Barbara Mikulski

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, will the Chair inform me when I have taken 4 minutes in the event that others also wish to speak?

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Boxer amendment and I urge my colleagues to vote against it. This amendment will have to be disposed of by the House. It will not be accepted by the House and therefore will kill this bill. I would like to explain to my colleagues how our bill addresses the issue of contaminated sediments, why I am opposed to the Boxer amendment and, why the administration is opposed to the Boxer amendment. The Boxer amendment is not necessary and its passage would effectively kill this bill. Let me explain what we do in our bill. The final version of the VA/HUD bill will contain report language in the statement of the managers that prevents EPA from dredging any contaminated site that does not have an approved plan in place by October 1, 2000 until the National Academy of Sciences, NAS, has completed its study on this issue and EPA has reviewed it. This language sunsets on June 30, 2001. The NAS is expected to release its report in December. With an EPA review, the delay would last probably no more than 120 days. We have included some exceptions to this language that are very important and I want to outline them for my colleagues. First, if a site has an approved dredging plan in place by October 1, 2000, the language does not apply. Second, if dredging or dredging activity is already occurring at a site, the language does not apply. Third, if a site has a voluntary agreement in place with a potentially responsible party, the language does not apply. Fourth, if EPA determines that a site poses a threat to public health, the language does not apply. These exceptions are very important and were carefully negotiated with the administration. This was no small victory for us. The House passed VA/HUD bill included report language that would have directed EPA not to initiate or order dredging or other invasive remediation technologies, until the NAS report was complete and required that the results be incorporated into the EPA decision making processes. This more extreme language would have effectively frozen work at affected sites for an indefinite period of time. During our negotiations with the House, we successfully modified the provision to remove the extreme language. The report language that will be incorporated into the final version of the VA/HUD bill still leaves EPA with some discretion and does not mandate any solutions. Our language also allows EPA to take comment on proposed remedial actions such as that for cleanup of the Hudson River. Our language would also allow all cleanup plans to be finalized by a date certain--June 30, 2001--even if the NAS report has not been completed in a timely manner. The NAS is expected to use their final report, no later than January 1, 2001, allowing the report to be properly considered by EPA while sites without final plans work on their drafts. Mr. President, the administration supports our language and I urge my colleagues to vote against the Boxer amendment. I wish to also respond to my colleague and friend, the Senator from California, by saying this: No. 1, neither Senator Bond nor I wanted the riders. The House insisted on the riders. So we attempted to remove the draconian substance of the riders and put in more procedural issues, more procedural safeguards. The Senator thinks we wimped out. We think we had a victory because of the draconian aspect. We fought off the dragons. Also, I want to be clear to my colleagues, we are in a very unusual parliamentary procedure. If we pass this bill without any amendments, it will go immediately to the House and can go through a process of ratification and will be done. If any of these amendments pass, we will have to go into a parliamentary situation where the House will not accept this and, therefore, the bill will be dead. So I just lay that out for everyone to take into consideration. So the funds for EPA, which are quite robust--matching, in many instances, the President's request--housing, as well as veterans, science and technology, and other consumer protection agencies such as the Consumer Product Safety Commission--I believe will be jeopardized. Having said that, I don't want to make my argument on jeopardizing the bill. I want to address the concerns that my conscientious colleague has raised about jeopardizing the environment. This bill prevents EPA from dredging at any site that does not have an approved dredging plan by October 1 until the National Academy of Sciences has completed its study and EPA has reviewed it. In the arsenic ozone debate we heard, the National Academy of Sciences elevated it to an icon status that said don't do anything on this rider because of what the National Academy of Sciences says. By the way, I think the Senator from California and I would agree that we do need the National Academy of Sciences. On the dredging issue, what we are saying is that the dredging sites cannot move ahead until the National Academy has completed its study and EPA has looked at it. Guess when the study is going to be done. December 2000 or January 2001. Any delay will be micro--90 to 120 days. Guess what. I say to my colleagues in the Senate, this is not permanent. It only takes this language to June 30, 2001. This language has a sunset provision of June 30, 2001. What are these exceptions? The main one is that if EPA believes any site poses a threat to public health, the language does not apply. Let me repeat to anyone who thinks wisdom lies in Washington, with 21 advocacy groups, that if EPA believes the site poses a threat to public health, this language does not apply. Also, if the site has a voluntary agreement in place, it doesn't apply. If dredging is already occurring at a site, the language does not apply. If you have your plan approved by October 1, the language does not apply. We have so many ``doesn't applys'' here that I don't think the arguments made by the proponents of this amendment apply really in any way that has validity or attraction. If you are worried about public health--I salute you for it-- remember, it would not apply. I join with my colleagues to say let the National Academy of Sciences complete its work. Let the EPA review it. Then it can move forth on all of this. If there is a delay, it would be 90 to 120 days. That is basically what the argument is. I hope the amendment offered by my colleague from California will be defeated. How much time did I consume?

