Barbara Mikulski

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of final passage of H.R. 4040, The Long-Term Care Security Act. As the lead Democratic sponsor of the Senate companion to this bill, S. 2420, I believe this is an important part of our down-payment on finding solutions to the exploding problem of long-term care. Without long-term care coverage, no family has real security against the costs of chronic illness or disability. The Long-Term Care Security Act H.R. 4040 (S. 2420), does 4 things: 1. Enables federal and military workers, retirees and their families to purchase long-term care insurance at group rates--projected to be 15 percent to 20 percent below the private market. 2. Creates a model that private employers can use to establish their own long-term care insurance program. 3. Provides help to those who practice self-help by offering employees the option to better prepare for their retirement. 4. Reduces the reliance on federal programs, like Medicaid, so the American taxpayer benefits. Federal workers also benefit because they are paying lower premiums than they would get in the private market. I am a strong supporter of The Long-Term Care Security Act because it gives people choices, flexibility and security. Faced with a sick parent or spouse, most Americans currently do not have a lot of choices. They may choose, or be forced, to spend down their assets in order to qualify for Medicaid. They, or a spouse, may quit their job to do some of the caregiving themselves. Or, families may be forced to make the difficult choice of putting a child through college, or paying for long-term care for a parent. This legislation gives people better, more informed choices. It also provides people with flexibility because beneficiaries will have different types of settings where they can receive care. 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. Some of us have faced the challenge of having a family member who needed long-term care. It is emotionally and financially difficult. But, imagine if you are a secretary working at the Social Security Administration, or a custodial worker here in the Senate. And a family member gets Alzheimers, or Parkinsons, or has some other illness that requires long-term health care. Your paycheck probably isn't big enough to cover the cost of home health visits, or a nursing home stay. So where do you go? Medicare doesn't cover long-term care so that is not an option. Should you quit your job so you can take care of your parent? But then what if you have a family of your own that you need to support? Or, what if you are trying to put a child through college? Consider if you are a 61 year old employee at NASA and you are diagnosed with cancer. You might be able to retire, but the federal employees health benefits program does not cover long-term care--even for retirees. You may not have family to provide care and your pension probably isn't large enough to finance the high costs of long-term care. Where do you go? Many Americans are currently facing these difficult decisions. Consider that: At least 5.8 million Americans aged 65 or older currently need long- term care. As many as six out of 10 Americans have experienced a long-term care need. 41 percent of women in caregiver roles quit their jobs or take family medical leave to care for a frail older parent or parent-in-law. 80 percent of all long-term care services are provided by family and friends. These statistics represent the enormous financial and emotional costs associated with long-term care. This legislation is an essential step in providing opportunities for federal workers to plan ahead for retirement so they can take responsibility for their future long-term care needs. Since my first days in Congress, I have been fighting to help people afford the burdens of long-term care. Eleven years ago, I introduced legislation now known as Spousal Anti-Impoverishment. My bill changed the cruel rules of government that forced elderly couples to go bankrupt before they could get any help in paying for nursing home care. Through the Older Americans Act, seniors have easier access to information and referrals they need to make good choices about long- term care. I am also working hard to create a National Family Caregivers Program so that families can access comprehensive information when faced with the dizzying array of choices in addressing the long-term care needs of a family member. It is clear that we have a long-term care problem. The Office of Personnel Management estimates that 96,000 federal employees will be retiring in the year 2001. Providing federal employees with a long-term care insurance benefit is a down payment on a solution. I am starting with federal employees for two reasons. 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. I am a strong supporter of our federal employees. I am proud that so many of them live, work, and retire in Maryland. They work hard in the service of our country. And I work hard for them. Whether it's fighting for fair COLAs, lower health care premiums, or to prevent unwise schemes to privatize important services our federal workforce provide, they can count on me. One of my principles is ``promises made should be promises kept.'' Federal employees and retirees have made a commitment to devote their careers to public service. In return, our government made certain promises to them. One important promise made was the promise of health insurance. The lack of long-term care for federal workers has been a big gap in this important promise to our federal workers. This legislation will close that gap and provide our federal workers and retirees with comprehensive health insurance. I reiterate my commitment to finding long-term solutions to the long- term care problem. I am proud that this bipartisan bill takes an important step forward in helping all Americans to prepare for the challenges facing our aging population. I would like to thank Senator Cleland, Senator Grassley, Senator Akaka, Senator Cochran, Senator Lieberman and Senator Thompson for all of their hard work in coming to a bipartisan consensus on how best to provide federal and military employees, retirees, and their families with the opportunity to purchase long-term care insurance. Additionally, many Senate staff worked very hard in developing this compromise: Nanci Langley, Hope Hegstrom, Michael Loesch, Tamara Jones, Judy White, Larry Novey, and Dan Blair. And I would like to thank Cynthia Brock-Smith and Frank Titus at the Office of Personnel Management.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to the life and legacy of Senator Paul Coverdell. His passing has shocked and saddened us all. It has left a void in the Senate and in our nation. For Senator Coverdell, public service was his profession and his passion. After serving in the Army, he began his public life as a member of the Georgia State Senate where he served as Minority Leader. After working in the private sector, he was appointed Director of the Peace Corps. In this important position he worked to spread American values around the world. This experience helped him when he later served on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, where he was a leader in our international effort to strengthen our anti-drug efforts. In the Senate, Senator Coverdell was known as a hard worker who often reached across the aisle to build coalitions. Senator Coverdell fought hard for his principles. We didn't always agree on policy--but he always treated those on the other side with dignity and respect. He knew that despite our different views, we all shared a common goal. We all want to do what's best for our constituents and our nation. He understood that we can get more done with civility than with contention. Senator Coverdell will be greatly missed. My thoughts and prayers are with his family.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise today with the Chairman of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education to discuss a fatal brain disorder called Huntington's disease. This genetic ailment, which has no cure, has afflicted approximately 30,000 Americans, and over 150,000 more people in our country are at risk. In my state alone, it is estimated that over 500 people have Huntington's, and another 4,742 are at risk. Also known as ``HD,'' the illness is like a cross between Alzheimer's disease and Parkinson's disease. Everybody with the defective gene will become ill, slowly losing the ability to walk, talk, eat, and reason and eventually dying from choking, infection, or heart failure. HD strikes both sexes, all ethnicities, and sometimes even children. In addition, each child of a parent with HD has a 50/50 chance of inheriting the gene. One family that has been struck by the terrible realities of Huntington's disease is the Mason family of Baltimore, Maryland. Troy Mason was once the agile quarterback on his high school football team. Today at age 36, Mr. Mason uses a wheelchair and can only walk a bit and speak some words. His wife, Rosemary, is his full time caregiver. Troy and Rosemary's two children have a 50/50 chance of inheriting the HD gene. Not only does Mrs. Mason care for her husband, but she also cares for her mother who suffers from HD. This means that Mrs. Mason also has a 50/50 chance of inheriting the HD gene. Mrs. Mason not only has to face the incredible daily stresses and strains of caregiving, but must also face the possibility that she and her children may someday have Huntington's disease themselves. This Baltimore family is courageously fighting Huntington's disease, but they need our help.

