Barbara Mikulski

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise today as a proud cosponsor of the ``Federal Employees and Uniformed Services Group Long-Term Care Insurance Act of 2000.'' This important piece of legislation represents a carefully considered compromise between several bills currently pending in the Senate. I would like to thank Senator Cleland and Senator Grassley for all of their hard work in coming to a consensus on how best to provide federal and military employees, retirees, and their families with the opportunity to purchase long-term care insurance. Since my first days in Congress, I have been fighting to help people afford the burdens of long-term care. Ten years ago, I introduced legislation to change the cruel rules that forced elderly couples to go bankrupt before they could get any help in paying for nursing home care. Because of my legislation, AARP tells me that we've kept over six hundred thousand people out of poverty and stopped liens on family farms. I also fought for higher quality standards for nursing homes. 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. These are important steps. But unfortunately, we haven't made much progress in the last few years. We've been stymied by partisan bickering, shutdowns, and inaction. The long-term care crisis needs a long-term care solution. I am pleased to say that this new bipartisan legislation puts an important down payment on this solution. Despite past disagreements on approaches to financing long-term care, everyone agrees that the crisis is growing. Nursing home costs are projected to increase from $40,000 today to $97,000 by 2030. This will only get worse since the number of senior citizens will double over the next thirty years. Families are being forced to choose between sending a child to college or paying for a nursing home for a parent, or a parent-in-law. I think that is wrong. Consider these sobering statistics: 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 Families desperately need the tools to help themselves and meet their family responsibilities. This bill is the first step in helping all Americans do just that. Let me tell you what our new legislation will do: It will enable federal and military workers, retirees and their families to purchase long-term care insurance It will provide help to those who practice self-help by offering employees the option to better prepare for their retirement and the potential need for long-term care It will enable federal employees to buy long-term care insurance at group rates--they are projected to be 10%-20% below open market rates. Participants will pay the entire premium but because of the lower premium this is a good deal for federal workers--and for taxpayers I'm starting with federal employees for two reasons. First, as our nation's largest employer, the federal government can be a model for employers around the country. By offering long-term care insurance to its employees, the federal government can set the example for other employers 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 have a second reason for starting with our federal employees. 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 retirees 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. Mr. President, 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.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise to support the Iran Nonproliferation Act. We are faced with an historic opportunity to send a strong message to nations around the world--we will not sit by idle as goods, services or technology are transferred to Iran that contribute significantly to its ability to develop nuclear, chemical or biological weapons or ballistic or cruise missiles. This legislation provides the Administration with useful tools to combat the spread of dangerous weapons technology and to discourage nuclear proliferation. It also enhances U.S. efforts to monitor Iranian proliferation. This legislation demonstrates our commitment to prevent the proliferation of dangerous nuclear weapons to countries that threaten our national security as well as the security of allies--such as Israel and Europe. The Middle East is of vital strategic importance to the U.S.--and our interests and Israel's security are threatened by the continuing build-up of advanced conventional weapons by `rogue regimes' in the region. For this reason, U.S. support for Israel must go beyond economic and military aid to Israel--it must meet the very real challenges that will face Israel and the United States in this new century, such as limiting the threats of weapons of mass destruction. It is well documented that technology provided to Iran increases its ability to develop its own intermediate range ballistic missile that is capable of reaching Israel as well as our European allies. By limiting Iran's access to such technology we can better protect these countries as well as our own troops in the Middle East and Europe. The people of Iran demonstrated in their recent elections an overriding desire to move away from the extremism of the previous government toward reform and moderation in the future--but it is too early to tell what this change will mean in practice. I hope that it is a sign that Iran will end its missile program and its support for international terrorism. But despite this positive step, the Iran Nonproliferation Act is still vital to combat the spread of dangerous weapons technology and, in particular, to monitor nuclear weapons proliferation to Iran. This legislation also sends a strong message to Russia that U.S. aid and scientific collaboration will be limited if Russia doesn't stop missile proliferation to Iran. U.S. funding will be substantially limited unless the President certifies that the Russian Space Agency is not transferring technology to Iran. As the ranking member of the VA-HUD subcommittee that funds the space program, I have been a strong supporter of the International Space Station. I supported Russia's participation in the space program for three reasons: One, their technical expertise; Two, to build stronger links between the United States and Russia; and Three, to ensure that Russian scientists and engineers had civilian work--so they would not sell their skills to rogue governments. Russia has failed to live up to its promises on the space station. I have no question of Russia's technical competence. But I have strong concerns about its failure to meet its end of the bargain. Russia has not adequately funded its share of the space station, resulting in delays and a cloud of uncertainty that hovers over the entire program. Even more troubling is Russia's role in the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Russia has exported technology, material and expertise to help Iran develop ballistic missiles. These missiles could carry chemical, nuclear or biological weapons--which could reach any target within about 800 miles of Iran. Russia's former Prime Minister Chernomyrdin promised to end this assistance. We need to make sure the new Russian government fulfills this promise. I recognize that Acting Russian President Vladmir Putin has been receptive to restricting companies that sell missile technology and equipment to Iran. I hope his intentions are translated into action. Otherwise, our cooperation with Russia--both in space and elsewhere--may end. We live in a dangerous world--where terrorists and rogue nations are developing the most repugnant weapons of mass destruction. Our action today will send a clear message to our allies and to our adversaries. By coming together to support this bipartisan legislation, we will demonstrate our unified commitment to limit nuclear proliferation and to create a safer more stable world.