Ms. MIKULSKI. I reserve the right for either Senator Bond or me to do rebuttal.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I know we are concluding. I express my thanks to Senator Stevens and to Senator Byrd, who enabled us to move forward with this very unusual process, and for the assistance they gave us in dealing with severe budgetary allocations. I also thank Senator Bond, as well as Congressman Walsh, for including the Democrats as full participants, and also the courtesy extended to members of the executive branch at OMB and also to the Council on Environmental Quality. I also thank Senator Bond's staff for, again, their really close work in relationship with us and for the professionalism that was afforded. And I thank my own staff. While we worked on this bill, a lot of people were off enjoying themselves. They went home to dinner; they went to fundraisers; they played with their grandchildren; and we were out here working. That is our job. We were happy to do it. But after we would go home, the staff would work, often until 10, 11, 12 o'clock at night and through weekends. I thank them for their hard work. But, most of all, I know the American people thank them for their hard work. Mr. President, that concludes my remarks.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, as we conclude our debate on the VA-HUD bill, there are differences of opinion on these riders. I do hope they are rejected. If they are adopted, it will have a serious parliamentary and maybe even fiscal consequence. However, it is a democracy; people need to work their will. I am very proud of this bill because we do meet the needs of our veterans, those who fought the war over there so we could have peace here. I am very proud of what we have done in housing and urban economic development because what we want to do is create an opportunity ladder so people can make sure they have the opportunity for a better life, that there is local control in decisionmaking, strengthening communities whether they are in rural or urban America. I am very proud of what we have done on the environment. We have funded clean air, clean water, safe drinking water, the ongoing efforts to clean up the Chesapeake Bay and many other bays around the United States of America. Also, in terms of science and technology, again, we have increased the funding so we can come up with the new ideas that ultimately will save lives, generate jobs, and save communities. That is what this bill is all about. There are little known provisions, such as funding Arlington Cemetery where brave people who died in war are buried, and where Navy diver Stethem, my own Maryland resident who died as a result of an act of terrorism, is buried. He was on an airplane, and he wore the Navy uniform. They beat him up. This bill is a tribute to what people fight and die for around the country: That people will have a better life. I yield the floor.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, we are now in the concluding minutes of the debate. First of all, on the three issues raised by the Senator from California, I want to say a couple of things. No. 1, I am very proud of the Senate. When we moved our bill out of the full committee, we had no riders. We were not authorizing on appropriations. We had no riders, and we attempted to stand firm. Yes, we did face the dragons of the riders. What we ended up doing was not eliminating the dragons but we defang them. We defang the riders. We took the teeth out of them so they couldn't snarl up what this legislation is trying to do. I believe the language we have adopted through the committee, through the managers' amendment, does have the riders. They are procedural. We acknowledge the flashing yellow light of the Senator from California with her terrible situation in California. We will do everything we can to make sure the Senator has that letter. I know it is not a substitute for the amendment. However, we want our colleagues to know the flashing yellow lights raised by the proponents are not valid. Remember on the dredging, if the site has been approved by October 1, 2000, the language doesn't apply. If the dredging is already occurring, the language does not apply. If you have a voluntary agreement, the language does not apply. And if the EPA certifies that the site posed a threat to public health, the language does not apply. I recommend the Boxer amendment does not apply to this bill and I urge its defeat. I yield back the remaining time.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I would be pleased to offer information about this Amendment to my friend from Michigan.

Ms. MIKULSKI. The Senator is correct.

Ms. MIKULSKI. I concur with the Subcommittee Chairman and the Senator from New Jersey.

Ms. MIKULSKI. I concur with the subcommittee chairman and Senator Lautenberg. EPA's Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program

Ms. MIKULSKI. First, do not be deluded by the phrase ``sense of the Congress.'' This is not a free ride on the riders. There are consequences if this passes. It is a dangerous amendment. This amendment will then go to a formal conference. The House will not accept our decision. This bill will then die as so many other things are dying. It will die quickly, as a matter of fact. Second, in terms of the consequences to policy, first of all, there are so many exceptions in this bill, one of which is that this language does not apply if EPA says the site poses a threat to public health. It does not apply if a voluntary agreement is in place, if dredging is already occurring in a site. If a site has an approved plan by October 1, 2000, it doesn't apply. Guess what. It sunsets on June 30, 2000. Let's just sunset the amendment and move on.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I echo the expression of thanks to our staff and to our colleagues. I urge we move immediately to a vote and serve the Nation.

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

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I want to take 5 minutes at this time to speak on the events occurring in the world today. I stand here with the melancholy that any Senator would feel as a result of the loss of lives of our U.S. military men and women due to a despicable act of terrorism. I say to the terrorists: You underestimate the United States. Right now we are in an orderly constitutional process to begin the transition of the executive branch to a new leader. Do not think because we are beginning a transition that we are weak. I say to the terrorists anywhere in the world: When any American is under attack, all Americans are under attack. We will check our party hats at the door. We will be united as one nation. I believe the Congress and the American people will stand as one behind President Clinton to aggressively pursue and punish the terrorists who have engaged in this despicable act. You might have gotten away with this one, but do not think again about the next hour, the next day, or the next week. The United States of America is coming after you, and we are all together on this. In addition, to our friends in the Middle East: We are deeply troubled by the violence that is ongoing. A peace agreement was within reach. Indeed, it was fragile. We say now, please, take a timeout, end the violence, let's step back to see if we cannot come forward under the leadership of the United States as an honest broker to move ahead. We are plunging into chaos. Chaos only means further retreat. It means that maybe for years violence will continue. We say: Please, Mr. Arafat, do not work behind the scenes; work on the front lines; end your violence. To the people of Israel: We know that the first act is the act of self-defense. We understand that. It is human. Please, we ask restraint, and we ask all to come back to the bargaining table. Let's put down the stones. Let's put down the guns. Let's see if we can move forward. I come back to what has occurred on the Senate floor today. I say to people around the world: This is democracy. Good people who have been good friends differ. We can conduct ourselves with civility. We can have intellectual arguments. We can quote our lawyers and our National Academy of Sciences, and so on. Ultimately, the Congress will work its will. This is democracy. We invite the whole world to participate in it. War only leads to more war. Violence only leads to more violence. But democracy leads to more democracy, and democracy means ultimately peace and prosperity. We invite the world: Please, constitutional governments, treaties, rules of law are what this 21st century should be all about.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, if the Senator will withhold, I just asked unanimous consent that this amendment be called up and yielded back time.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Alex Mitrakos, a detailee to the VA-HUD subcommittee be granted the privilege of the floor during consideration of H.R. 4635, the VA-HUD appropriations bill.