a better life. She and her husband, the late Spyros Sarbanes, settled in Salisbury on the Eastern Shore of Maryland. Mrs. Sarbanes used America's unique opportunity structure to build a business and a better life for their children. She and her husband opened the Mayflower Grill, a restaurant known for its good food and warm atmosphere. While the restaurant eventually closed in 1960, 3 years after the death of Mr. Sarbanes, people still share stories about their meals and conversations with the Sarbanes family at the Mayflower Grill. The restaurant was truly a family-owned and operated business. The children grew up waiting tables and washing dishes, developing a strong work ethic and value of service. Although important, Mrs. Sarbanes knew that hard work was not enough to ensure a better life in America for her children. Having never finished school herself, Mrs. Sarbanes taught her children the value of a good education. She knew that in America, as in few other places in the world, children of immigrants could go anywhere that hard work and education would take them. She instilled in her children the values they needed to succeed: faith, family and patriotism. Her children put these values into action. Her oldest son attended one of the country's top colleges, became a Rhodes Scholar, and serves in one of our Nation's highest elected offices. Her son Anthony had a long distinguished career in education and in the military. Her daughter Zoe was a community leader and business woman in New Jersey. Mrs. Sarbanes was a patriotic woman with a deep love for this country and for her Eastern Shore community. She was appreciative of America and all the opportunities it afforded her. And while she reaped the benefits of her life in America, she also knew the importance of giving back to her community. Mrs. Sarbanes passed this patriotism and love for her community on to her children. To learn all she could about the United States, it was not unusual for CNN to be on her television or for politics to be the topic of conversation at the Sarbanes' home. While Mrs. Sarbanes was proud to be an American citizen, she never forgot her Greek heritage. She was active in the Greek community in Delmarva and helped found the St. George Greek Orthodox Church in Ocean City, which continues to thrive. While America provided her with opportunity, Greece provided her with a unique perspective on life and appreciation for all she and her family had accomplished. Mrs. Sarbanes lived to see each of her children and grandchildren finish college and grow up to be success stories in their own right. We know how proud Mrs. Sarbanes was of her family, and she must know how proud her family was of her. She lived a wonderful life in America and touched many people including her church community, her Greek community, her patrons from the restaurant, and her countless friends. She will be greatly missed by all who knew and loved her. Her family and many friends are in my thoughts and prayers. I ask unanimous consent that an editorial on Mrs. Sarbanes from the Daily Times in Salisbury be printed in the Record.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise to oppose this resolution which seeks to overturn OSHA's new standard that protects workers from workplace injuries. It is bad for American workers and bad for our economy. This resolution would prevent OSHA from implementing an ergonomics standard that would establish basic safety standards for American workers. This standard would protect workers from on-the-job injuries caused by working conditions that involve heavy lifting, repetitive motions or working in an awkward or uncomfortable position. American workers deserve a safe workplace, yet each year more than 600,000 people suffer ergonomics injuries. Who suffers most from ergonomic injuries? Women. Women represent only 46 percent of the workforce, but they suffer 64 percent of the repetitive motion injuries. Who are these women? They're the caregivers--like the home health care worker who bathes a housebound senior or the licensed practical nurse who cares for us when we are hospitalized. They are the factory workers who build our cars and process our food. They are the cashiers and sales clerks who are the backbone of our retail economy. And they are the data entry clerks who keep our high-tech economy moving forward. There are terrible human costs to these injuries. Women account for nearly 75 percent of lost work time due to carpal tunnel syndrome and 62 percent of lost time due to tendinitis. These are painful, debilitating injuries that prevent you from doing even simple activities like combing your hair or zipping your child's jacket. We can't measure the pain and suffering of workers who are injured at work, but we can measure the economic costs. These injuries cost our economy over $80 billion annually in lost productivity, health care costs and workers compensation. In fact, nearly $1 out of every $3 in worker's compensation payments result from ergonomics injuries. OSHA's ergonomics standard wasn't slapped together at the last minute or in the dark of night. The effort was initially launched by Labor Secretary Elizabeth