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I wish to take this opportunity to commend and congratulate George T. Costin, Library Technician, upon the occasion of his retirement from the Senate Library on February 8, 2000. For 32 years--27 in the Office of the Secretary of the Senate--George has labored selflessly every day supporting the work of the Senate. George left his home state of North Carolina in 1963 and a brief stop over in Washington lasted for more than three decades. George began his Senate career with the Sergeant at Arms in 1967 and joined the Library staff in 1972. He has made our duties far easier and throughout the years he has been the Ambassador of Goodwill with his wonderful smile, kind words, and unmatched style. He was always proud of being part of the Senate Family. George will be very busy in retirement with church activities, a demanding golf schedule, and the joy of a new grandson. Along with all of his friends, I commend George for his loyalty and dedicated service to the United States Senate. I know that all Senators will join me in thanking George, his wife Gloria, and his three children, Angie, Samantha, and George, Jr., for his dedicated and distinguished service. It is with deep appreciation that we extend our best wishes for many years of health and happiness.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate the Administration on the selection of Thomasina ``Tommy'' Rogers, a constituent and friend, to serve as the Chairman of the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission. Ms. Rogers was confirmed by the U.S. Senate and has served on the Commission since November 1998. On June 4, President Clinton designated her Chairman. Ms. Rogers, a resident of Upper Marlboro, MD, has held a number of high ranking positions in the federal government, both as a career civil servant and as a political appointee. She entered the Senior Executive Service in 1987. At the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, she served as Legal Counsel where she received numerous awards for exemplary performance. She was later nominated and confirmed to chair the Administrative Conference where she served until 1995. Ms. Rogers received a law degree from Columbia University and an undergraduate degree in journalism from Northwestern University. She has served on the Boards of Directors of Children's National Medical Center in Washington D.C. and the American Arbitration Association since 1995. Ms. Rogers is the first woman to be designated Chairman and the first African American to serve as a member of the Commission. She is married to another outstanding Marylander, and friend, Gregory Gill. They have a daughter, Cleo. I want to commend the Administration for it's excellent choice and look forward to Ms. Rogers' tenure as Chairman.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, I rise today in commemoration of January 2000, as National Biotechnology Month. In November, the Senate passed a resolution designating January 2000 as National Biotechnology Month. Biotechnology is changing the face of medicine. The United States leads the world in biotechnology innovation. Approximately 1,300 biotech companies in this country employ more than 150,000 people. Biotech companies are on the cutting edge--working to develop innovative life-saving drugs and vaccines. The industry spent nearly $10 billion on research and development in 1998 while revenues totaled $18.4 billion. Product sales topped $13 billion. The industry recorded a net loss of $5 billion. I'm proud that Maryland is home to over 200 biotechnology companies. Companies in Maryland are working to map the human genome and develop drugs to treat Alzheimer's, Parkinson's Disease, and diabetes. Biotechnology has grown in Maryland, in part because Maryland is a place for great medical innovations. Maryland is home to the ``golden triangle''--private sector biotech companies, federal research laboratories, and universities. Maryland houses the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), other federal labs, outstanding academic research institutions such as Johns Hopkins University and the University of Maryland, and a growing number of biotech companies. The combination of these public and private sector entities creates a unique environment for research and new ideas to flourish. Biotech companies will likely have an increasingly important role in providing medicines in the 21st century. The number of biotechnology drug approvals is increasing. More than 350 biotechnology medicines are already in late-stage clinical trials for heart ailments, cancer, and neurological diseases and infections. Some of these drugs will likely lead the way to improved health and well-being for millions of Americans. I salute the biotechnology companies in Maryland and across the country as they work to improve the lives of patients everywhere.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Republican amendment. I believe it is a watered-down, slowed-down, pennies-to-the- poor approach. Why raise the minimum wage? We are in the greatest prosperity that the United States of America has ever seen. We have the opportunity to raise the standard of living for the poor. I believe what we need to do, now that we have moved hundreds of thousands of people from welfare, is to make work worth it. Who are the people we are talking about? We are talking about the working poor who raise our children, who care for our elderly, many working two or three jobs to hold the family together. I believe we need to make a commitment to the working poor, as we cross into the new century, that if you live in the United States of America and you work, you should not be poor. The amendment the Senator from Massachusetts proposed was modest. It was spread over a 2-year period. It would take us into 2001. Why should a day-care worker make less than someone who works 40 hours a week at a bank job? We need to make sure that in this country, in order to sustain the efforts we have made in improving the standard of living for people, if you work, you will not be poor. I yield such time as I might have.