Ms. MIKULSKI. The people of Maryland appreciate this support by the NIH and laud your and Senator Harkin's leadership in doubling the NIH budget over five years. I am very pleased to join you in this worthy endeavor. We are proud to have an HDSA Center of Excellence in Maryland, at Johns Hopkins University and Johns Hopkins Hospital. Johns Hopkins also receives funding from NIH to conduct Huntington's disease research. However, I believe additional resources are needed to fund important HD research. I am concerned that the current health appropriations bill does not provide guidance to the NIH on HD funding and research priorities.

Ms. MIKULSKI. I thank the Chairman for his attention to Huntington's disease. To eliminate this horrible illness and others like it we must build and strengthen the partnership between the federal government, academia, and private organizations. I wish to thank the Distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania for his assistance. I yield the floor. strategic plan for pkd

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to express my disappointment that this bill does not provide $125 million for supportive services for caregivers under the Older Americans Act (OAA). As an appropriator, I understand the difficult funding constraints under which Senator Specter and Senator Harkin operate. However, I also know that providing and funding supportive services for caregivers has strong bipartisan support and would meet a compelling human need. Many of us have had personal experiences caring for parents or other loved ones and understand firsthand the stresses and strains caregivers face. Last year, the Subcommittee on Aging heard the compelling testimony of Carolyn Erwin-Johnson, a family caregiver in Baltimore, Maryland. Ms. Johnson has been caring for her mother who has Multiple Sclerosis for sixteen years. She left Chicago and her work on a second Masters degree to come to Baltimore and care for her mother at home, rather than put her mother in a nursing home. She found a community- based care system that was fragmented, underfunded, and overburdened. After months of frustration and trying to find help, Ms. Johnson took to hiring nursing aides off the street and training them to care for her mother while she worked a forty hour work week. Even then, she could only afford to pay for eight hours of help when her mother needed 24-hour care. She and her mother ended up paying on average between $17,000 and $20,000 annually in out-of-pocket costs to care for her mother at home. Caregiving has taken its toll on Ms. Johnson. Today, she has been diagnosed with two incurable, stress-related illnesses, changed jobs, and seen her income drop to levels that mean she can no longer afford to hire private aides. Ms. Johnson is helped by the 164 hours of respite care she receives annually from the Alzheimer's Respite Care Program. In the words of Ms. Johnson, ``Respite care programs are the key to the survival and longevity of family caregivers.'' Mr. President, currently about 12.8 million adults need assistance from others to carry out activities of daily living, such as bathing and feeding. One in four adults currently provides care for an adult with a chronic health condition. Many caregivers struggle with competing demands of paid employment, raising a family, and caring for a parent or other relative. Caregiving can take an emotional, physical, mental, and financial toll. A recent study found that on average, workers who take care of older relatives lose $659,139 in wages, pension benefits, and Social Security over a lifetime. Further, the estimated national economic value of informal caregiving was $196 billion in 1997. The National Family Caregiver Support Program, originally proposed by the President, would provide respite care, information and assistance, caregiver counseling, training and peer support, and supplemental services to caregivers and their families. Full funding of $125 million would provide services to about 250,000 families. Senators Daschle, Grassley and Breaux, DeWine, and I have all sponsored legislation in this Congress to establish this program. Twenty four Senators joined me earlier this year in urging the Labor/HHS Appropriations Subcommittee to fully fund these supportive services for caregivers. I know other colleagues of mine have also voiced support for funding these worthwhile services. This is truly a step we can take that will meet a compelling human need. It gets behind our Nation's families and helps those who practice self-help. As this bill moves to conference, I strongly urge the conferees to re-evaluate the current decision not to fund caregiver support services. As the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Aging, I am working with my colleagues on the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee to reauthorize the OAA this year. I hope that we are able to reach agreement on outstanding issues to reauthorize the OAA this year. While we are working on reauthorization, I believe that we must also move forward on funding caregiver support services. American families are counting on us to act.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to my dear colleague, Senator Daniel Inouye. Today, Senator Inouye receives the Congressional Medal of Honor for his heroic service to our nation. This honor is richly deserved--and long overdue. Senator Inouye's life is one of service and patriotism. He began his service when he was just seventeen, leaving his home in Honolulu to aid wounded civilians on the day of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. As a Japanese American, he faced bigotry, resentment, and outright persecution. Even while facing this discrimination, he withdrew from his medical studies at the University of Hawaii and enlisted in the Army as soon as Japanese Americans were permitted to serve. Stationed in Italy with the war's end nearing, 2nd lieutenant Inouye led his men into his final battle. Though he was shot and his platoon was pinned by gunfire, he continued on alone. Bravely he tossed two hand grenades before his right arm was shattered by a German rifle grenade. He threw a final grenade with his left arm before another shot in the leg forced him to retreat. It is for this tremendous act of courage that Senator Inouye receives this long overdue honor. Senator Inouye is being honored for his courage in battle. We also know that Senator Inouye's service to our country extends far beyond his bravery in war. When Senator Inouye was elected to the United States House of Representatives in 1959, he was the first American of Japanese ancestry to serve in the House. Since 1962, Senator Inouye has served with great distinction in the Senate. Every day, we witness first-hand Senator Inouye's commitment to the people of Hawaii and the people of the United States. He is a leader on national security and international human rights. As a senior member of the Appropriations Committee, he works tirelessly to ensure that we meet the day to day needs of our constituents--and the long term needs of our nation. Since my earliest days on the Appropriations Committee, I've learned from Senator Inouye--particularly in the area of defense policy. Even in a war filled with heroes, Senator Inouye's heroism was extraordinary. It is with deep respect and affection that I offer my most sincere congratulations to Senator Inouye for being awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor today.