Dole in 1990 and the standards have been in development over the past 10 years. During the development phase there were 10 weeks of public hearings and extensive scientific study, including the National Academy of Science's study which concluded that workplace interventions can reduce the incidence of workplace injuries. The result of this long and careful study is the OSHA ergonomics standard issued last November. These standards would require all employers to provide their workers with basic information on ergonomic injuries--including their symptoms and the importance of early reporting. These standards would take action whenever a worker reports these activities and employers would be required to correct the situation. Correction could mean better equipment or better training. What will OSHA's new rule mean? It would prevent 300,000 injuries per year and it would save $9 billion in workers compensation and related costs. It's outrageous that the first major legislation considered by the Senate this year would turn the clock back on worker safety. This would be the first time in OSHA's 30 year history that a worker health and safety rule has ever been repealed. As a great nation, it is our duty to protect our most valuable resource--our working men and women. I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this resolution.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Thank you very much. Mr. President, as we consider the nomination of John Ashcroft for Attorney General, I would like to compliment the Judiciary Committee on their process and deliberation in bringing this nomination to the floor. On my side of the aisle, I would like to be particularly complimentary of the leadership provided by Senator Patrick Leahy and, of course, the work done by Senator Orrin Hatch. I believe the deliberations were fair, rigorous, thorough, and conducted in a tone that was really becoming of the U.S. Senate. I would like to congratulate my colleagues on that. As I consider the nomination of all the Cabinet members, particularly this one, I want to speak first about the statement that said a President is entitled to his nominees. The nominations to head up the executive branch are not entitlement programs. There is nothing entitlement about it. In fact, we were given a constitutional mandate to examine each and every nominee and to give our advice and consent to the President of the United States. The founding fathers were very clear that the Senate should not be a rubber stamp in terms of a Presidential set of nominees. The President is entitled to fair consideration of those nominees, but not for us to be a rubber stamp. On each and every one of those nominees, I have given my independent judgment and have voted for most of President Bush's nominations because I think they meet three tests: Competency, integrity, and a commitment to the mission of the agency. President Bush in his inaugural address pledged to ``work to build a single nation of justice and opportunity.'' Yet one of his first acts was to choose John Ashcroft to lead the Department of Justice, someone who has had an extreme ideological agenda on civil rights, on a woman's right to choose, on gun control, his positions are far outside the mainstream. Often, his rhetoric has been harsh and wounding. As attorney general and Governor of Missouri; he pushed systematically and regularly for the disempowerment of people of color and the disempowerment of women to have access to health services related to their own reproduction. Can anyone be surprised that this nomination is divisive? This is not a time in our history for further division. My wonderful colleague from New Hampshire left the floor. I want to say something. I don't have a litmus test on nominations. I don't have a single issue by which I judge any and of all the nominees. He raised the issue, and appropriately, that if you are not pro-choice, can you be confirmed in the Senate, or can you get Democratic votes? The answer is yes, and right here. I will give you an example. Governor Thompson has now been appointed our Secretary of HHS. I am pro-choice. Governor Thompson is not. I did not hesitate to vote for Governor Thompson because I looked at the pattern of the way he governed. He is a champion of welfare rights and truly a compassionate conservative--one of the first to have a State version of a woman's health agenda, a real commitment to dealing with the tragedy of long-term care and extra support to care givers. This is a Cabinet member I want to work with in constructive dialog. I had no litmus test. I don't believe my colleagues do. I believe among our own side of the aisle there are people about which it is not whether you are pro-choice or pro-life, it is, are you committed to some of the central values of our society? Do you believe America is a mosaic, that all people come with different heritages and different beliefs and have a right to equal opportunity and justice under the law? Do you believe the social glue is access to courts that you believe are fundamentally fair. Do you believe that an Attorney General's Office at the State or Federal level will embrace the fundamental