Mr. MIKULSKI

Mr. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to oppose the Financial Services Modernization Conference Report. While I oppose this legislation, I strongly commend the work of my senior colleague Senator Sarbanes. Because of his efforts, this bill is far better than previous versions. It does more to help low and moderate income and minority Americans to have access to capital, credit and financial services. Senator Sarbanes also improved the privacy provisions of this bill. Despite the significant improvements Senator Sarbanes fought so hard for, there are still a number of what I call ``yellow flashing lights'' or warning signals that force me to oppose this legislation. First, I am concerned that if we relax the laws about who can own and operate financial institutions, an unhealthy concentration of financial resources will be the inevitable result. The savings of the many will be controlled by the few. If we relax banking regulations in this country, Americans will know less about where their deposits are kept and about how they are being used. Marylanders used to have savings accounts with local banks where the teller knew their name and their family. We have already seen the trend toward mega-mergers, accompanied by higher fees, a decline in service, and the loss of neighborhood financial institutions. This bill accelerates that trend. With a globalization of financial resources, the local bank could be bought by a holding company based in Thailand. Instead of the friendly teller, consumers will be contacting a computer operator in a country half-way around the globe through an 800 number. Their account will be subject to financial risks that have nothing to do with their job, their community, or even the economy of the United States. I know impersonalized globalization is not what banking customers want when we talk about modernization of the financial services. Second, I am concerned that complex financial and insurance products will now be sold in a cluttered market by untrained individuals. Investment and insurance planning for families is a very important process. These are some of the most important decisions that families make. They should be made with the assistance of certified professionals--whom the family can trust. By breaking down these fire walls and allowing various companies to offer insurance and complex investment products, we run the risk that consumers will be confused, defrauded, and treated like market segments and not individuals with unique needs and goals. Third, I am concerned about the privacy provisions in this legislation. While the bill offers some privacy protections for consumers, such as requiring financial institutions to provide customers with notice of its privacy policies, it does not go far enough. There are several loopholes in the bill that will allow for the sharing of private information among private institutions. Customers cannot object to having that information shared in those circumstances and there are no restrictions on the kind of detailed personal information that can be shared. Imagine the problems that could arise if insurance providers could scrutinize your credit card purchases. Protecting personal information is one of the issues that matter most to the American people--and this bill does not speak to their concerns. Finally, the bill does not have the safeguards we need against bank failures. Banks will now be venturing out to engage in new and risky industries. If a bank fails during one of those ventures, thousands of people and businesses who have worked hard and invested their money with that bank fail too. Let's not forget about the taxpayers who will be left to pick up the pieces. These failures could set off a chain reaction and threaten the stability of our entire economy. Mr. President, I am not opposed to a necessary reform of our financial services laws. But I believe the American people need greater protection before a global financial plan is enacted.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to celebrate the life and legacy of a dear friend and colleague, Senator John Chafee. I was deeply saddened yesterday to hear of Senator Chafee's passing. The Chafee family lost a dear husband, father and grandfather. My thoughts and prayers go out to Virginia, his children, and his grandchildren. The Senate lost one of our most principled and reasoned colleagues. Senator Chafee will be greatly missed here. The people of Rhode Island, whose needs and concerns guided his actions on a daily basis, lost an admired Senator. His impact will be felt in Rhode Island for generations to come. Our country lost a tireless leader who consistently fought for what he believed in, and for that, I am deeply saddened. Senator Chafee was the kind of Senator that this country needs. In times of increasing partisanship, John Chafee always reached across the aisle to form alliances, to build compromises, to get things done. He let principles, not politics, be his guide. And that enabled him to be an unbending bridge between both sides that we have so desperately needed. Senator Chafee's politics was the kind of politics this country needs. He inspired voters on both sides of the party line with his honest, independent politics. Senator Chafee always believed that persistent honesty and unshakeable integrity were the cornerstones of public life. His was always the quiet voice of reason. And Senator Chafee was the kind of person this country needs. John Chafee devoted his life to public service--as a Marine, as a State legislator and minority leader in the Rhode Island House, as Governor of Rhode Island, as Secretary of the Navy, and as a United States Senator. He and his wife Virginia raised a beautiful family, and instilled in them the values of public service and integrity. I am proud to have worked with such a distinguished man. We will always celebrate, and never forget, the work that was born of his public service, his commitment to his family, and his commitment to his principles. Senator Chafee's work here in the Senate has had a tremendous impact on our nation. He leaves a remarkable legacy. We will always celebrate Senator Chafee's leadership on the Clean Air Act. We will always celebrate his fight to strengthen the Safe Drinking Water Act. We will always celebrate his hard work in authoring the Superfund program. The air we breathe and the water we drink is cleaner and safer because of his landmark efforts. We will always remember his unwavering advocacy for a woman's right to chose. We will always remember his fight to enact the Family and Medical Leave bill. We will always remember his important work to curb gun violence in America. Our families are stronger, our constitutional rights have been protected, and our streets are safer because of his steadfast devotion to these causes. In these ways and more, Mr. President, we will always remember and celebrate his quiet strength, his unwavering commitment to the people of his state, and to his own principles. Senator Chafee has had an indelible impact on our policy and our politics, on our culture and our country. And for that, we will always be grateful.