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I hope today the Senate will pass legislation to improve the lives of women in America and around the world and protect them from predators. Make no mistake, when people commit crimes, they never commit crimes against people who are bigger, stronger, or have more power than they. They always go after the weak, the vulnerable. One can be weak either in physical strength or weak because one does not have the same size weapon. Today we have two pieces of legislation pending: One, the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act, and the other will break new ground to protect women and children who are bought and sold around the world as if they were commodities. They are victims of predatory behavior. By passing this legislation, we are going to protect them. Women in their own homes are often victims of violence. Mr. President, 900,000 women last year were battered in their own homes. The Violence Against Women Act says we will not tolerate violence, whether it is in the home, in the neighborhood, or on a street corner. I thank Senator Leahy and Senator Brownback who have been working on this legislation, along with Senator Joe Biden. We appreciate the support and leadership of the good men here. We want to be sure that through this legislation, we are going to not only prevent violence but help women rebuild their lives. The Violence Against Women Act works through domestic violence programs at the State level, works with law enforcement, and works in treatment programs for those who were the abusers. I hope we pass this legislation. The second part is legislation that will also be a hallmark. It is the Sexual Trafficking Victims Protection Act. Girls as young as 10 years old are kidnapped from their villages and taken to brothels or sweatshops where they are imprisoned, forced to work as prostitutes, beaten, threatened, and even drugged into submissiveness. They prey upon women in the poorest regions of the world. In addition, in central and southern Europe, with the collapse of the old economy, women from very poor villages are lured by fraudulent scam predators into thinking they are going to work in the West and are going to work in the hospitality industry. You bet it's hospitality. It is called turning them into whores. I say to my colleagues, that is not what the free world and free economy should be about. We want to make the trafficking in women and children as criminal as the trafficking in illegal drugs. Guess what. Often the same scum who traffic in women are also the ones who traffic in drugs and traffic in illegal weapons of mass destruction. I support and applaud the efforts of the Senator from Kansas who has taken the leadership in this area. He has visited Asia and has seen the recruitment and despicable circumstances under which young girls and children are forced to work. From briefings here, we know this is going on in the Balkans, out of Ukraine, and out of Poland. Many are brought into this country under false pretenses with phony visas. We have to stop the trafficking of women around the world. This is very good legislation. It will improve the lives of women in America and around the world. By passing the Violence Against Women Act, we are helping the victims of domestic violence to rebuild their lives. By passing the Trafficking Victims Protection Act, we are protecting women and children who are bought and sold, and forced into slavery. Again every year, more than 900,000 women are victims of violence in their own homes. Every second, 20 women are battered. The Violence Against Women Act says we will not let violence threaten women, families, or communities. Violence against women is not just a threat to the health and safety of women. It is a threat to the health and safety of families and our communities. No woman in this country should live in fear. No woman should fear walking home at night. No woman should fear leaving a campus library. No woman should fear that her husband or boyfriend will hurt her or her children. We will not tolerate it--not in Maryland, where 41 women were killed by domestic violence last year; not anywhere in America, where 4 women a day are killed by domestic violence. The Violence Against Women Act supports programs that help women to rebuild their lives. It strengthens law enforcement's response to domestic violence. It gives legal assistance to victims of domestic violence, and it creates safe havens for women and children who are victims of domestic violence. The Violence Against Women Act will protect thousands of woman throughout the country. Today we are also taking steps to protect women throughout the world--by passing the Sex Trafficking Victims Act. The truly repugnant practice of trafficking in human beings affects between one and two million women and girls each year. As I have stated, girls as young as ten years old are kidnaped from their villages. Or unsuspecting families allow their daughters to leave--with promises of good jobs and better lives. These women are taken to brothels or sweatshops--where they are imprisoned. They are forced to work as prostitutes. They are beaten, they are threatened--and many are killed. Even if a woman escapes, she is often so afraid of retaliation that she will not testify against her abductors. Organized, international criminals are responsible for the increase in trafficking. They prey on young women in the poorest regions of the world. They take advantage of the most vulnerable--who live in developing countries with poor economic and uneven law enforcement. Most countries have no way of dealing with this sophisticated form of international crime. Many countries where trafficking is most prevalent lack the laws and law enforcement authority to handle the problem. To often, when local authorities catch traffickers, the women get the brunt of the punishment for prostitution--while traffickers face minor penalties. That is why this legislation is so important. It focuses on prevention, protection, and support for victims, and prosecution of traffickers. It recognizes that trafficking is a global problem that requires an international solution. To prevent trafficking this legislation raises the awareness of the problem in villages and countries. It educates potential victims by promoting anti-trafficking awareness campaigns and by authorizing educational and training assistance to international organizations and foreign governments. It also requires the Secretary of State to report on the severe forms of trafficking in persons in the annual country reports. To strengthen prosecution, this legislation provides local authorities with the tools to crack down on traffickers. To support the victims of trafficking, this legislation directs funds for international organizations that help these women to rebuild their lives. They are given a safe haven where they can recover. They are provided with education, training, and microloans. This legislation also recognizes that trafficking is not just a foreign problem. Approximately 50,000 women are brought to the United States each year where they are forced into prostitution or other servitude. This bill toughens current Federal trafficking penalties by doubling the current maximum penalties for traffickers to 20 years imprisonment with the possibility of life imprisonment. It also changes immigration law to help victims of trafficking. This will stop the practice of deporting victims back to potentially dangerous situations. We want this century to be one of democracy and human rights. We will not achieve this unless everyone, including the worlds' poorest women, is able to control their own lives. This means education, economic development, family planning and civic institutions that protect the rights of women. The legislation we are passing today will take us closer to achieving these goals. I urge my colleagues to join me in strongly supporting the Violence Against Women Act and the Sex Trafficking Victims Act. In conclusion, 4 years ago, I was a victim of violence. I was coming home from dinner with a wonderful professor who was an economic adviser to me and was here for a conference. I got her to her hotel. As I stepped out of my car, zam, I was mugged. I lost my handbag. I had a severe injury to my hand. I tried to fight him off, but he was over 6 feet, and I am under 5 feet. Fortunately, I escaped with my life. All I had was a broken memory and shattered security in my own neighborhood. Thanks to the success of the Baltimore Police Department and the pressing of charges and the willingness not to plea bargain, that man is doing time while I hope I am out here doing good. I want to be sure the streets of America are safe. I have an entire Baltimore community on my side, including the informants. Not every woman has that. Let's try to get them the resources they need to be safe in their homes and communities. I thank the Chair.