principles of our U.S. Government? That is our criteria. When I looked at the nomination of John Ashcroft, I had to say, Is he competent? Yes. You can't dispute that. His whole education and record--yes, he is competent. On integrity? Until the confirmation hearing, I believed him to be a man of great integrity. I had no doubt. But all of a sudden, there were two John Ashcrofts. The prehearing John Ashcroft who was Attorney General, as Governor of Missouri, here on the Senate floor had one set of beliefs. I respect those beliefs. People are entitled to their beliefs. But all of a sudden in the confirmation hearing, his beliefs no longer mattered to him. If you fundamentally opposed, as he did, issues of civil rights, the access of women to have reproductive services, how is it you could have such passionate beliefs one day and then say they didn't matter, you would put them on the shelf? I respect the passion Senator Ashcroft has of his beliefs. Though he is entitled to his beliefs, I don't believe his beliefs entitle him to be Attorney General of the United States. I don't know how you can believe something so passionately one day and then say you will put them on the shelf. Beliefs are not something like the surplus that you can put in a lockbox. Beliefs cannot be put in a lockbox. When I looked at John Ashcroft and his record as attorney general and as Governor, I was deeply troubled. What I was troubled about was how he enforced issues, his record on civil rights, on a woman's right to choose, on enforcing the laws. On civil rights, the Attorney General of the United States decides how vigorously we enforce existing civil rights laws. The Civil Rights Division monitors and ensures that school districts comply with desegregation. Yet as attorney general, John Ashcroft strenuously opposed a voluntary court-ordered desegregation plan agreed to by all parties. He even tried to block this after a Federal court found that the State was acting unconstitutionally and then went on to vilify the court for their position. One of the fundamental civil rights is the right to vote. Didn't we just go through that in the most closely contested election? Every vote does count, and everybody who can should be registered. Yet as Governor, he vetoed the Voter Registration Reform Act which would have significantly increased minority voter registration and was endorsed by such groups as the League of Women Voters. I believe there has been a persistent pattern of opposing opportunity in the areas of civil rights. On the protection of rights of individuals, the right to choose, the Attorney General has great power to undermine existing laws and the constitutional protection of a woman's right to choose. As attorney general, John Ashcroft used his office to limit women's access to health care, particularly reproductive health care, filing an amicus brief in a case that sought to prevent nurses from providing routine GYN services and also giving out on a voluntary basis usual and customary methods of contraceptives, saying they were practicing medicine. What they were doing was practicing public health. Based on his record and other statements, I can only conclude that John Ashcroft would use his position to undermine existing laws, including the constitutional protection of a woman's right to choose and access to reproductive health services, after these services have already been affirmed by law and the Supreme Court. Sexual orientation. The Attorney General is charged with enforcing antidiscrimination laws, which include protections for homosexuals. Yet John Ashcroft opposed the nomination of James Hormel to be Ambassador to Luxemburg simply because he is gay. Now, hello, what does that mean would happen in his own department? Will this be an issue with his own hiring at the Department of Justice? The Justice Department advises the President on proposed legislation; for example, hate crimes prevention, another part of the social glue of America. John Ashcroft voted against this legislation. How does he feel about hate crimes now? Will he enforce existing hate crime laws? Will he recommend that the President expand them? The Justice Department is called upon to enforce other laws. One of the big flashing yellow lights is racial profiling. By the way, the former Governor of New Jersey was called into question about the way she enforced racial profiling, but I voted for her to be EPA Administrator because that is not the issue in being an EPA Administrator. Again, no litmus test and no listening to the so-called left-wing groups they talk about. Please let's end this demeaning of groups. The NAACP, People for the American Way, the ACLU, these are part of America. Senator Ashcroft could have acted in racial profiling, but he held it up in committee. He was quite passive. Is he going to be passive when it comes to this as Attorney General? I wonder. Then we have activism. Bill Lann Lee was nominated for the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights--a compelling story, a man of great talent, a man who worked his way up, not unlike some of the nominees given to us by President Bush, such as Mr. Martinez, Ms. Chao, whose