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise to speak against the Santorum amendment and on behalf of the Durbin amendment of which I am a cosponsor. I wish to speak on the merits of the amendment, but I will say a few words before I debate the amendment about an issue the Senator from Kansas has raised. I have had the opportunity to get to know and so respect the position of the Senator from Kansas. The Senator spoke about the culture of death. I believe we should have a debate on the culture of death here in the Senate. I believe it should occur among Members privately, when we are having conversations in the lunchroom. I believe one of the things we should do as we end this century, which has been such a ghoulish, grim, violent century, is think about how we can affirm a life-giving culture. I speak to my colleague from Kansas with all due respect and a desire to work with him on those issues. The Pope, the leader of my own faith, and the Catholic bishops of America have spoken about the culture of death. They say when we choose life, it is ending all forms of violence--the violence of poverty, hunger, armed conflict, weapons of war, the violence of drug trafficking, the violence of racism, and the violence of mindless damage to our environment. In other statements from both the Pope and the bishops, they speak out on famine, starvation, the spread of drugs, domestic violence, and the denial of health care. I say to my colleagues in the Senate, when we think about a defense against the culture of death, we need a broader view. We are need to talk not only about one amendment or one procedure--which I say is quite grim--but also to talk about what we are going to do to address these other critical issues. We rejected a judicial nomination last week because of the nominee's position on the death penalty. I don't know how we can be against the culture of death and yet vote against a distinguished man who makes serious, prudent, judicial decisions on certain death penalty cases. We defeated an arms control treaty, with no real serious opportunity for full debate and development of side agreements. There were legitimate ``yellow flashing lights'' about the agreement that deserved thorough debate. But we rushed to a vote with only hasty, last minute hearings and no opportunity for complete investigation of the treaty. I say to my colleagues, let's look at what we are going to do to protect our own families and how we can look at promoting a culture of life. I say that with sincerity. I say it with the utmost respect for people whose position I will disagree with on this amendment. We need to reach out to each other, think these issues through, and put aside message amendments, put aside tactical advantages, put aside partisan lines. I say to my colleague from Kansas, I know he is deeply concerned about the issues of culture in our own country. Many of those issues I do share. I reach out and say to my colleagues, let's think through what we are doing. Having said that, I rise to support the Durbin amendment. In this debate, I say to my colleagues, the first question is: Who really should decide whether someone should have an abortion or not? I believe that decision should not be made by government. I believe when government interferes in decisionmaking, we have ghoulish, grim policies. Look at China, with their one child/one family official practice. The government of China mandated abortions. Look at Romania under the vile leadership of Ceausescu, who said any woman of childbearing age had to prove she was not on any form of birth control or natural method. They were mandated to have as many children as they could. I don't want government interfering. I think government should be silent. We have a Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade. We should respect that decision. I think it is in the interests of our country that government now be silent on this. We should move forward. Medical practitioners should make decisions on medical matters. It should not be left up to politicians with very little scientific or theological training. There is a substantial difference on when life begins. Science and theologians disagree on this. Some say at the moment of conception. St. Thomas Aquinas, in my own faith, said the soul comes into a male in 6 weeks, but it takes 10 weeks for the soul to enter the body of a woman. We would take issue with Thomas Aquinas on that. Our Supreme Court said that given conflicting scientific viewpoints, fetal viability should determine to what extent a state may limit access to abortion. The Durbin amendment is consistent with the Court's framework. It would ban all post-viability abortions except when the life or health of the woman is at risk. The Durbin amendment provides clear guidelines, which are narrowly but compassionately drawn, to allow doctors to use a variety of procedures, based on medical necessity in a particular woman's situation. It must be medically necessary in the opinion of not one but two doctors. Both the doctor who recommends this as a procedure and then an independent physician must certify that this is the medically necessary and appropriate course for a particular woman facing a health crisis. This is why I think the Durbin amendment is a superior amendment. It acknowledges the grave seriousness of the possibility of a medical crisis in a late-term pregnancy that can only be resolved with the family and the physician. To single out only one procedure means other procedures could be used, equally as grim. What we want to do is preserve the integrity of the doctor-patient relationship, and make sure there is no loophole, by requiring two physicians to independently evaluate the woman's medical needs. So I believe the Durbin amendment is a superior way to address this most serious issue, and I intend to support the Durbin amendment. I recommend to my colleagues that they, too, give the Durbin amendment serious consideration. Let me say again what I think this debate is about. I believe it is about the right of women facing the most tragic and rare set of complications affecting her pregnancy to make medically appropriate or necessary choices. This is not a debate that should take place in the U.S. Senate. This is a discussion that should remain for women, their health care providers, their families and their clergy. The Senate has no standing, no competency and no business interfering in this most private and anguishing of decisions a woman and her family can possibly face. That is why I so strongly oppose the Santorum bill. It would violate to an alarming degree the right of women and their physicians to make major medical decisions. And that is why I rise in strong support of the Durbin amendment. I support the Durbin alternative for four reasons. First, it respects the constitutional underpinnings of Roe v. Wade. Second, it prohibits all post-viability abortions. Third, it provides an exception for the life and health of a woman which is both