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of Senate passage of the Breast and Cervical Cancer Treatment Act S. 662. I am proud to be the lead Democratic sponsor of this bill. This is legislation that will help save lives, and it has the strong bipartisan support of 76 cosponsors. It gives states the option of providing Medicaid coverage to low-income women diagnosed with breast and cervical cancer through the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program under the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC. Senate passage of this legislation was a true bipartisan team effort, and I want to recognize the other members of this team. I want to commend the late Senator John Chafee, who sponsored this legislation, for his leadership and genuine commitment to the women this bill would help. I want to thank Senators Lincoln Chafee, Moynihan, Snowe, Grassley, and Hatch for their strong support and leadership as we have all worked together to move this legislation through the Senate. I thank the Majority Leader and the Democratic Leader for their commitment to getting this bill through the Senate. I also want to commend Senator Roth for his leadership in the Finance Committee to ensure committee consideration and passage of this bill. Thank you also to President Clinton and Vice President Gore who have been supportive of providing treatment to women diagnosed with breast and cervical cancer through the CDC screening program, especially by including a provision similar to S. 662 in the Administration's Fiscal Year 2001 budget. Finally, none of us would be here today to celebrate Senate passage of this bill without the hard work, tenacity, persistence, and perseverance of Fran Visco and the National Breast Cancer Coalition. They have done an outstanding job of making sure that women's voices from across the country were heard, listened to, and well represented. However, our work is not yet finished. The House of Representatives must now take up and pass the bill we passed today. The House should move swiftly to enact this legislation that has such overwhelming bipartisan support. The CDC screening program celebrated its 10th anniversary on August 10, 2000. The CDC screening program has provided over one million mammograms and over one million Pap tests. Among the women screened, over 7,000 cases of breast cancer and over 600 cases of cervical cancer have been diagnosed. I am proud to be the Senate architect of the legislation that created the breast and cervical cancer screening program at the CDC, and now I'm fighting to complete the program by adding a treatment component. There are three reasons why we must swiftly enact the Breast and Cervical Cancer Treatment Act. First, times have changed since the creation of the CDC screening program ten years ago. In 1990, when I wanted to include a treatment component in the screening program, I was told we didn't have the money. Well, now we are running annual surpluses, instead of annual deficits. The screening program was just a down payment, not the only payment. We have the resources to provide treatment to these women. I think we ought to put our money into saving lives. Second, prevention, screening, and early detection are very important, but alone they do not stop deaths. Screening must be combined with treatment to reduce cancer mortality. Finally, it is only right to provide federal resources to treat breast and cervical cancer for those screened and diagnosed with these cancers through a federal screening program. I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to ensure swift enactment of the Breast and Cervical Cancer Treatment Act in the final days of this session. Women diagnosed with breast and cervical cancer shouldn't have to wait another year for treatment. I can't think of any better way to mark the 10th anniversary of the CDC screening program than by finally adding a federal treatment component to ensure that we make a true difference in the lives of women across this country.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise to oppose cloture on the H-1B visa bill. I understand the importance of filling jobs in our high-tech industry. Yet hiring more people from abroad is only a short-term stop- gap solution. We don't have a worker shortage--We have a skill shortage. We must upgrade the skills of American workers. If we don't start dealing with the issue of skills, we will never have enough high-tech workers, and we'll perpetuate the underclass. I am pleased that the H-1B visa bill would use visa fees for worker training and National Science Foundation scholarships, but we must do a lot more for K-12 education. That is why I want to offer an amendment to enable all Americans to learn the skills they need to work in the new digital economy. My amendment is endorsed by the NAACP, the National Council of La Raza, the American Library Association, and the YMCA. During consideration of the budget resolution, I offered an amendment to create a national goal: to ensure that every child is computer literate by the 8th grade, regardless of race, ethnicity, income, gender, geography, or disability. My amendment passed unanimously. Yet in this Congress, we have done nothing to make this goal a reality. A digital divide exists in America. Low-income, urban and rural families are less likely to have access to the Internet and computers. Black and Hispanic families are only two-fifths as likely to have Internet access as white families. Some schools have ten computers in every classroom. In other schools, 200 students share one computer. Technology is the tool; empowerment since the Civil Rights Act of 1964, or it could result in even further divisions between races, regions and income groups. Last year I visited New Shiloh Church in Baltimore. The pastor, Reverend Carter is working to bring jobs and hope to his community. He wanted to start a technology center. He asked for my help--and I didn't know how to help him. So for over a year, I've been learning about the digital divide. I reached out to the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, the Congressional Black Caucus, people throughout Maryland, including, Speaker Cass Taylor, who is trying to wire western Maryland, ministers in Baltimore, who want their congregations to cross the digital divide, business leaders, who need trained workers, and educators, who want to help their students become computer literate. I learned that our Federal programs are scattered and skimpy. Teachers and community leaders have to forrage for assistance. The private sector is doing important, exciting work in improving access to technology. But technology empowerment can't be limited to a few zip codes or a couple of recycled factories. We need national policies and national programs. We must focus on the ABC's: A--Universal Access; B--best trained--and better paid teachers; C--computer literacy for all students by the time they finish 8th grade. My amendment would do two things. First of all, I am focusing on access. Community leaders have told me that we need to bring technology to where kids learn not just where we want them to learn. They don't just learn in school; they learn in their communities. Not every family has a computer in their home, but every American should have access to computers in their community. This is a truly American ideal. We are the nation that created free public schools to provide every child with access to education. We created community libraries across the country to provide all Americans with access to books. We now need to bring technology into our communities to give all Americans access to technology. What does this amendment do to improve access to technology? It creates 1,000 community based technology centers around the country. These centers would be created and run by community organizations, like a YMCA, the Urban League, or a public library. The Federal Government would provide competitive grants to community based organizations. At least half the funds for these sectors must come from the private sector. So we will be helping to build public-private partnerships around the country. The private sector is eager to form these partnerships because their biggest problem is hiring enough skilled workers. What does this mean for local communities? It means a safe haven for children, where they could learn how to use computers and use them to do homework or surf the Web. It means job training for adults, who could use the technology centers to sharpen their job skills or write their resumes. These community centers can serve all regions, races, and ethnic groups. They will be where they are needed, where there is limited access to technology. They will be in urban, rural, and suburban areas. They will be in Appalachia, and urban centers, and Native American reservations. Over 750 community organizations applied for Community Technology Center grants last year. We were only able to give grants to 40 community organizations. There were so many excellent proposals last year that they didn't ask for new applicants this year, so this year, they are funding 71 more of the original applicants. We must do better. The second part of my amendment is about education. My amendment doubles teacher training in technology. Why is this important? Because everywhere I go, teachers tell me that they want to help their students cross the digital divide. They need the training to do this because technology without training is a hollow opportunity. Yet, according