stories are compelling. Bill Lann Lee had a compelling story, but he also had one other thing on his resume. He happened to have been a civil rights lawyer for the NAACP. This made him, in the Ashcroft analysis, a radical activist. What is wrong with being a lawyer for the NAACP? I thought Thurgood Marshall once had that job--not a bad place to earn your spurs. But, oh, no. So what is it that John Ashcroft is going to look for in his Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights? Passivity? Let's get somebody passive? I don't think so, because it really goes against what we require in that job, because in that job you have to be proactive. I don't believe John Ashcroft is a racist. I also don't believe he is anti-Catholic. I believe those rhetorical charges were not only exaggerated but I truly believe they are unfounded. At the same time, he does have a record of insensitivity. I look at that pattern where he routinely blocked the nomination of women and minorities; he opposed 12 judicial nominees, 8 of whom were women and minorities. Others have spoken about his position on gun control. As a fervent opponent of even the most basic gun control measures, how can we expect him to vigorously enforce the gun safety laws that are already on the books? Let me conclude. The President does have the right to name his Cabinet, but the Senate has the constitutional requirement to give advice and consent on these nominations. My advice to President Bush is: I am sorry you gave us such a divisive nominee. Other nominees are excellent. Others I will look forward to working with, and to starting a constructive dialog with. I am so sorry this happened. I am sorry it happened to John Ashcroft. If John Ashcroft had been nominated for Secretary of Agriculture, I would have probably voted for him. But I cannot vote for him to be Attorney General because I do believe that beliefs matter and the beliefs that you show over a record of a lifetime show the true way you will conduct your office. Beliefs are not in a lockbox. I cannot consent to the nomination of John Ashcroft. I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this nomination. I also urge my colleagues, let us not have demeaning rhetoric on the floor or try to demonize either a group or a nominee. I yield the floor.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. I stand to honor the Baltimore Ravens who soared over the Super Bowl winning 34-7. I also want to honor the city of Baltimore. Baltimore has often been overlooked and under valued. Baltimore is the comeback city: the crime rate is dropping; test scores are rising; we are building a digital harbor; and now we are the Super Bowl champs for the first time since 1971. We want the world to get to know Baltimore as a dynamic city, a city of communities--that's unified around our values, our patriotism, and our Ravens, a city with a great football heritage--and a great football future. I congratulate the Baltimore fans, loyal and with high energy. They spent 11 years without any team at all after our Colts snuck out of town. We now have the Ravens--and we're the Super Bowl champs. We deserved this win. I congratulate owner Art Modell, who won his first Super Bowl in 40 years of owning the team; head coach Brian Bilick, who won after only 2 years as a head coach; Ray Lewis, named most valuable player; the Ravens defense, one of the best defensive teams ever, making records and Super Bowl history, allowing just 165 points in the 16-game regular season, and had caught four interceptions during the Super Bowl. The Ravens' offense and special teams scored big. Quarterback, Trent Dilfer threw the first touchdown pass of the game and had no interceptions; Brandon Stokely caught a 38-yard touchdown pass; Jermaine Lewis, a Maryland native and former Maryland Terrapin, returned an 84-yard kick-off to put the game out of reach. The resolution we are passing today commends the loyalty, community spirit and enthusiasm of the Baltimore fans, applauds the Baltimore Ravens for their high standards of character, perseverance, professionalism, excellence and teamwork, praises the Ravens for their community service, congratulates the Ravens and the New York Giants for a hard-fought, sportsmanlike Super Bowl, congratulates the Ravens and their fans for the Super Bowl victory, and recognizes the achievements of the players, coaches and support staff who made this win possible. We have been celebrating since Sunday night. Today we had a parade through Baltimore. We gave the Ravens the key to our city; they already have the key to our hearts. I just watched as our colleagues from New York made good on their bet and recited Edgar Allen Poe's ``The Raven.'' We want our colleagues to share in our excitement for our Ravens and for our city.