intellectually rigorous and compassionate. Finally, it leaves medical decisions in the hands of physicians--not politicians. The Durbin alternative addresses this difficult issue with the intellectual rigor and seriousness of purpose it deserves. We are not being casual. We are not angling for political advantage. We are not looking for cover. We are offering the Senate a sensible alternative--one that will stop post-viability abortions, while respecting the Constitution. We believe that it is an alternative that reflects the views of the American people. The Durbin amendment respects the Supreme Court's ruling in the Roe v. Wade decision. When the Court decided Roe, it was faced with the task of defining ``When does life begin?'' Theologians and scientists differ on this. People of good will and good conscience differ on this. So the Supreme Court used viability as its standard. Once a fetus is viable, it is presumed to have not only a body, but a mind and spirit. Therefore it has standing under the law as a person. The Roe decision is quite clear. States can prohibit abortion after viability, so long as they permit exceptions in cases involving the woman's life or health. Let me be clear. Under Roe, states can prohibit most late term abortions. And many states have done so. In my own state of Maryland, we have a law that does just that. It was adopted by the Maryland General Assembly and approved by the people of Maryland by referendum. It prohibits post viability abortions. As the Constitution requires, it provides an exception to protect the life or health of the woman. Like the Maryland law, the Durbin alternative respects that key holding of Roe. It says that after the point of viability, no woman should be able to abort a viable fetus. The only exception can be when the woman faces a threat to her life or serious and debilitating risk to her health. The bill before us--the Santorum bill--only bans one particular abortion procedure at any point in a pregnancy. By violating the Supreme Court's standard on viability, this language would in all probability be struck down by the courts. In fact, this language has already been struck down in many states because of this very reason. The proponents of the legislation know this. The Durbin alternative, though, bans all post viability abortions. It doesn't create loopholes by allowing other procedures to be used. I believe there is no Senator who thinks a woman should abort a viable fetus for a frivolous, non-medical reason. It does not matter what procedure is used. It is wrong, and we know it. The Durbin alternative bans those abortions. It is a real solution. On the other hand, S. 1692, proposed by Senator Santorum and others, does not stop a single abortion. For those who think they support this approach, know that it is both hollow and ineffective. S. 1692 attempts to ban one particular abortion procedure. All it does, though, is divert doctors to other procedures. Those procedures may pose greater risks to the woman's health. But let me be clear--late term abortions would still be allowed to happen. And for that reason, the Santorum approach is ineffective. The Durbin amendment provides a tough and narrow health exception that is intellectually rigorous, but it is compassionate as well. It will ensure that women who confront a grave health crisis late in a pregnancy can receive the treatment they need. The Amendment defines such a crisis as a ``severely debilitating disease or impairment caused or exacerbated by pregnancy.'' And we don't leave it up to her doctor alone. We require that a second, independent physician also certify that the procedure is the most appropriate for the unique circumstances of the woman's life. But I want to be very clear in this. The Durbin amendment does not create a loophole with its health exception. We are not loophole shopping when we insist that an exception be made in the case of serious and debilitating threats to a woman's physical health. This is what the Constitution requires and the reality of women's lives demands. Let's face it, women do sometimes face profound medical crises during pregnancy. Some of these traumas are caused or aggravated by the pregnancy itself. I'm referring to conditions like severe hypertension or heart conditions. I'm referring to pre-existing conditions--like diabetes or breast cancer--that require treatments which are incompatible with continuing pregnancy. Would anyone argue that these are not profound health crises? The Durbin amendment recognizes that to deny these women access to the abortion that could save their lives and physical health would be unconscionable. When the continuation of the pregnancy is causing profound health problems, a woman's doctor must have every tool available to respond. I readily acknowledge that the procedure described by my colleagues on the other side is a grim one. I do not deny that. But there are times when the realities of women's lives and health dictates that this medical tool be available. I support the Durbin alternative because it is leaves medical decisions up to doctors--not legislators. It relies on medical judgement--not political judgement--about what is best for a patient. Not only does the Santorum bill not let doctors be doctors, it criminalizes them for making the best choice for their patients. Under this bill a doctor could be sent to prison for up to two years for doing what he or she thinks is necessary to save a woman's life or health. I say that's wrong. In fact, those who oppose the Durbin amendment say it is flawed precisely because it leaves medical judgements up to physicians. Well, who else should decide? Would the other side prefer to have the government make medical decisions? I disagree with that. I believe we should not substitute political judgement for medical judgement. We need to let doctors be doctors. This is my principle whether we are talking about reproductive choice or any health care matter. Physicians have the training and expertise to make medical decisions. They are in the best position to recommend what is necessary or appropriate for their patients. Not bureaucrats. Not managed care accountants. And certainly not legislators. The Durbin alternative provides sound public policy, not a political soundbite. It is our best chance to address the concerns many of us have about late term abortions. The President has already vetoed the Santorum bill and other similar legislation in earlier Congresses. I believe he will veto it again. But today we have a chance to do something real. We have an opportunity to let logic and common sense win the day. We can do something which I know reflects the views of the American people. Today we can pass the Durbin amendment. We can say that we value life and that we value our Constitution. We can make clear that a viable fetus should not be aborted. We can say that we want to save women's lives and women's health. The only way to do all this, Mr. President, is to vote for the Durbin amendment. I urge my colleagues to support the Durbin amendment. Mrs. BOXER addressed the Chair.