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, as a member for the Foreign Operations Subcommittee, I've worked to enact foreign aid bills that reflect our national interests and our values. While I support the FY2001 foreign operations appropriations bill, I do have some serious concerns that I hope will be addressed during conference. I am pleased that the foreign operations bill provides assistance to Israel, Cyprus and Armenia. I believe that its important that we stand by these friends as they make the difficult steps toward peace. I am also pleased that we support bilateral population assistance and support for micro-enterprise programs. These programs are vital in helping the world's poorest people to help themselves. I am disappointed that the bill does not provide sufficient assistance in other crucial areas, such as adequate flood relief assistance to Mozambique and the Administration's full funding request for debt relief. In addition, although I am pleased with the human rights requirements included in the Colombia aid package attached to this legislation, I have grave reservations about the large military aid package to Colombia. Colombia has been suffering through a civil war for over thirty years. Over 35,000 Colombians have been killed in the last decade. In recent years, this civil war has been exacerbated by the illegal production and trade of drugs coming out of Colombia--primarily cocaine and heroin. Most of these drugs wind up in the United States and contribute to America's growing drug problem. It is clear that the United States has to help Colombia deal with this volatile situation. It is also clear that we have to do more to stop the growing demand and dependence on drugs in our own country. In my own hometown of Baltimore--out of a population of 600,000--60,000 people are addicted to heroin or cocaine. These individuals not only wreck their own lives but they also have left a horrible mark on the city--drug-related crimes are now at $2 to $3 billion a year. Drugs destroy individuals, families and communities. That's why I've always fought for anti-drug education, increased drug treatment programs and strong law enforcement. I am not convinced that the military aid provided to Colombia included in this bill is the best way to fight drugs in the United States. First of all, I'm concerned that we're getting dragged into the middle of a civil war. I am also concerned that there is no clear exit strategy. The aid package is open-ended. The Administration has admitted that this ``two-year'' package is really expected to run longer--more like five or six years. An open-ended commitment could turn into a quagmire. I believe the best way to help Colombia is by supporting its peace process through a balanced aid package. The package before us is not at all balanced. Over 75% of this package is in military arms, equipment and training. Only a small fraction of the aid helps to fund economic alternatives to drug production, to assist the large number of civilians who will be displaced by this assistance or to address the deeper social problems that have led to Colombia's increasing reliance on drug production and cultivation in the first place. These funds would be better spent combating the drug problem in the United States. More funding and support is badly needed for drug treatment and prevention programs in our own country. That is why I supported Senator Wellstone's amendment to reduce the military aid provided to Colombia and re-direct that funding to domestic substance abuse programs--in particular to vital state and local community based programs--that are in desperate need of funding. I regret that this amendment did not pass. Although I regret that such a large percentage of our assistance to Colombia is in military aid, I am pleased that strong human rights requirements must be met by Colombia's Government and Armed Forces before this aid is dispensed. President Pastrana has taken important steps to improve the human rights situation in Colombia by disciplining army officials who have committed human rights violations. Nonetheless, it is a well-known and well-documented fact that members of Colombia's Armed Forces continue to be linked to paramilitary groups that commit these violent acts. The human rights requirements in this legislation helps to address this continuing problem. For example, under this legislation, the head of Colombia's Armed Forces must suspend personnel alleged to have committed gross human rights violations or to have aided or abetted paramilitary groups. It also requires the Colombian Government to prosecute leaders and members of paramilitary groups as well as military personnel who aid or abet paramilitary groups. Before U.S. military aid can be dispensed to Colombia, the U.S. Secretary of State must certify that these human rights conditions have been met. By enforcing these conditions, I believe that the Colombian Government-- with U.S. support--might achieve real progress on Colombia's path to peace. I urge that Congress maintain the strong human rights requirements in this legislation. Without such checks in providing assistance to Colombia, we run the risk of further exacerbating Colombia's civil war. We must also monitor the impact this assistance will have on reducing drug production in Colombia and drug supply in the United States. By keeping this goal in mind, we can evaluate and devise the best method for combating the war against drugs in the United States which, after all, is the ultimate aim of this aid. As the strongest nation on earth, and the world's strongest democracy, our foreign aid must be used to promote peace, stability and human rights. As a member of the Foreign Operations Conference Committee, I will work to ensure that the final legislation supports these goals and represents our national interests and our values.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the amendment offered by Senators Murray and Snowe. I am proud to be a cosponsor of this amendment. This amendment would repeal the current ban on privately funded abortions at U.S. military facilities overseas. I strongly support this amendment for three reasons. First of all, safe and legal access to abortion is the law. Second, women serving overseas should have access to the same range of medical services they would have if they were stationed here at home. Third, this amendment would protect the health and well-being of military women. It would ensure that they are not forced to seek alternative medical care in foreign countries without regard to the quality and safety of those health care services. We should not treat U.S. servicewomen as second- class citizens when it comes to receiving safe and legal medical care. It is a matter of simple fairness that our servicewomen, as well as the spouses and dependents of servicemen, be able to exercise their right to make health care decisions when they are stationed abroad. Women who are stationed overseas are often totally dependent on their base hospitals for medical care. Most of the time, the only access to safe, quality medical care is in a military facility. We should not discriminate against female military personnel by denying safe abortion services just because they are stationed overseas. They should be able exercise the same freedoms they would enjoy at home. It is reprehensible to suggest that a woman should not be able use her own funds to pay for access to safe and quality medical care. Without this amendment, military women will continue to be treated like second-class citizens. The current ban on access to reproductive services is yet another attempt to cut away at the constitutionally protected right of women to choose. It strips military women of the very rights they were recruited to protect. Abortion is a fundamental right for women in this country. It has been upheld repeatedly by the Supreme Court. Let's be very clear. What we're talking about here today is the right of women to obtain a safe and legal abortion paid for with their own funds. We are not talking about using any taxpayer or federal money--we are talking about privately funded medical care. We are not talking about reversing the conscience clause--no military medical personnel would be compelled to perform an abortion against their wishes. This is an issue of fairness and equality for the women who sacrifice every day to serve our nation. They deserve access to the same quality care that servicewomen stationed here at home--and every woman in America--has each day. I urge my colleagues to support this important amendment to the Fiscal Year 2001 Department of Defense Authorization Bill.