to a 1998 study by the National Center for Educational Statistics, only 20 percent of teachers feel fully prepared to use technology in their classrooms. The Maryland Superintendent of Schools, Dr. Nancy Grasmick, told me that last summer, over 600 teachers from across the State volunteered to participate in a technology training academy. They volunteered their time to go to Towson State University to learn how to use technology in their classrooms. Over 400 were turned away because of lack of funding. That is why my amendment would double funding for teacher training in technology. Finally, my amendment doubles funding to train new teachers. Over the next 10 years, we will have to hire an additional 2 million teachers. In Maryland, over half our teachers will be eligible to retire by 2002. We must make sure that all new teachers have the skills they need to fully integrate technology into their classes. Under cloture, I would not be able to offer my amendment. Some of my colleagues would be glad about that. They would say this bill is about immigration, not education. Well, I would have preferred to offer this amendment to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, but the majority leader pulled that bill off the floor after only nine days of debate. So instead of educating Americans for high-tech jobs, we are putting a Band-Aid on the problem by relying on workers from abroad. We are living in an exciting time. The opportunities are tremendous: to use technology to improve our lives; to use technology to remove the barriers caused by income, race, ethnicity, or geography. This could mean the death of distance as a barrier for economic development for poor children and children of color; it could mean the death of discrimination and enable them to leap frog into the future. My goal is to ensure that everyone in Maryland and in American can take advantage of these opportunities, so that no one is left out or left behind. It would be a shame and a disgrace for this Congress to end without helping all Americans to cross the digital divide.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. I thank the Senator for his advocacy on this issue. First of all, I acknowledge the validity of the high-tech community's concerns about the availability of a high-tech workforce. The proposal here is to solve the problem by importing the people with the skills. I am not going to dispute that as a short-term, short-range solution. But what I do dispute is that we are precluded from offering amendments to create a farm team of tech workers. This is what I want to do if I would have the right to offer an amendment. We do not have a worker shortage in the United States of America. I say to the Senator, and to my colleagues, we have a skill shortage in the United States of America. We have to make sure the people who want to work, who have the ability to work, have access to learning the technology so they can work in this new economy. The digital divide means the difference between those who have access to technology and know how to use technology. If you are on one side of the divide, your future as a person or a country is great. If you are on the wrong side, you could be obsolete. I do not want to mandate obsolescence for the American people who do not want to be left out or left behind. That is why I want to do two things: No. 1, have community tech centers --1,000 of them--where adults could learn by the day and kids could learn in structured afterschool activities in the afternoon. Then, also, to increase the funding for teacher training for K-12, where we would have a national goal that every child in America be computer literal by the time they finish the eighth grade. And maybe they then will not drop out. That is what we want to be able to do. I do not understand. Why is it that farm teams are OK for baseball but they are not OK for technology workers, which is our K-12? I share with the Senator a very touching story. A retail clerk I encounter every week in the course of taking care of my own needs was a minimum wage earner. I encouraged her to get her GED and look at tech training at a local community college. She did that. In all probability she is going to be working for the great Johns Hopkins University sometime within the month. She will double her income, she will have health insurance benefits, and it will enable enough of an income for her husband to take a breather and also get new tech skills. But they have to pay tuition. They could do those things. I think we need to have amendments to address the skill shortage in the United States of America.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, today's vote will set the course for America's relationship with China into the future. The debate is about whether the United States should grant China Permanent Normal Trading Relations, PNTR status or continue the annual review of China's trade status. It is not a debate on whether we should trade with China. Granting PNTR to China will establish China as a full partner--not just in trade, but in every aspect of international relations. It will end our ability to review and challenge China's trade status on an annual basis. Denying PNTR to China will maintain our national sovereignty in our dealings with China. It will retain our right to annually review America's trade relationship with China. It will retain our right to exert pressure on China to improve on various fronts--from human rights to nuclear proliferation. This is an exceptionally difficult decision for me. I have studied the issue for many months. I have weighed the pros and cons of granting China PNTR, and I acknowledge that there are strong arguments on both sides. I will oppose PNTR for China. I believe we should engage China--but not embrace China. We all want to increase trade with China. I want to see the United States not only win Nobel Prizes but also win new markets. I want the United States to reap the rewards of great new American ideas by developing new American products and exporting those products around the world. I want U.S. industries which can benefit from lower trade barriers in China--such as high tech companies and agricultural producers--to reap the rewards from this agreement. Ambassador Barshefsky and the administration did a great job in negotiating a trade agreement to bring down China's trade barriers to the United States. Although China's trade barriers to the United States still remain much higher than U.S. trade barriers to China, this agreement is a big step forward. Yet I cannot ignore so many other factors in making this crucial and far-reaching decision. I believe that the downside of this agreement has been significantly dismissed and the benefits have been greatly exaggerated. So even though I believe and support trade, I do not believe we should grant permanent trade privileges to countries--such as China--at any price. Instead, we should trade with China but not grant it PNTR status. We should continue to review our trade relationship with China on an annual basis. Since 1980, Congress has had the legal right to review the President's annual decision to grant China Most Favored Nation, MFN Status. Unfortunately, we have rarely taken advantage of this right. For the most part, Congress has rubber stamped the President's decision to give China full trading rights and access to the U.S. market without asking for concessions. I voted against granting China MFN after the Chinese Government massacred thousands of Chinese citizens at Tiananmen Square in 1989. The majority of my colleagues also voted to deny China MFN and together we took a firm stand against China's brutal massacre. I wish President Bush had not vetoed our decision. If he had upheld our vote, China would have learned that its behavior could jeopardize its access to the U.S. market. Instead, President Bush taught the Chinese Government that it could literally get away with murder. We should use the annual review as it was intended--to actively debate and question whether China deserves continued access to the U.S. market. If we had ever used the annual review to deny China access to our market, it could have exerted pressure on China to improve its behavior. It could even have worked to exert pressure if China had ever believed that its access to our market was in jeopardy. I believe we should retain and strengthen our annual review because it is a practical and prudent tool. Otherwise, it will be much more difficult to raise the numerous concerns we have about China. There are at least 6 key factors that lead me to oppose PNTR for China. U.S. national security will be jeopardized I am worried that by transferring our wealth and technology to China it will enable Beijing to build its war machine with more smart weapons and technological developments. Media reports indicate that China uses U.S. computers to develop its nuclear arms--such as illegally using U.S. supercomputers to simulate warhead detonations without actual underground tests. This and other practices lead me to believe that China's use of U.S. technology to build its war machine will only increase if we