Ms. MIKULSKI

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

Ms. MIKULSKI. I concur with the remarks of Chairman Bond and Senator Harkin.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, once again the Senate is considering campaign finance reform. As my colleagues know, the House of Representatives in September passed a strong, bipartisan reform measure. Senators McCain and Feingold have put a bipartisan reform proposal before the Senate. The House has acted overwhelmingly in favor of reform and the majority of Americans support them. It is imperative that the Senate pass a tough campaign finance reform measure this year. I have consistently supported campaign finance reform since coming to Congress. As many of my colleagues know, I started my career in politics as a community activist, working to prevent a highway from demolishing my Fell's Point neighborhood. I don't want the next generation of community activists shut out of the political process. I want them to know that their efforts matter. I want to restore each American's faith and trust in government. This bill is an important step in restoring the faith of the American people and ensuring that our citizens have a voice in government. Vote after vote in the past has shown that the majority of the United States Senate supports the McCain-Feingold reform proposal. Unfortunately, through parliamentary tactics and filibuster, a majority of the Senate has not been able to work its will on this issue. I hope this year will be different, and that we will pass and enact meaningful campaign finance reform. During my time in the United States Senate, I have voted 19 times to end filibusters on campaign finance reform. So I know we have a fight on our hands. But it is time for action, and it is time for reform. The American people are counting on us. I believe we need campaign finance reform for a number of reasons. First and most important, we need to restore people's faith in the integrity of government, the integrity of their elected officials, and the integrity of our political process. Many Americans are fed up with a political system that ignores our Nation's problems and places the concerns of working families behind those of big interests. Our campaign finance system contributes to a culture of cynicism that hurts our institutions, our government and our country. When Congress fails to enact legislation to save our kids from the public health menace of smoking because of the undue influence of Big Tobacco, it adds to that culture of cynicism. When powerful health care industry interests are able to block measures to provide basic patient protections for consumers who belong to HMOs, that adds to the culture of cynicism. Is it any wonder that Americans do not trust their elected leaders to act in the public interest? It's time for the Senate to break this culture of cynicism. We can enact legislation to eliminate the undue influence of special interests in elections. How does this bill do that? First of all, it stems the flood of unregulated, unreported money in campaigns. It will ban soft money, money raised and spent outside of federal campaign rules and which violates the spirit of those rules. During the 1996 Presidential election cycle, the political parties in America raised a record $262 million. In just the first six months of the 2000 election cycle, the parties have raised an astounding $55.1 million. That's 80% more than they raised in the same period of the 1996 cycle. The need to shut down the growing soft money machine is clear. This bill will also codify the Beck decision, by allowing non-union members who pay fees in lieu of union dues to obtain a refund of the portion of those fees used for political activities. Unions play a vital role in our political process. This provision enables unions to more accurately reflect the views of their members. These are reasonable reforms. They will help get the big money and the secret money out of campaigns. They will help to strengthen democracy and strengthen the people's faith in their elected officials. Mr. President, we can improve our political process, making it more fair and more inclusive, without compromising our rights under the Constitution. By limiting the influence of those with big dollars, and increasing the influence of those with big hearts, we can bring government back to where it belongs--with the people. The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act will help us to do that, and I am proud to support it and encourage my colleagues to do likewise.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. If my colleague from Minnesota will wait 1 minute, can I seek clarification from the Senator from Arizona on one point? The Senator from Arizona, did he yield his time or did he just yield his place?

Ms. MIKULSKI. I thank the Senator from Arizona.

Ms. MIKULSKI. I thank the Senator from Minnesota for his patience.

Ms. MIKULSKI. The Senator's understanding is correct. The language is not intended to prohibit the United States from supporting ongoing, voluntary programs or activities that are consistent with our treaty commitments under the Framework Convention on Climate Change ratified in 1992, have had broad bipartisan support in both the public and private sectors, and are consistent with the objectives of S. Res. 98.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I would like to engage in a colloquy with the distinguished chairman of the VA-HUD Appropriations Subcommittee. Mr. President, regrettably, the FY2000 conference report contains a typographical error that was made during the final drafting of this conference report. Contrary to the intent of the managers and conferees, a $1,000,000 earmark for the New Jersey Community Development Corporation's Transportation Opportunity Center and a $750,000 earmark for South Dakota State University's performing arts center were accidently deleted from the list of EDI Special Purpose Grants due to a computer malfunction. Unfortunately, we are not able to amend this conference report at this point, but I wanted to ask the distinguished chairman, Senator Bond, if he will work with me, Senator Byrd, and Senator Stevens to ensure that these typographical errors are corrected in another appropriations bill before this session of Congress ends?

Ms. MIKULSKI. I thank the distinguished Chairman.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I, too, thank Senator Bond and his staff, as well as my own. At times, the atmosphere in this institution can be quite prickly and quite partisan. If only we would focus on the national interests the way we have in this bill. Through good will, good offsets, and focusing on national priorities we were able to move this legislation through. I believe Senator Bond is a leader. This legislation would not have moved forward had it not been for his willingness to engage in a dialog with the White House on what their priorities were, insisting, of course, on the Senate's prerogatives. Again, I thank him, and I yield the floor.