Ms. MIKULSKI

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

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, the pending bill is on Transportation appropriations. I wish to comment not only on the content of the bill but on the managers of the bill. I am sorry they are not here, though I note the chairman of the full committee is. I thank the chairman, Senator Shelby of Alabama, for the courtesies and cordiality he extended to me as he worked on the physical infrastructure needs of Maryland. I am continually grateful for his cooperation. I also want to say something about a very dear friend, and pay my respects to someone I have worked with up and down the Northeast corridor, on the highways and byways of Baltimore, of Maryland, and our country. That is, of course, the very distinguished Senator from New Jersey, Mr. Lautenberg. When I came to the Senate in 1986 and was sworn in in 1987, I was the very first Democratic woman ever elected to the Senate in her own right. At the time of my arrival, there was only one other woman in the Senate, the very wonderful Senator from Kansas, Ms. Nancy Kassebaum. When I gave speeches out in the community, they would say: Senator Mikulski, what is it like to be the only Democratic woman Senator? I would say that although I was all by myself, I was never alone because there were wonderful men in the Senate who helped me get started, who showed me how to be effective, and how to be a very good Senator. Of course, I had a great senior Senator, Mr. Paul Sarbanes. I had the help of the then-chairman of the full committee, Senator Bob Byrd, and others, such as Senator Kennedy and Senator Dodd. But also right there in appropriations was someone who I counted on and looked up to, and who was really a help, my very good friend, Senator Lautenberg. That is why I was never by myself because I could turn to Senator Lautenberg. What a way he had on appropriations--bringing his businessman's savvy and yet his total compassion for people. He brought to the Appropriations Committee a need to see how we could be compassionate about people today and yet look at the long-range needs of our country. That is what he brought to the Transportation Subcommittee. While we were working on how to build America and its physical infrastructure, Senator Lautenberg looked beyond bricks and mortar. He was looking at people. It was under his leadership that he brought to our attention the issue related to terrorism and how we could protect our people, whether it was on the high seas or at airports. He was the one who talked about the impact of smoking and what it meant to both airline passengers as well as those who worked on the airlines. Most recently, he has also talked about the issue of the impact of high blood alcohol levels on the whole issue of drunk driving. Senator Lautenberg brought public health and a public safety agenda to the Transportation Subcommittee. It has served the Nation well because we not only built communities but we have been able to save lives because of what I call ``the Lautenberg approach,'' which is putting people along with bricks and mortar. We are building communities and saving lives. I hope long after the distinguished Senator no longer officially serves the people of New Jersey that ``the Lautenberg approach'' can be an approach that the Senate continues always thinking about people-- putting people first, looking at every opportunity to enhance the public safety and the public health of the people of this country and the people who visit this country. Again, although I was all by myself, I was never alone. The American people owe Senator Lautenberg a great debt of gratitude. People are alive because of him today. I owe him a debt that I can never repay, except to follow the Lautenberg method. Senator Lautenberg will always be with me in every day as long as I continue to be a Senator and a public servant. Mr. President, I thank the Senators for their kind attention, and I yield the floor.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise to support Senator Kennedy and my colleagues in moving forward on this issue on a very strong Patients' Bill of Rights. In the debate the question was, Do you remember the Clinton plan? I sure do. I remember it with fondness. I wish we had passed it because we would not be in this mess that we are in today. When the Clinton plan was before the Senate, they said: We can't pass it. It is going to create a big bureaucracy. It is going to shackle the decisionmaking by physicians. And it is going to lead to rationing by proxy. What do we have now with this mess that we are rendering in the delivery of health care? This plan, the way health care is being given in this country now, was created by a group called the Jackson Hole group. It might have been created by the Jackson Hole group, but for most patients they go through a black hole trying to get the medical treatment they need. Where do we find ourselves? Doctors unionizing, hospitals closing, and the American people up in arms. There is a reason for this. This is because our delivery system has turned into a bureaucratic-rationing- by-proxy nightmare. This is why we are trying to move this legislation. This legislation we are talking about--Norwood-Dingell--passed the House in October 1999 by a vote of 275-151. That is bipartisan. The Senate moved quickly to have conferees in October. The House did it in November. But we did not have our first bipartisan meeting until February 23. The first Members' meeting wasn't until March. So I am very frustrated by the slow and stodgy pace of these deliberations. Our progress has been minimal and meager. The snail's pace of the conference leads me to conclude that unless we act quickly, we are not going to have time in this session. It is high time we deal with this issue. No more delays. No more parliamentary derailment. It affects the health care of every American who is in a managed care plan. They want us to take action. They want us to take it now. But while this is not about political posturing, this is about people in pain: the 57-year-old man with prostate cancer whose HMO denies him access to a Government-approved clinical trial; the 35-year-old mom who had a stroke and whose employer switched plans in the middle of her rehab so she cannot get back on her feet and back with her family and back on her job. Think about the woman who has to talk to three insurance gatekeepers before she gets to see her OB/GYN. When we embarked upon this, I said I wanted to fight for patients, not profits. Health care decisions should be made in the consulting room by a doctor, not in the boardroom by insurance executives. Patients need continuity of care. They should have the right to receive treatment that is medically necessary and medically appropriate, using the best practices and, yes, holding their health insurance plans accountable with the right to sue, if necessary. The Norwood-Dingell plan essentially gives us an external appeals process before you get into court. This would resolve this. It has been 8 months since the Norwood-Dingell bill passed the House of Representatives. I think it is high time we move on this. I say to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, we have worked so closely together in expanding the opportunity for medical breakthroughs. I could name names as we go around in which I worked with each and every one of you to really be able to enhance and improve NIH, and even double the funding in certain areas--certainly Dr. Frist in his work there; Senator Sue Collins and her wonderful work on diabetes; and we could go around; the leadership that Senator Jeffords has had even in conducting hearings. Why can't we come together to push for the breakthroughs, where we have had more scientific and medical breakthroughs in our country, so people have the health care they need, to have access to the very breakthroughs that the American people paid for and was invented in their own country? If we are going to make the 21st century a real century of opportunity, then I think we need to start now with ensuring that every single American has access to the health care that is medically necessary or medically appropriate as mandated by their physician. This is really a life and death decision. The clock is ticking. This session of Congress is closing. I hope when it is over that we can have a bipartisan legacy where we have passed a Patients' Bill of Rights. I yield the floor.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce the ``Imported Products Safety Improvement and Disease Prevention Act of 2000.'' I am proud to be the sponsor of this important legislation which guarantees the improved safety of imported foods, and I have high hopes that we will act on it this year. The health of Americans is not something to take chances with. It is important that we make food safety a top priority. Every person should have the confidence that their food is fit to eat. We should be confident that imported food is as safe as food produced in this country. Cars can't be imported unless they meet U.S. safety requirements. Prescription drugs can't be imported unless they meet FDA standards. You shouldn't be able to import food that isn't up to U.S. standards, either. We import increasing quantities of fresh fruits and vegetables, seafood, and many other foods. In the past seven years, the amount of food imported into the U.S. has more than doubled. Out of all the produce we eat, 40% of it is imported. Our food supply has gone global, so we need to have global food safety. The impact of unsafe food is staggering. There have been several frightening examples of food poisoning incidents in the U.S. When Michigan schoolchildren were contaminated with Hepatitis A from imported strawberries in 1997, Americans were put on alert. Thousands of cases of cyclospora infection from imported raspberries--resulting in severe, prolonged diarrhea, weight loss, vomiting, chills and