grant it PNTR status. Taiwan already lives in fear that efforts to declare independence from China will result in military action from Beijing. This fear will only increase if China's military might is strengthened and it continues to break every nuclear nonproliferation agreement it claims it will respect. I cannot ignore China's continued blatant disregard for international nuclear non-proliferation agreements. Despite its repeated commitments to such agreements, China remains one of the key suppliers of nuclear technology and expertise to several rogue countries. Who are they? Pakistan, Iran, North Korea and Libya. As recently as July of this year, the United States learned that China continues to assist Pakistan in building long-range missiles that could carry nuclear weapons. This dangerous irresponsible behavior cannot be ignored especially because Kashmir remains such a volatile area. China continuously avoids its international obligations. It flagrantly jeopardizes international security at a time when its trade relationship with the United States is still undecided. So the American people can be sure it will take even more egregious steps if its trade relationship with the United States becomes permanent. China's poor record of compliance with existing international agreements How do we have fair trade with a country that has not fairly lived up to its previous international agreements? China has made efforts at the national level to improve its compliance record. Yet these efforts mean little in practice, because they are so often ignored at the local and provincial levels. For example, Beijing repeatedly promises to comply with intellectual property agreements. But factories throughout China continue to turn out pirate videos and CDs--with a wink and a nod from the local government. The effect is a failure to protect against infringement of U.S. copyrights, trademarks and patents. Will China improve its record of compliance once it joins the WTO? Unfortunately, there's no reason to think it will. The WTO simply doesn't have strong enforcement mechanisms. The WTO is a multilateral, bureaucratic institution. We cannot expect it to adequately resolve our battles with China. If we grant China PNTR status and it joins the WTO, we will still have to fight our own trade battles with China. The potential benefits of this agreement have been significantly overstated We're told that when China opens its markets, we will increase our exports and decrease our staggering trade deficit with China. But open markets does not mean that China will actually buy our goods. Evidence indicates that China will resist abiding by its agreement with the United States by maintaining barriers to U.S. products and investment. Chinese leaders have stated that the concessions they made are just expressions and theoretical opportunities rather than binding commitments. They have also indicated that they will look to trade remedies to limit U.S. goods from entering into China. China now dumps its cheap products into our markets and will increasingly dump more China's persistent practice of predatory dumping jeopardizes U.S. jobs and threatens to reduce wages of hard-working Americans. I have spent my entire life trying to save jobs, save communities and help people who are trying to help themselves. I am a blue collar Senator. My heart and soul lies with blue-collar America. My career in public service is one of deep commitment to working- class people. I have fought and continue to fight for economic growth, jobs and opportunities in America, in particular in my own State of Maryland. I have heard from the working people of Maryland. Most fear for their jobs and security if we grant China PNTR status. Their fear stems, in part, from the fact that U.S. industries trying to compete with dumped products from other countries often reduce workers wages or cut the workforce to reduce costs. Some estimates indicate that China's continued dumping of cheap imports into the United States will eliminate over one million jobs by 2010. I share their concern and the facts back it up. There is also the legitimate fear that American jobs will be lost because U.S. companies will move their production to China. Why would not the U.S. companies move to China when they can pay their workers $10 a day--rather than $10 an hour? Why wouldn't they move to China when they can take advantage of China's exploited workers who are used to poor working conditions, long hours and poor pay? Why wouldn't U.S. companies move to China where they don't need to comply with America's stringent labor and environmental regulations. Corporate profits would soar, but American production would plummet. How can we claim that American workers won't suffer if these fears are realized? It is likely that many will either lose their jobs or see lower pay checks. The minimum wage here is already too spartan. I can only envision what it will become if we grant China PNTR. It could be reduced to an even lower global minimum wage that is tied to the Chinese yen rather than the U.S. dollar. How can we turn our backs on American workers simply for short-term corporate gain? In addition, continued dumping by China will lead to irreparable damage to important U.S. industries. For example, China will dump even more cheap steel into the U.S. market and further harm the U.S. steel industry. China is the largest producer of crude steel. Its already huge industry continues to grow at nine to ten percent a year. To be profitable, it will have to sell this steel to markets outside of its borders. So if we grant China PNTR status, we can expect that much more Chinese steel will be dumped into the U.S. market. Despite the fact that the U.S. steel industry has won many anti- dumping disputes, steel imports are up 23 percent this year from last year. Why? Because the Administration fails to apply antidumping duties to the extent it should to protect this vital U.S. industry. This will lead to continued suffering for the U.S. steel industry, which has already been forced to reduce salaries and cut its workforce in order to remain competitive. We cannot lose the American steel industry. It's not just a jobs issue--it's a national security issue. During times of war, we cannot rely on foreign steel. Steel won't be the only industry that suffers if China continues to enjoy its current access to our markets. If we grant China PNTR, other vital U.S. industries will be harmed by China's dumping of cheap products. China's continued dumping of cheap goods has contributed to our inflated trade deficit with China. The United States is already too dependent on Chinese imports--which is the main reason for our extraordinarily high trade deficit with China. Continued dumping of cheap products by China will further increase this deficit which today is over $68 billion and by 2010 is estimated to increase to $131 billion if we grant China PNTR status. China's abysmal treatment of its own people Even ardent supporters of granting China PNTR agree that China has a horrendous human rights record. In fact, the State Department has recognized China as one of the worst offenders of human rights in the world. Over the last 50 years, China has persecuted 80 million people. The government continues to arrest political activists, suppress ethnic minorities and prohibit freedom of speech and religion. The same leaders who negotiated this trade agreement, will not allow Chinese Catholics, Christians or Tibetan Monks the freedom of worship. Even as we debate this agreement, China has plans to ``settle'' over 58,000 people in Tibet in an effort to further weaken the religion and culture of Tibet. I agree with a statement that was recently brought to my attention by Cardinal William H. Keeler, the Archbishop of Baltimore. He informed me that the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom in their assessment of China PNTR stated the following: While many Commissioners support free trade, the Commission believes that the U.S. Congress should grant China permanent normal trade relations only after China makes substantial improvement in respect to religious freedom. I believe that China must also make substantial improvements to respect other fundamental human rights, whether it is gender equality or labor rights. The evidence indicates that it has a long way to go on these fronts as well. It is well known that China treats women as property rather than as individuals with fundamental human rights. Family planning officials impose forced abortions or sterilizations on women to limit China's population growth. China also fails to apply its domestic laws to protect women and children from being sold within China or to prevent them from being trafficked to other countries, such as Thailand, Taiwan, Japan, Canada and even the United States. It is also common knowledge that China exploits its workers. Chinese workers are prohibited from forming or joining labor unions. They cannot bargain collectively to improve their wages or their working conditions. They are prohibited from advocating for workers' rights for themselves or on behalf of others. Those Chinese