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I thank my colleague, Senator Bond, for working with me and producing what I think is an outstanding conference that we bring to our colleagues. We could not have done this without the help of Senator Byrd and Senator Stevens, who got the committee over some very significant fiscal humps, and also our House colleagues who operated in a spirit of bicameral cooperation. I believe also the White House played a very constructive role in suggesting offsets to meet key national priorities. We think we come with a very good bill, and we are going to urge all of our colleagues to support it. We got started on this bill in the spring. We got started a little bit late because of impeachment. Everyone wondered how would the Senate proceed after we had been through such a wrenching constitutional crisis. I can say in the VA-HUD subcommittee we did just fine. We moved with a quick step. I believe we probed the fiscal situations of the agencies as to what their needs were and, at the same time, how could we meet national priorities within the discipline of the thinking of a balanced budget. I believe we do that. I believe today what we present takes care of national interests and national needs. I am confident this bill will be signed by the President. I am pleased what we were able to do it to meet our obligations to veterans. Promises made are promises kept to the people who saved Western civilization. This conference report also serves core constituencies, invests in our neighborhoods and communities, and creates opportunities for people and advances in science and technology. I believe that is an outstanding accomplishment. I am very pleased we were able to provide a significant increase in funding for veterans' health care, $1.7 billion over the President's request, and not only providing health care as we know it but breaking new ground in creating primary care opportunities out in communities so that our rural veterans do not have to drive hundreds of miles for their care. We have also increased the funding for VA medical research, with special emphasis on geriatric care, orthopedic research, and prostate cancer. At the same time, we are looking at new and innovative ways to begin to fund the compelling need for long-term care, increasing the funds from what we call the State Veterans Homes, Federal and State partnerships. We are also taking care of America's working families in this bill. We fund the housing programs that help lives. We are going to have $11 billion in all section 8 housing vouchers, including 60,000 additional vouchers to enable people to have affordable, decent, and safe housing. We also maintained core HUD programs, we increased housing for the elderly by $50 million over the President's request, and increased funding so that more disabled Americans can find housing. We didn't forget about the homeless. This will now be funded at over $1 billion. We wanted to make sure local communities have a major say in what is going to happen to them, and that of course occurs in the community development block grant which will be funded at $4.8 billion. Whether it is improving the funding for community development financial institutions or empowerment zones, we were able to create more opportunity and yet meet taxpayer obligations. In addition to that, we also wanted to look at where we were heading with our science and our technology. I am pleased our bill fully funds NASA and restores the severe cuts made to NASA in the House bill. This will save 2,000 jobs at Goddard Flight Center in Maryland, as well as the Wallops Flight Facility on the Eastern Shore. This legislation will fund NASA $13.6 billion. This means we will be looking at Earth science, we will be looking at how to fund the new generation of space telescopes, and at the same time we are going to upgrade the safety of the space shuttle. That means we are going to invest $25 million in the upgrading of the space shuttle while we maintain our commitment to the international space station. We also fully fund the National Science Foundation, where I believe there will be new intellectual breakthroughs, particularly in information technology research. We also fund the National Service at $433 million, which is close to the President's request. This means that 100,000 members and participants across the country right now are engaging in community service programs at AmeriCorps, Learn and Serve America. We believe that every right has a responsibility, every opportunity has an obligation, and this is what National Service does; it rekindles the habits of the heart. With regard to our EPA bill, this provides $7.5 billion in funding. This is $384 million over the President's request. At the same time, we declare an emergency and do $2.5 billion in emergency disaster assistance for all of the damage created by Hurricane Floyd. It is not true when they say: A billion here, a billion there, and that is the way Congress works. We focused on how we can meet compelling human need; how, in the last appropriations of this century, we wanted to make sure we had veterans' health care for the people who, five different times, answered the call of duty to be able to uphold our national interests around the world; to make work worth it by making sure if you are out there and you are working, perhaps at the minimum wage, we are willing to subsidize housing and therefore subsidize work so we could create a true, real safety net for those affected by welfare reform. We also know America's genius is in its science and technology. As this century closes, we know we not only planted our flag at Iwo Jima and honor our veterans who did that, but we planted our flag on the Moon, which shows the United States of America continues to be a nation of pioneers. We do not seek to conquer other nations. We seek to win wars against cancer. We seek to win the battles of the mind in which we create new ideas, where we win Nobel prizes and then go on to win new markets. This is what the VA-HUD bill is all about. I am very pleased to bring this to the Democrats. I thank my colleague, Senator Bond, for all of his courtesies and collegiality. I thank John Kamarck, Carolyn Apostolou, Cheh Kim, and Julie Dammann on his staff for working so close with my staff. I want to especially thank Paul Carliner, Sean Smith, and Jeannie Schroeder, and most of all I thank the Senate for all its cooperation in moving our bill. I yield the floor.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise to support the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty. This is a sad day for the Senate. Despite limited debate on this issue, the appeal of the President and bi-partisan pleas of over 51 Senators to delay consideration of this treaty, the Majority Leader has decided to force our vote on this treaty. The very nature and timing of the issue requires that we come together and act in a responsible, non- partisan manner. We are faced with an historic opportunity to send nations around the world an important, powerful message--let's make sure it is the right message and that we vote to ratify this important treaty. Ratification will strengthen--not weaken--America's national security. We must remember that ratification will not force America to abandon or alter its current practice regarding nuclear testing--we stopped nuclear testing seven years ago. And why did we stop nuclear testing? Because we have a robust, technically sophisticated nuclear force and because nuclear experts affirm that we can maintain a safe and reliable deterrent without nuclear tests. This is also one reason why we should ratify the CTBT. Another reason to ratify the CTBT is that it will strengthen our national security by limiting the development of more advanced and more destructive nuclear weapons. As we all know, we have the most powerful nuclear force in the world. Thus, limiting the development of more advanced and destructive nuclear weapons limits the power of rogue nations around the world from strengthening their own nuclear arsenal. It allows America to maintain its nuclear superiority. Full ratification and implementation of the CTBT will also limit the possibility of other countries from acquiring nuclear weapons. Furthermore, it will provide us with new mechanisms to monitor suspicious activities by other nations. For example, it provides for a global network of sensors and the right to request short notice, on- sight inspections in other countries. But failure to ratify the CTBT will jeopardize our national security as well as the security of countries around the world. If we fail to act, the treaty cannot enter into force for any country. Let us not forget that nuclear competition led Pakistan and India to conduct underground nuclear testing over one year ago. Without this treaty, nuclear competition will only continue to grow and to spread. Without this treaty, underground nuclear testing will not only continue but will be carried out by even more countries--not by our allies, but rather, by our enemies. I am dismayed that we are even forced to consider this vital treaty in light of the current unrest in Pakistan and