fatigue were also reported that year. Imported cantaloupe eaten in Maryland sickened 25 people. As much as $663 million was spent on food borne illness in Maryland alone. Overall, as many as 33 million people per year become ill and over 9000 die as a result of food borne illness. It is our children and our seniors who suffer the most. Most of the food-related deaths occur in these two populations. These incidents have scared us and have jump-started the efforts to do more to protect our nation's food supply. Now, I believe in free trade, but I also believe in fair trade. FDA's current system of testing import samples at ports of entry does not protect Americans. It is ineffective and resource-intensive. Less than 2 percent of imported food is being inspected under the current system. At the same time, the quantity of the imported foods continues to increase. What this law does is simple: It improves food safety and aims at preventing food borne illness of all imported foods regulated by the FDA. This bill takes a long overdue, big first step. First, it requires that FDA make equivalence determinations on imported food. This was developed with the FDA by Senator Kennedy and myself in consultation with the consumer groups. Today, FDA has no authority to protect Americans against imported food that is unsafe until it is too late. According to the GAO, the FDA lacks the authority to require that food coming into the U.S. is produced, prepared, packed or held under conditions that provide the same level of food safety protection as those in the U.S. This means that currently, food offered for import to the U.S., can be imported under any conditions, even if those conditions are unsanitary. The Imported Products Safety Improvement and Disease Prevention Act of 2000 will allow FDA to look at the production at its source. This means that FDA will be able to take preventive measures. FDA will be able to be proactive, rather than just reactive. That means that when you pack your childrens' lunches for school or sit down at the dinner table, you can rest assured that your food will be safe. Whether your strawberries were grown in a foreign country or on the Eastern Shore, in Maryland, those strawberries will be held to the same standard. You won't have to worry or wonder where your food is coming from. You won't have to worry that your children or families are going to get sick. You will know that the food coming into this country will be subject to equivalent standards. Second, this bill contains strong enforcement measures. Last year, the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, under the leadership of Senator Sue Collins, held numerous hearings on the safety of imported food. These enforcement measures are largely a product of those facts uncovered during those hearings. Finally, this bill covers emergency situations by allowing FDA to ban imported food that has been connected to outbreaks of food borne illness. When our children, parents and communities are getting seriously sick, the Secretary of Health and Human Services can immediately issue an emergency ban. We don't have to wait till someone else gets seriously sick or dies. We no longer have to go through the current bureaucratic mechanism that is inefficient and resource intensive. We can stop the food today, to protect our citizens. My goal is to strengthen the food supply, whatever the source of the food may be. This bill won't create trade barriers. It just calls for free trade of safe food. It calls for international concern and consensus on guaranteeing standards for public health. This bill is important because it will save lives and makes for a safer world. Everyone should have security in knowing that the food they eat is fit to eat. I look forward to working on a bipartisan basis to enact this legislation. I pledge my commitment to fight for ways to make America's food supply safer. This bill is an important step in that direction. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a summary be added to the Record.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce the ``Imported Products Safety Improvement and Disease Prevention Act of 2000.'' I am proud to be the sponsor of this important legislation which guarantees the improved safety of imported foods, and I have high hopes that we will act on it this year. The health of Americans is not something to take chances with. It is important that we make food safety a top priority. Every person should have the confidence that their food is fit to eat. We should be confident that imported food is as safe as food produced in this country. Cars can't be imported unless they meet U.S. safety requirements. Prescription drugs can't be imported unless they meet FDA standards. You shouldn't be able to import food that isn't up to U.S. standards, either. We import increasing quantities of fresh fruits and vegetables, seafood, and many other foods. In the past seven years, the amount of food imported into the U.S. has more than doubled. Out of all the produce we eat, 40% of it is imported. Our food supply has gone global, so we need to have global food safety. The impact of unsafe food is staggering. There have been several frightening examples of food poisoning incidents in the U.S. When Michigan schoolchildren were contaminated with Hepatitis A from imported strawberries in 1997, Americans were put on alert. Thousands of cases of cyclospora infection from imported raspberries--resulting in severe, prolonged diarrhea, weight loss, vomiting, chills and fatigue were also reported that year. Imported cantaloupe eaten in Maryland sickened 25 people. As much as $663 million was spent on food borne illness in Maryland alone. Overall, as many as 33 million people per year become ill and over 9000 die as a result of food borne illness. It is our children and our seniors who suffer the most. Most of the food-related deaths occur in these two populations. These incidents have scared us and have jump-started the efforts to do more to protect our nation's food supply. Now, I believe in free trade, but I also believe in fair trade. FDA's current system of testing import samples at ports of entry does not protect Americans. It is ineffective and resource-intensive. Less than 2 percent of imported food is being inspected under the current system. At the same time, the quantity of the imported foods continues to increase. What this law does is simple: It improves food safety and aims at preventing food borne illness of all imported foods regulated by the FDA. This bill takes a long overdue, big first step. First, it requires that FDA make equivalence determinations on imported food. This was developed with the FDA by Senator Kennedy and myself in consultation with the consumer groups. Today, FDA has no authority to protect Americans against imported food that is unsafe until it is too late. According to the GAO, the FDA lacks the authority to require that food coming into the U.S. is produced, prepared, packed or held under conditions that provide the same level of food safety protection as those in the U.S. This means that currently, food offered for import to the U.S., can be imported under any conditions, even if those conditions are unsanitary. The Imported Products Safety Improvement and Disease Prevention Act of 2000 will allow FDA to look at the production at its source. This means that FDA will be able to take preventive measures. FDA will be able to be proactive, rather than just reactive. That means that when you pack your childrens' lunches for school or sit down at the dinner table, you can rest assured that your food will be safe. Whether your strawberries were grown in a foreign country or on the Eastern Shore, in Maryland, those strawberries will be held to the same standard. You won't have to worry or wonder where your food is coming from. You won't have to worry that your children or families are going to get sick. You will know that the food coming into this country will be subject to equivalent standards. Second, this bill contains strong enforcement measures. Last year, the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, under the leadership of Senator Sue Collins, held numerous hearings on the safety of imported food. These enforcement measures are largely a product of those facts uncovered during those hearings. Finally, this bill covers emergency situations by allowing FDA to ban imported food that has been connected to outbreaks of food borne illness. When our children, parents and communities are getting seriously sick, the Secretary of Health and Human Services can immediately issue an emergency ban. We don't have to wait till someone else gets seriously sick or dies. We no longer have to go through the current bureaucratic mechanism that is inefficient and resource intensive. We can stop the food today, to protect our citizens. My goal is to strengthen the food supply, whatever the source of the food may be. This bill won't create trade barriers. It just calls for free trade of safe food. It calls for international concern and consensus on guaranteeing standards for public health. This bill is important because it will save lives and makes for a safer world. Everyone should have security in knowing that the food they eat is fit to eat. I look forward to working on a bipartisan basis to enact this legislation. I pledge my commitment to fight for ways to make America's food supply safer. This bill is an important step in that direction. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a summary be added to the Record.