workers who attempt to exercise any of these rights are often beaten and/or thrown in political prisons. My colleagues in the House worked hard to create a Human Rights Commission in this legislation to maintain pressure on China to improve its human rights record. Although this Commission could be useful in monitoring China's human rights record, it lacks enforcement power to ensure that China's record actually improves. So long as China has permanent trade privileges with the United States it will lack any incentive to improve its human rights record. We would have much more leverage over China if it sincerely believed that its trading privileges with the United States could be jeopardized each year because of its appalling human rights violations against its own citizens. Granting China PNTR status will result in United States adopting an indefensible double standard both in our relationship with other countries as well as in our other dealings with China I've heard many of my colleagues say that trade will lead to democracy. If this is true in China, why isn't it true in Cuba? Many of the same people who support granting China PNTR status oppose every effort to increase trade with Cuba, even the sale of food and medicine. Another serious inconsistency is in our treatment of family planning in China. On the one hand, supporters of PNTR argue that granting China PNTR status will help improve China's human rights record. But on the other hand, we deny funding for vital programs to improve the human rights situation in China for women. For example, since 1979 we have either denied or limited our contribution to the United Nations Population Fund, UNFPA because it works with China. We rightly criticize China's one child policy which results in forced abortion or sterilization to limit women to having only one child. But we refuse to contribute to valuable efforts aimed to combat these barbaric practices. We actively choose not to fund UNFPA programs that provide reproductive health and family planning education as well as improve the economic status and gender equality of women in China. How can we consider granting China PNTR status and argue that it will help improve the human rights situation in China when we refuse to support efforts to protect and promote the fundamental human rights of women in China? Mr. President, I believe in free trade as long as it's fair trade. I've supported trade agreements that represents our national interest and our national values. But this agreement does not meet these criteria. Trade in itself does not yield democracy, human rights or stability. These goals would best be achieved by a robust annual review. In fact, access to the freedom of ideas on the Internet will do more to achieve these goals than a trade agreement ever could. I will oppose granting China PNTR status. I cannot support trade at any price--especially when the price is American security, American jobs and American values.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, it has been more than a year since the Columbine tragedy, but still this Republican Congress refuses to act on sensible gun legislation. Since Columbine, thousands of Americans have been killed by gunfire. Until we act, Democrats in the Senate will read the names of some of those who have lost their lives to gun violence in the past year, and we will continue to do so every day that the Senate is in session. In the name of those who died, we will continue this fight. Following are the names of some of the people who were killed by gunfire one year ago today. September 14, 1999 Charles Caldwell, 18, Minneapolis, MN; Penny Calhoun, 32, Salt Lake City, UT; Henry J. Calhoun, 32, Salt Lake City, UT; Jovan Coleman, 19, Chicago, IL; Orlando Cortezq, 24, Dallas, TX; Israel Cuervas, 26, Dallas, TX; Charlie D. Duff, 18, Chicago, IL; Alfredo Fernandez, 50, Houston, TX; Toi Goodnight, 41, Pittsburgh, PA; Stevie Gray, 33, Washington, DC; Jessie Harper, 39, Houston, TX; Michael L. Harris, 41, Chicago, IL; Lee Sun Heung, 43, Baltimore, MD; John Homilton, 82, Oakland, CA; Stephen Hornbaker, 35, Pittsburgh, PA; Kerne Lerouge, 43, Boston, MA; Nigel D. Reese, 17, Chicago, IL; Herman Ridley, 24, Baltimore, MD; Frank Rizzo, Houston, TX; Charles Waldon, 62, Houston, TX. One of the victims of gun violence I mentioned, 41-year-old Toi Goodnight of Pittsburgh, was shot and killed one year ago today in a carjacking incident. The man who killed Toi shot her in the mouth and left her on the highway as he drove away in her car. We cannot sit back and allow such senseless gun violence to continue. The deaths of Toi Goodnight and the others I named are a reminder to all of us that we need to enact sensible gun legislation now.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President I rise as a proud original cosponsor of the Omnibus Long-Term Care Act of 2000. I am very pleased to join Senators Graham, Grassley, Bayh, Collins, Breaux, and Akaka to introduce this bipartisan legislation that provides a comprehensive approach to the long-term care of our nation's citizens. I am committed to finding long-term solutions to the long-term care problem in our country. I like this bill because it meets the day-to-day needs of Marylanders and the long-range needs of our country. At least 5.8 million Americans aged 65 and older currently need long-term care. While this legislation has many important provisions, I would like to highlight three of its features: the National Family Caregiver Support Program, long-term car insurance for federal employees, and the ``return to home'' provision. First, this bill would establish the National Family Caregiver Support Program. I am proud to have sponsored and cosponsored this legislation previously in this Congress. This program will provide respite care, training, counseling, support services, information and assistance to some of the millions of Americans who care for older individuals and adult children with disabilities. In fact, eighty percent of all long-term care services are provided by family and friends. This program has strong bipartisan support, will get behind our nation's families, and give help to those who practice self-help. As Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Aging, I am pleased to report that last week the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee unanimously approved a bipartisan bill to reauthorize the Older Americans Act (OAA). This bill included the caregiver support program which is strongly supported by the entire aging community. As I work with Senators Jeffords, Kennedy, and DeWine and our colleagues in the House to pass the OAA reauthorization in September, I want to strongly urge fellow appropriators in the House and Senate to fund these vital caregiver support services as close as possible to the full funding level of $125 million. Millions of Americans are waiting for Congress to act. Second, I think it is important that this bill includes the Long-Term Care Security Act. This bill would enable federal and military workers, retirees, and their families to purchase long-term care insurance at group rates (projected to be 15-20 percent below the private market). It would create a model that private employers can use to establish their own long-term care insurance programs. As our nation's largest employer, the federal government can be a model for employers around the country whose workforce will be facing the same long-term care needs. Starting with the nation's largest employer also raises awareness and education about long-term care options. Yesterday, the Senate passed the Long-Term Care Security Act (H.R. 4040). I am proud to be the lead Democratic sponsor of the Senate companion to this bill, S. 2420, because it gives people choices, flexibility, and security. Families will have an additional option available to them as they look at their long-term care choices. This provision would also help reduce reliance on federal programs, like Medicaid, so the American taxpayer benefits. This legislation also provides people with flexibility because it allows them to receive care in different types of settings. They may choose to be cared for in the home by a family caregiver--or they may need a higher level of care that nursing homes and home health care services provide. Different plan reimbursement options will ensure maximum flexibility that meet the unique health care needs of the beneficiary. Long-term care insurance also provides families with some security. Family members will not be burdened by trying to figure out how to finance health care needs--and beneficiaries will be able to make informed decisions about their future. Finally, I am pleased that the bill we have introduced includes bipartisan legislation that I have previously sponsored, the Seniors' Access to Continuing Care Act (S. 1142). This legislation protects seniors' access to treatment in the setting of their choice and ensures that seniors who reside in continuing care communities, and nursing and other facilities have the right to return to that facility after a hospitalization, even if the insurer does not have a contract with the resident's