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise to bring to the Senate's attention the passing of a great and unique woman--Janet L. Hoffman. She was described by the Baltimore Sun as ``a lobbyist whose political and financial wizardry helped Baltimore shoulder the burden of urban poverty.'' I first became acquainted with Janet Hoffman in 1971 as a member of the Baltimore City Council. I came into politics as a fiery protestor and had to learn how to turn my protest placards into legislation. Janet Hoffman really taught me, guided me and mentored me in the strategy of governance and the wiles of government finance. I learned how to operationalize my good intentions and learned how to budget. She was patient, persistent and a strong advocate for women's rights. She was so proud of seeing me come to the Congress, the Senate and a member of the Appropriations Committee. She'd be so proud in having her biography included in the Congressional Record on the day that four new women are sworn into the United States Senate. She would have cheered--and would have wanted to make sure they understood government finance. Mr. President, the Baltimore Sun described Janet Hoffman best. I ask that the Sun's article on her life and legacy be included in the Record. [From the Baltimore Sun, Dec. 31, 2000] Janet L. Hoffman Dies; Lobbyist, Adviser to City finance expert steered state aid to Baltimore (By C. Fraser Smith) Janet L. Hoffman, a lobbyist whose political and financial wizardry helped Baltimore shoulder the burden of urban poverty, died yesterday of kidney failure at Oak Crest Health Care Center in Parkville. She was 81 and had lived in Mount Washington for many years. A strategist as well as a master of government finance, Mrs. Hoffman used Baltimore's fading power with pre-eminent efficiency, building coalitions and making friends in the highest places. ``She was the best thing the city had in Annapolis,'' said state comptroller and longtime Baltimore mayor William Donald Schaefer. ``Everybody trusted her. She never misled anybody. Her credibility was 100 percent in Annapolis. She was brilliant.'' A woman who dressed simply, she walked the corridors of the State House and City Hall in one of the many berets she wore. ``She had a passion for the city that drove her,'' said Marvin Mandel, Maryland's governor in the 1970s. ``Everybody respected her. She was aggressive, too. But in the end, she was one of the most knowledgeable persons in Annapolis.'' ``She was the most effective governmental lobbyist in the history of our state,'' said U.S. Rep. Benjamin L. Cardin. ``I owe my sensitivity toward fiscal matters to her.'' As Baltimore's first and longest-serving lobbyist in Annapolis, she invented a position soon copied by the state's largest subdivisions as they competed with her for state aid. She continued in the job for 33 years, retiring in 1986 but returning as a consultant periodically until 1996, when she left the State House for good. Then 77, she had served in city or state government for almost a half-century. On her last day of city service, the House of Delegates passed a resolution commemorating her work. She was known in her prime as Maryland's 48th senator, an institutional honor that gave her a ``kick.'' In truth, she had more real power than many of the 47 men and women who earned the title at the polls, and she served far longer than any of them. In marathon lobbying sessions of 1976, she won funding for the Baltimore subway and the downtown Convention Center from the General Assembly. She was so exhausted she collapsed and was driven home by a state trooper. ``I remember going up to the gallery and speaking with Donald Schaefer and Janet,'' Cardin said. ``It was a very dramatic moment, an incredible night.'' Earlier in the decade, working with city budget official Charles Benton, she recommended selling what is now BWI Airport to the state and using the proceeds to build the National Aquarium. The trust of those she worked with combined with a keen sense of history to bring her city an annual bonanza of financial aid, including a 1960s realignment of responsibility for welfare that freed the city of strains that might have precluded the downtown renaissance of the 1980s. She also created financial formulas to pay for portions of city fire, police, highway and educational expenses. Eight governors were elected during her service: William Preston Lane Jr., Theodore R. McKeldin, J. Millard Tawes, Spiro T. Agnew, Marvin Mandel, Harry R. Hughes, William Donald Schaefer and Parris N. Glendening. ``On the outside she was rough and tough,'' said former Speaker of the House R. Clayton Mitchell Jr., a Kent County Democrat. ``But when you got to know her, she was sweet and lovable. You could rely on her figures. She had a talent and gift for numbers.'' Not infrequently, she helped them solve fiscal and political problems. She did it with great mental dexterity, bill-by-bill memory of legislative history and a keen sense of what motivates people. Candid and direct to the end, she said she was leaving finally to make way for new minds. ``A more exploring, fresher approach is needed,'' she said. ``It's hard at my stage to pick up a bill and really read it because I think I know what's in it.'' Her first government job came in 1949 when she became the first staff member in the state's newly created Fiscal Research Bureau, which analyzed legislation for the House and Senate. Thirteen years later, she left to do the same work for Baltimore. City legislators and mayors, not governors, were her bosses. A