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, we are so fortunate to live in an era when modern medical breakthroughs are an almost common occurrence. Every day brings new research and insight into the human body and diseases that, unfortunately, affect our friends, families, co-workers, and ourselves. For example, there are several wonderful new therapies that help people with chronic diseases like rheumatoid arthritis, multiple sclerosis, and Hepatitis C live more active and pain-free lives. I am proud to be an original co-sponsor of the Access to Innovation for Medicare Patients Act (S. 2644), which would extend Medicare coverage to new self-injected biological therapies for these chronic diseases. One of the most important things I do as a United States Senator is listen to the people and the stories of their lives. The story of one of my constituents, Judith Levinson of Rockville, Maryland, is a compelling example of the power of these new therapies. Judith was diagnosed with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) when she was 40 years old. At first, her fingers and toes swelled up and sent sharp pains into her arms and shoulders. Over the next few years, she had multiple surgeries to place artificial knuckles in her fingers, to fuse her thumbs, and to replace both of her wrists with steel rods. Her feet have also been affected. Judith had six surgeries on her feet because bone deterioration made walking very difficult and painful. She now wears a size 2 shoe because so much bone has been removed from her feet. Unfortunately, Judith's suffering did not end with the surgeries. During recovery, her hands had to be placed in cages in order to heal properly--which made her completely dependent on others for daily activities. On a scale of 1 to 10, Judith rated her daily pain as an 8. In January of 1999, Judith's doctor prescribed a new self-injectable drug called Enbrel, which had just been approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of advanced RA. I am proud to add that the Johns Hopkins University's Division of Rheumatology was instrumental in the development of this breakthrough therapy as one of its clinical trial sites. Judith says that, within five weeks, she had less swelling in her fingers and she had more energy. As she puts it, she is in ``go mode.'' I am happy to report that Judith has resumed writing, takes daily walks with her family without stopping at every street corner, and truly believes that this treatment has changed her life. Judith is fortunate in that her insurance plan covers the cost of Enbrel, with a small co-payment. Medicare, on the other hand, does not allow coverage of self-administered injectable drugs. It covers only drugs that are administered in a physician's office. That means that many Medicare beneficiaries are going without treatment because they can't afford it themselves, or that they are treated with a therapy that is covered but may not be the most appropriate or effective treatment. That doesn't make sense. I am very proud that most of the breakthroughs in medicine today were invented in the United States. But breakthroughs alone aren't enough--I believe that every American ought to have access to those breakthroughs. Medicare patients are certainly no exception. It is gratifying that this legislation is supported by a broad range of women, senior, minority, religious, rural, and health professional organizations like the Alliance for Aging Research, the American Public Health Association, the National Farmers Union, the Older Women's League (OWL), the National Hispanic Council on Aging, and more than a dozen other organizations. OWL, the only national membership organization that works on the issues unique to midlife and older women, has stressed the importance of access to innovative medical treatments for older women and urged Congress to recognize that ``73% of women on Medicare have two or more concurrent chronic conditions, which often lead to limitations in the activities of daily living and the need for long-term care. In order to improve the health of women suffering with chronic diseases . . . Congress should extend Medicare coverage to self-administered injectables.'' Mr. President, we must ensure that Medicare beneficiaries have access to promising and innovative new therapies. This legislation will help thousands of people living with chronic conditions like RA, MS, and Hepatitis C live better, happier, and more productive lives. I urge my colleagues to join Senators Gorton, Murray, myself and the other co- sponsors in supporting it.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise to join my good friend and colleague, Senator Snowe, to introduce the Women's Health Office Act of 2000. I'm pleased to join Senator Snowe in introducing this bill because it establishes an important framework to address women's health within the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). Historically, women's health needs were ignored or inadequately addressed by the medical establishment and the government. It is really only in the last ten years that the health of women has begun to receive more attention. A 1990 General Accounting Office (GAO) report acknowledged the historical pattern of neglect of women in health research, and especially the exclusion of women as research subjects in many clinical trials. This was unacceptable. Women make up half or more of the population and must be adequately included in clinical research. That's why I fought to establish the Office of Research on Women's Health (ORWH) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) ten years ago. We needed to ensure that women were included in clinical research, so that we would know how treatments for a particular disease or condition would affect women. Would men and women react the same way to a particular treatment for heart disease? We had no way of knowing because women were not being included in clinical trials. While the ORWH began its work in 1990, I wanted to ensure that it stayed at NIH and had the necessary authority to carry out its mission of ensuring that women were included in clinical research. That's why I authored legislation in 1990 and 1991 to formally establish the ORWH in the Office of the Director of NIH. These provisions were later enacted into law in the NIH Revitalization Act of 1993. Last year, Senator Harkin, Senator Snowe, and I requested that GAO examine how well the NIH and ORWH was carrying out the mandates under the NIH Revitalization Act of 1993. The results were mixed. While NIH had made substantial progress in ensuring the inclusion of women in clinical research, it had made less progress in encouraging the analysis of study findings by sex. This means that women are being included in clinical trials, but we are not able to fully reap the benefits of inclusion because analysis of how interventions affect men and women is not being done. While the NIH is taking steps to address this, we are missing information from research done over the last few years about how the outcomes of the research varied or not for men and women. NIH is but one agency in the DHHS. Other agencies in DHHS do not even have women's health offices. How are these other agencies addressing women's health? Only NIH and the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) have statutory authorization for offices dedicated to women's health. Other agencies in HHS have a hodgepodge of women's health offices or advisors/coordinators, some of whom have experienced cuts in their funding. For example, funding for the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) Office of Women's Health has decreased from $2 million in Fiscal Year 1995 to $1.6 million in Fiscal Year 2000. In addition, funding for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) Office of Women's Health was cut more than 10% between Fiscal Year 1999 and Fiscal Year 2000. I believe we need a consistent and comprehensive approach to address the needs of women's health in the DHHS. This bill that I join Senator Snowe in introducing today would do just that. The Women's Health Office Act of 2000 would provide authorization for women's health offices in DHHS, CDC, the FDA, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), and the Health Resources and Serivces Administration (HRSA). This legislation establishes an important framework and build on existing efforts. The HHS Office on Women's Health would take over all functions which previously belonged to the current Office of Women's Health of the Public Health Service. The HHS Office would be headed by a Deputy Assistant Secretary for Women's Health who would also chair an HHS Coordinating Committee on Women's Heath. The responsibilities of the HHS Office would include establishing short and long-term goals, advising the Secretary of HHS on women's health issues, monitoring and facilitating coordination and stimulating HHS activities on women's health, establishing a national Women's Health Information Center to facilitate exchange of and access to women's health information, and coordinating private sector efforts to promote women's health. Under this legislation, the Offices of Women's Health in CDC, FDA, HRSA, and AHRQ would be housed in the office of the head of each agency and be headed by a Director appointed by the head of the respective agency. The offices would assess the current level of activity on women's health in the agency; establish short-term and long-term goals for women's health and coordinate women's health activities in the agency; identify women's health projects to support or conduct; consult with appropriate outside groups on the agency's policy regarding women; serve on HHS' Coordinating Committee on Women's Health; and establish and head a coordinating committee on women's health within the agency to identify womens' health needs and make recommendations to the head of the agency. The FDA office would also have specific duties regarding women and clinical trials. All the offices, including the HHS Office beginning no later than Jan. 31. 