facility. Across the country seniors in managed care plans have discovered too late that after a hospital stay, they may be forced to return to a facility in the plan's provider network and not to the continuing care retirement community or skilled nursing facility where they live. No senior should have to face this problem. In Maryland alone, there are over 12,000 residents in 40 continuing care retirement communities and 24,000 residents in over 200 licensed nursing facilities. I have visited many of these facilities and heard from residents and operators about this serious and unexpected problem. Residents choose and pay for facilities like continuing care retirement communities (CCRC's) for the continuum of care, safety, security, and peace of mind. Hospitalization is traumatic. Friends, family, and familiar staff and faces are crucial to a speedy recovery. Where you return after a hospital stay should be based on humanity and choice, not the managed care company's bottom line. Specifically, the Seniors' Access to Continuing Care Act protects residents of CCRC's and nursing facilities by: enabling them to return to their facility after a hospitalization; and requiring the resident's insurer or managed care organization (MCO) to cover the cost of the care, even if the insurer does not have a contract with the resident's facility. Certain conditions must be met. This legislation also requires an insurer or MCO to pay for a service to one of its beneficiaries, without a prior hospital stay, if the service is necessary to prevent a hospitalization of the beneficiary and the service is provided as an additional benefit. Lastly, the bill requires an insurer or MCO to provide coverage to a beneficiary for services provided at a facility in which the beneficiary's spouse already resides, even if the facility is not under contract with the MCO. Certain requirements must be met. These provisions are an important part of our safety net for seniors. I want to salute the strong leadership of the other cosponsors of this legislation who have authored various provisions of this comprehensive bill that we have joined together to introduce today. I know that all the cosponsors are sincerely committed, as I am, to addressing the challenges facing our aging population. I look forward to working with all of them to enact this important legislation.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President I rise as a proud original cosponsor of the Omnibus Long-Term Care Act of 2000. I am very pleased to join Senators Graham, Grassley, Bayh, Collins, Breaux, and Akaka to introduce this bipartisan legislation that provides a comprehensive approach to the long-term care of our nation's citizens. I am committed to finding long-term solutions to the long-term care problem in our country. I like this bill because it meets the day-to-day needs of Marylanders and the long-range needs of our country. At least 5.8 million Americans aged 65 and older currently need long-term care. While this legislation has many important provisions, I would like to highlight three of its features: the National Family Caregiver Support Program, long-term car insurance for federal employees, and the ``return to home'' provision. First, this bill would establish the National Family Caregiver Support Program. I am proud to have sponsored and cosponsored this legislation previously in this Congress. This program will provide respite care, training, counseling, support services, information and assistance to some of the millions of Americans who care for older individuals and adult children with disabilities. In fact, eighty percent of all long-term care services are provided by family and friends. This program has strong bipartisan support, will get behind our nation's families, and give help to those who practice self-help. As Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Aging, I am pleased to report that last week the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee unanimously approved a bipartisan bill to reauthorize the Older Americans Act (OAA). This bill included the caregiver support program which is strongly supported by the entire aging community. As I work with Senators Jeffords, Kennedy, and DeWine and our colleagues in the House to pass the OAA reauthorization in September, I want to strongly urge fellow appropriators in the House and Senate to fund these vital caregiver support services as close as possible to the full funding level of $125 million. Millions of Americans are waiting for Congress to act. Second, I think it is important that this bill includes the Long-Term Care Security Act. This bill would enable federal and military workers, retirees, and their families to purchase long-term care insurance at group rates (projected to be 15-20 percent below the private market). It would create a model that private employers can use to establish their own long-term care insurance programs. As our nation's largest employer, the federal government can be a model for employers around the country whose workforce will be facing the same long-term care needs. Starting with the nation's largest employer also raises awareness and education about long-term care options. Yesterday, the Senate passed the Long-Term Care Security Act (H.R. 4040). I am proud to be the lead Democratic sponsor of the Senate companion to this bill, S. 2420, because it gives people choices, flexibility, and security. Families will have an additional option available to them as they look at their long-term care choices. This provision would also help reduce reliance on federal programs, like Medicaid, so the American taxpayer benefits. This legislation also provides people with flexibility because it allows them to receive care in different types of settings. They may choose to be cared for in the home by a family caregiver--or they may need a higher level of care that nursing homes and home health care services provide. Different plan reimbursement options will ensure maximum flexibility that meet the unique health care needs of the beneficiary. Long-term care insurance also provides families with some security. Family members will not be burdened by trying to figure out how to finance health care needs--and beneficiaries will be able to make informed decisions about their future. Finally, I am pleased that the bill we have introduced includes bipartisan legislation that I have previously sponsored, the Seniors' Access to Continuing Care Act (S. 1142). This legislation protects seniors' access to treatment in the setting of their choice and ensures that seniors who reside in continuing care communities, and nursing and other facilities have the right to return to that facility after a hospitalization, even if the insurer does not have a contract with the resident's facility. Across the country seniors in managed care plans have discovered too late that after a hospital stay, they may be forced to return to a facility in the plan's provider network and not to the continuing care retirement community or skilled nursing facility where they live. No senior should have to face this problem. In Maryland alone, there are over 12,000 residents in 40 continuing care retirement communities and 24,000 residents in over 200 licensed nursing facilities. I have visited many of these facilities and heard from residents and operators about this serious and unexpected problem. Residents choose and pay for facilities like continuing care retirement communities (CCRC's) for the continuum of care, safety, security, and peace of mind. Hospitalization is traumatic. Friends, family, and familiar staff and faces are crucial to a speedy recovery. Where you return after a hospital stay should be based on humanity and choice, not the managed care company's bottom line. Specifically, the Seniors' Access to Continuing Care Act protects residents of CCRC's and nursing facilities by: enabling them to return to their facility after a hospitalization; and requiring the resident's insurer or managed care organization (MCO) to cover the cost of the care, even if the insurer does not have a contract with the resident's facility. Certain conditions must be met. This legislation also requires an insurer or MCO to pay for a service to one of its beneficiaries, without a prior hospital stay, if the service is necessary to prevent a hospitalization of the beneficiary and the service is provided as an additional benefit. Lastly, the bill requires an insurer or MCO to provide coverage to a beneficiary for services provided at a facility in which the beneficiary's spouse already resides, even if the facility is not under contract with the MCO. Certain requirements must be met. These provisions are an important part of our safety net for seniors. I want to salute the strong leadership of the other cosponsors of this legislation who have authored various provisions of this comprehensive bill that we have joined together to introduce today. I know that all the cosponsors are sincerely committed, as I am, to addressing the challenges facing our aging population. I look forward to working with all of them to enact this important legislation.