master of the complicated formulas used to redistribute the state's revenue, Mrs. Hoffman made the arithmetic work year after year for Baltimore with categories of aid she sometimes invented--sometimes on the thinnest pretext. Then she sold them to the presiding officers and governors who put them in play. The state treasury's growing importance to a struggling city losing population and power was little appreciated until she took over. She learned that Baltimore department heads were coming to Annapolis to lobby against money bills that would have helped the city. Too much paperwork, they told her. That view changed. She quickly became a presence in the assembly. Unique among public or private lobbyists, she was given access to the Senate lounge and floor by then-Senate President Steny H. Hoyer, now a member of Congress. Her singular status was owed to the trust built over years of service, according to Mr. Schaefer. ``I think she's the smartest woman I ever met in the area of finance,'' the former mayor and governor said in 1996. ``People knew when she told them something, it was right.'' Asked if he gave her authority to act in his absence, Mr. Schaefer said he gave her authority to act in his presence. In the 1960s, with the help of a rural and conservative Senate president, the late William S. James, Mrs. Hoffman managed a restructuring of responsibilities between the state and local governments that shifted the financing of welfare from the subdivisions to the state. Then, like many major U.S. cities, Baltimore was paying a quarter to a third of its welfare costs, a burden that was growing and would have exhausted city resources if the state had not stepped in. Mrs. Hoffman proposed limiting the welfare payments of any state subdivision to a fixed percentage of revenue from its tax rate. ``It meant that while the city's welfare caseload was growing and its tax-paying middle class was leaving, there was a limit on what the city had to spend,'' said William S. Ratchford II, director of the state Department of Fiscal Services. ``If she hadn't worked that out, chances are the city would not have had the wherewithal to do what it did later.'' Mrs. Hoffman persuaded legislators that what helped Baltimore was good for the state. The state's major employment center was protected, and other, equally poor, jurisdictions profited from the formulas she devised. Adherents and adversaries alike were at times awed by her forward-looking approach. ``I had the best teacher in the world,'' said Blair Lee IV, son of the former acting governor, Blair Lee III, and a former lobbyist for Montgomery County. ``We'd sit around late at night studying her city bills,'' he said. ``Why would she be trying to change some nondescript little bit of language or numbers in a bill? We looked and looked and crunched and crunched, and finally we'd see that Janet was dealing with something she saw coming 10 years down the road.'' One year she pushed a bill that guaranteed a certain level of aid that seemed lower than the sums Baltimore won year after year. Why? Because she knew the formula on which that aid was based would not work in the city's favor forever. ``She could write a communicated budget formula and talk to the least sophisticated legislator,'' Lee said. ``She was a rare creature. She walked both sides of the track.'' One year she helped then-Senator Hoyer corral the votes he needed to become senate president. Once again, she had picked the right horse. The next summer, she sat on a committee that worked out school funding formulas with then-Lieutenant Governor Lee. It was her payback--and Baltimore's--from Senate President Hoyer. She left in 1996 with concerns about the conduct of public business: ``People are unwilling to explain a broader point of view than one that is readily understood by their local press or their constituents,'' she said. ``The legislature needs a way to see problems resolved structurally without having to have a divisive fight each time.'' The former Janet Leland was born on the Upper West Side of New York City into a family of lawyers. She was a graduate of New York University. In 1941 she received a master's degree in public administration from NYU. Her home life was quiet. She kept a garden filled with spring flowers and roses. She also listened to classical music. In 1944 she married Morton Hoffman, an urban and economic consultant, who died in July. Funeral services will be held at 2 p.m. Tuesday at Sol Levinson & Brothers, 8900 Reisterstown Road. She is survived by two daughters, Constance Hoffman Baker of Baltimore and Ellen L. Hoffman of Berkeley, Calif., and four grandchildren.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I have a question for the Senator from Ohio. He has the floor. I thought we would be alternating in the spirit of comity. What was the preference?

Ms. MIKULSKI. My suggestion is that Senator Grassley proceed and then our colleague, Senator Murray, proceed. She wishes to speak for 10 minutes. How about if those two speak--Grassley followed by Murray--and then, if it is appropriate, unless other Members want to speak, the Senator and I can engage in debate on the amendment.