2002, would submit a report every two years to the appropriate Congressional committees documenting activities accomplished. In addition, the bill authorizes appropriations for all the offices through 2005 I believe that this bill will establish a valuable and consistent framework for addressing women's health in the Department of Health and Human Services. It will help to ensure that women's health research will continue to have the resources it needs in the coming years. This bill is a priority of the Women's Health Research Coalition. The Coalition is comprised of nearly three dozen academic centers, voluntary health associations and membership organizations with a strong focus on women's health research and gender-based biology. I encourage my colleagues to join Senator Snowe and myself in supporting and cosponsoring this important legislation for women.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise to join my good friend and colleague, Senator Snowe, to introduce the Women's Health Office Act of 2000. I'm pleased to join Senator Snowe in introducing this bill because it establishes an important framework to address women's health within the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). Historically, women's health needs were ignored or inadequately addressed by the medical establishment and the government. It is really only in the last ten years that the health of women has begun to receive more attention. A 1990 General Accounting Office (GAO) report acknowledged the historical pattern of neglect of women in health research, and especially the exclusion of women as research subjects in many clinical trials. This was unacceptable. Women make up half or more of the population and must be adequately included in clinical research. That's why I fought to establish the Office of Research on Women's Health (ORWH) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) ten years ago. We needed to ensure that women were included in clinical research, so that we would know how treatments for a particular disease or condition would affect women. Would men and women react the same way to a particular treatment for heart disease? We had no way of knowing because women were not being included in clinical trials. While the ORWH began its work in 1990, I wanted to ensure that it stayed at NIH and had the necessary authority to carry out its mission of ensuring that women were included in clinical research. That's why I authored legislation in 1990 and 1991 to formally establish the ORWH in the Office of the Director of NIH. These provisions were later enacted into law in the NIH Revitalization Act of 1993. Last year, Senator Harkin, Senator Snowe, and I requested that GAO examine how well the NIH and ORWH was carrying out the mandates under the NIH Revitalization Act of 1993. The results were mixed. While NIH had made substantial progress in ensuring the inclusion of women in clinical research, it had made less progress in encouraging the analysis of study findings by sex. This means that women are being included in clinical trials, but we are not able to fully reap the benefits of inclusion because analysis of how interventions affect men and women is not being done. While the NIH is taking steps to address this, we are missing information from research done over the last few years about how the outcomes of the research varied or not for men and women. NIH is but one agency in the DHHS. Other agencies in DHHS do not even have women's health offices. How are these other agencies addressing women's health? Only NIH and the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) have statutory authorization for offices dedicated to women's health. Other agencies in HHS have a hodgepodge of women's health offices or advisors/coordinators, some of whom have experienced cuts in their funding. For example, funding for the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) Office of Women's Health has decreased from $2 million in Fiscal Year 1995 to $1.6 million in Fiscal Year 2000. In addition, funding for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) Office of Women's Health was cut more than 10% between Fiscal Year 1999 and Fiscal Year 2000. I believe we need a consistent and comprehensive approach to address the needs of women's health in the DHHS. This bill that I join Senator Snowe in introducing today would do just that. The Women's Health Office Act of 2000 would provide authorization for women's health offices in DHHS, CDC, the FDA, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), and the Health Resources and Serivces Administration (HRSA). This legislation establishes an important framework and build on existing efforts. The HHS Office on Women's Health would take over all functions which previously belonged to the current Office of Women's Health of the Public Health Service. The HHS Office would be headed by a Deputy Assistant Secretary for Women's Health who would also chair an HHS Coordinating Committee on Women's Heath. The responsibilities of the HHS Office would include establishing short and long-term goals, advising the Secretary of HHS on women's health issues, monitoring and facilitating coordination and stimulating HHS activities on women's health, establishing a national Women's Health Information Center to facilitate exchange of and access to women's health information, and coordinating private sector efforts to promote women's health. Under this legislation, the Offices of Women's Health in CDC, FDA, HRSA, and AHRQ would be housed in the office of the head of each agency and be headed by a Director appointed by the head of the respective agency. The offices would assess the current level of activity on women's health in the agency; establish short-term and long-term goals for women's health and coordinate women's health activities in the agency; identify women's health projects to support or conduct; consult with appropriate outside groups on the agency's policy regarding women; serve on HHS' Coordinating Committee on Women's Health; and establish and head a coordinating committee on women's health within the agency to identify womens' health needs and make recommendations to the head of the agency. The FDA office would also have specific duties regarding women and clinical trials. All the offices, including the HHS Office beginning no later than Jan. 31. 2002, would submit a report every two years to the appropriate Congressional committees documenting activities accomplished. In addition, the bill authorizes appropriations for all the offices through 2005 I believe that this bill will establish a valuable and consistent framework for addressing women's health in the Department of Health and Human Services. It will help to ensure that women's health research will continue to have the resources it needs in the coming years. This bill is a priority of the Women's Health Research Coalition. The Coalition is comprised of nearly three dozen academic centers, voluntary health associations and membership organizations with a strong focus on women's health research and gender-based biology. I encourage my colleagues to join Senator Snowe and myself in supporting and cosponsoring this important legislation for women.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, yesterday I offered an amendment to the legislative branch appropriations bill commending the Capitol Police, and all the employees of the legislative branch, and recommending that we keep the Senate funding levels in conference. I also complimented the outstanding leadership provided by Senator Bennett, the Chair of the legislative appropriations subcommittee, as well as Senator Feinstein, the ranking member of the subcommittee, who really moved this legislation in a way that I think meets the responsibilities we have to the American people. The best way we can show our responsibility to the American people is to really let them know that the men and women who work at the U.S. Capitol are needed and valued. My amendment is not about money, it is about morale. We want to say to the men and women who work at the U.S. Capitol that we know who you are and we value what you do. You are the men and women who work in this building for the American people. You serve the Nation. The Capitol Police protect this building, which is a symbol of freedom and democracy the world over. The Capitol Police ensure that everyone who comes to the U.S. Capitol is safe and secure, including Members of Congress and staff. The Capitol Police are brave. They are resourceful. They are tough. They are gallant. They protect you whether you are a foreign dignitary, such as Nelson Mandela, or a member of a Girl Scout troop from Maryland. We need to make sure they have their jobs, they have their pay, they have their pension, and they have our respect. That is what my amendment is all about: To support the Capitol Police and the other employees of the legislative branch. I was deeply disturbed at the House bill which cut over 1,700 employees of the legislative branch. This isn't about bureaucracy. The people we are talking about are the 117 people from the Congressional Research Service. That is the body that is absolutely dedicated to giving us unbiased, unpolitical, accurate information so we can make the best decisions in our approach to forming public policy. We turn to them for models for the Older Americans Act and for ideas on new technology breakthroughs to be pursued. We have to make sure we have the Congressional Research Service and that they have the staff they need to do their job. Also under the House bill, 700 jobs would be cut from GAO. Every Member of the Senate who is fiscally prudent knows we need the GAO. It is not about keeping the books, but it is about keeping the books straight. We continually turn to the GAO to do investigations of waste and abuse, to give us insights on how to better manage and be better stewards of the taxpayers' funds. People with those kinds of skills could leave us in a nanosecond and move to the private sector. They could be ``dot.comers'' with no hesitation. If we are going to be on the broadband of the future, we need to make sure we have the skills to run a contemporary Congress. We need to make sure they have security in their jobs and security in health benefits and in their pensions. We need to be sure we let those workers know we are on their side. In addition to that, we want to make sure we acknowledge the role our own staffs play in constituent service and in helping us craft legislation. Two years ago, we all endured a very melancholy event here in the Congress. Two very brave and gallant police officers literally put themselves in the line of fire to protect us. Their names were Officer Chestnut, from Maryland--his wife still lives over there at Fort Washington--and Detective Gibson, of Virginia, father of three-- teenagers, college students. We mourn them. We consoled their families and said a grateful Congress will never forget. We should not forget the men and women who work here, but the way we remember is with the right pay, the right benefits, and the right respect. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, my amendment in no way is a criticism of Senators Bennett and Feinstein. They did a fantastic job, not only in moving the bill but the way they have conducted the hearings and worked with Members on very sensitive issues. I commend them. Had the House done what Senators Bennett and Feinstein did, my amendment would not have been necessary.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators Byrd, Bennett, Feinstein, Kennedy, and Durbin be added as cosponsors to this amendment.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, that amendment is offered in behalf of myself, Senator Daschle, Senator Murray, Senator Reid, Senator Sarbanes, and Senator Wellstone. The reason I wanted the amendment read is that I wanted to convey the importance that many of us feel in commending the employees who work here at the Capitol, both the police as well as other very important departments and divisions. I first compliment Senator Bennett and Senator Feinstein for the outstanding job they have done on moving the legislative branch appropriations bill. This sense of the Senate is in no way a commentary on their leadership, which I think has been exemplary. I think their leadership has been sensitive to the needs of employees and sensitive to the needs of the taxpayers. So we thank you for the leadership you provided, first in terms of the adequacy of the resources to do the job and, second, stewardship over Federal funds. Also, I particularly want to thank Senators Feinstein and Bennett for adding the report language on the need for an employee ombudsman for the employees of the Architect of the Capitol. I had come to their hearings, in which I was received with such collegiality that I am very grateful. But we wanted to problem-solve over what was happening to the restaurant employees who often believe they have nowhere to go with many of their problems. Essentially, my own office was becoming the EEO office for these employees. I am ready to do that. I am ready to be the Senator from Maryland and I am ready to be the Senator for the restaurant employees. But I want the Architect of the Capitol and those who work for him to do their job so that our employees have the same type of ombudsman and opportunity for personnel grievance that the private sector has. I thank them for that. Let me come back to my amendment. My amendment is a sense of the Senate. It is not about money, but it is about morale. We want to say to the men and women who work at the U.S. Capitol that we know who they are and we value what they do. These are the men and women who work in this building for the American people and serve the Nation. The Capitol Police protect this building which is a symbol of freedom and democracy the world over. They protect all the people who visit the Capitol, and they protect Members of Congress. It is the Capitol Police who ensure that everyone who comes to the U.S. Capitol is safe and secure. They are the most unique law enforcement officers in the country. They protect the building, and they protect the people, and they do it whether you are an American citizen or a foreign dignitary. They protect you whether you are a Member of Congress or a member of a Girl Scout troop. That is who they are. They are brave, they are resourceful, they are gallant, whether it is protecting a dignitary such as Nelson Mandela or a Girl Scout troop from Maryland. They protect us from crooks, terrorists, people who are deranged, and anyone else who wants to harm us or the Capitol. Also, each is Officer Friendly welcoming people from all over America and all over the world. The Capitol is a tourist attraction. Why? Do they come because we are so compelling, so charismatic, so gifted? No, they come to see democracy in action. We are the greatest deliberative body in the world. Sometimes we act great, and sometimes we deliberate, and sometimes we even do something together. But people come to see us in action. Those police officers ensure this facility is open to the people, preserving safety, often giving guidance and direction, many even learning foreign languages to do it. Under their community police mentality, do not think, because they greet visitors like Officer Friendly, that they are soft. Talk to the Capitol Police. We know, No. 1, that they are tough, they are competent, they are a modern police force. They take bomb squad training, they take antiterrorist training, and they also work to make sure they have the right approach to deal with each and every situation they may encounter. We need to make sure they have their jobs, they have their pay, they have their benefits, and they have our respect. That is what the sense of the Senate resolution is all about: to support the Capitol Police and the other employees of the legislative branch. The House was going to cut over 1,700 people and as many as 400 police officers, which is 25 percent of the force. That is unacceptable. Then they were going to cut 117 staff from the Congressional Research Service. I will say what the Congressional Research Service is. It is a group of people who are absolutely dedicated to giving us unbiased, accurate information and unbiased, accurate analysis so we can do our jobs. If we want to make some very good decisions on the best models for the Older Americans Act or new technology breakthroughs, we should ensure adequate funding for the Congressional Research Service. I will talk about the jobs being cut at GAO, the Government Accounting Office. The Government Accounting Office is not about keeping the books, it is about keeping the books straight. My colleagues and I know we continually turn to the staff at the Government Accounting Office to do investigations of waste and abuse, to give us insights into how better to manage and be better stewards of the taxpayers' funds. People with those kinds of skills could leave us in a wink and be at a dot com in less than a nanosecond. If we are going to be on the broadband of the future, we need to make sure we have the people with the skills to run a contemporary Congress. And, we need to make sure that these people have security in their jobs and reliability of pay that they need to do just that. I will now talk about our own congressional staff. They help us serve the Nation. We all know what the people who work for us do. They are the caseworkers who track down Social Security checks for our constituents; they help us answer our mail; and they help us draft legislation. It is the congressional staff who are now working, hopefully, to see that we pass a Medicare prescription drug benefit. It is the congressional staff who are now working around the clock so we can have a conference on the Patients' Bill of Rights. Whether it's the Democratic side or the Republican side--the fact is that our staff is on our side so we can be on the people's side. We should not be cutting the very staff who help us get the job done. We should not forget the restaurant workers, the custodial staff, and the facility managers who ensure the U.S. Capitol is a building that is comfortable, clean, and safe to visit. We know about the draconian cuts in the House. Rumor has it they are going to restore some of those cuts. Good, because I would say to them, shame on them for what they were doing. Do my colleagues know what the House intended to do? They intended to cut 400 Capitol Police officers, 114 employees from the Congressional Research Service, and 700 employees from GAO--1,700 people could have lost their jobs. This is not about job security, this is about maintaining the safety, security, and cleanliness of the Capitol and the competency of staff so we can do our job. I hope we adopt this amendment 100-0. I close my remarks by saying that the reason I am offering this sense of the Senate amendment is so we know and show the people who work here every day that we are on their side. I believe Senators Bennett and Feinstein showed that by putting the money in the Federal checkbook, to show there is money which hopefully ensures a high level of morale. I am also offering this sense of the Senate amendment because we need to keep our promises. A short time ago, we had two gallant police officers die in the line of duty--Officer Chestnut from Maryland and Detective Gibson from Virginia. We all attended their memorial services. We mourned them. We tried to console their families. We thanked them for their sacrifice, and we said that a grateful Congress will never forget. We should not forget Officer Chestnut, and we should not forget Detective Gibson. We should not forget the men and women who work here every day, in every way, in their own way dedicating their lives to serving us. I hope we adopt this sense of the Senate amendment. Again, I thank Senators Bennett and Feinstein for their leadership. I yield the floor.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote on this amendment be taken at the appropriate time as agreed upon by the leaders.

Ms. MIKULSKI. I thank the chairman of the subcommittee.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on this amendment.