India. Now, more than ever, we must demonstrate national unity. We must listen to the experts who urge us to ratify the treaty--the Secretaries of Defense and Energy, the Directors of the National Weapons Laboratories and the Nobel laureates. We must listen to national leaders around the world beseeching us to ratify the treaty-- asking us to act as a responsible international leader and to serve as a positive example for other nations to follow. And most important, we must listen to the American people--the majority of whom are pleading with us to make our world a safer place and to ratify this treaty. Let us not forget that 152 countries have signed the CTBT. America led these countries by being the first to sign the treaty. Other major nuclear powers, such as Britain, France, Russia and China followed our lead. To date, 41 countries have ratified. Although we will not be the first country to ratify, let us not be the first country to jeopardize its very existence. We live in a dangerous world--where terrorists and rogue nations are developing the most repugnant weapons of mass destruction. We need to think clearly about what message we are sending today to the rest of the world--to our allies and to our adversaries. Our actions today will influence action by countries around the world. If we ratify, other countries will follow suit and ratify. Our failure to ratify will go beyond encouraging other nations to follow suit. It will prevent the very entry into force of this historic agreement. Let us send a powerful message to our neighbors around the world and ratify this historic treaty. Let us ratify the treaty and guarantee a safer future for our children by strengthening the security of our country and of the world.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Bond Amendment. It's bad for American workers and bad for our economy. OSHA must move forward with an ergonomics standard. Each year, more than 600,000 individuals in our private sector work force miss time due to ergonomic injuries, or musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs). These injuries cost our economy over $80 billion annually, including approximately $60 billion on lost productivity costs. Nearly $1 out of every $3 in worker's compensation payments result from MSDs. More importantly, these injuries cause terrible pain and suffering-- as well as increased health care costs. OSHA's ergonomics standard is supported by overwhelming scientific evidence. The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) study concluded that workplace interventions can reduce the incidence of MSDs. When this study was funded in 1998, the Appropriations Committee and the Administration agreed that funding this study was not a mechanism for delaying the OSHA standard. We must honor our agreement and let OSHA do it's work on behalf of working men and women in our country. Mr. President, ergonomics is also a women's issue. Women account for nearly 75% of lost work time due to carpal tunnel syndrome and 62% of lost time due to tendinitis. Many of the women affected by MSDs are in the health care industry, including nurses, nurse aides and health care aides. Women in the retail industry are also disproportionately affected by ergonomic injuries. I strongly urge my colleagues to help improve workplace safety by joining me in opposing this amendment. As a great nation, it is our duty to protect our most valuable resource--our working men and women.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise to speak on the Fiscal Year 2000 Appropriations bill funding the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services and Education. I would like to thank Senator Specter and Senator Harkin for the tremendous job they and their staffs have done on an extremely large, complex, and vitally important appropriations bill. This bill is important because it meets the day-to-day needs of Americans as well as the long-range needs of our country. However, I am concerned that the Senate has had to resort to gimmicks and tricks such as ``forward funding'' and ``emergency spending.'' When Congress resorts to these tricks, it means we're not doing our job right. The GM worker in Baltimore can't ``forward fund'' or declare his next trip to the grocery store ``emergency spending.'' If a mother can't pay for her children's health care using such devices, then Congress should not be able to resort to them to pay for our children's education, health care for the underserved, or job training. I am pleased with a number of funding levels in this bill. I know that Senators Specter and Harkin had a difficult task in funding so many programs that meet compelling human needs. As the Senator for and from the National Institutes of Health, I am very glad to see the $2 billion increase in NIH funding, which keeps us on pace to double NIH's budget over five years. I am particularly pleased with the $680.3 million for the National Institute on Aging (NIA). This is an increase of more than $80 million over last year. As we double NIH's budget, I believe that it is especially important to double NIA's budget. Our population is aging; by 2030 there will be about 70 million Americans age 65 and older, more than twice their number in 1997. This is clearly an investment in the future health of our nation. Many of the day-to-day needs of our nation's seniors are met by the Older Americans Act (OAA). It is heartening to see the $35 million increase in funding for home delivered meals because it is greatly needed. We are seeing an increased demand for home delivered meals which assist more older persons in remaining in their homes and communities. The Committee has also provided a $1 million increase for the ombudsman program and an $8 million increase to $26 million for state and local innovations/projects of national significance (Title IV). I am disappointed that other programs under the Older Americans Act did not see needed increases in funding. OAA programs have been level funded and losing ground for too long. I am also deeply concerned that there is no provision to fund the National Family Caregiver Support Program. This program would offer valuable services to assist our nation's caregivers by providing respite care, counseling, information, and assistance among other services. This program has strong bipartisan support. I would urge that we look at ways to provide the necessary resources for this program in Fiscal Year 2000 so that it can be funded once it is authorized. As the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Aging, I will continue to work with my colleagues on the HELP Committee to reauthorize the OAA during Fiscal Year 2000. In addition, I was distressed by the drastic cut of almost $860 million to the Social Services Block Grant. However, I'm pleased that the Senate has restored these funds. The Social Services Block Grant provides help to those who practice self help. In Maryland, this program funds adoption, case management, day care, foster care, home based services, information and referral, prevention and protective services to more than 200,000 people. I must also mention the importance of funding for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). I am very aware of the funding constraints the we have been operating under and believe that the $30 million increase for CDC is a step in the right direction. However, it is below the President's budget request and does not go far enough. While I am appreciative of the efforts to increase funding to modernize CDC's facilities and improve public health infrastructure, CDC has been revenue starved for too long. Improving public health in our country requires investments in NIH, CDC, and FDA. I am thrilled with our support of NIH, but I believe that if we do not provide sufficient resources to CDC and FDA we are only doing part of the job. I would urge that we consider this as we move to conference on this bill and when we look at funding for these agencies next year. I am also pleased at the funding levels of many of our national education programs and this bill is certainly better than the one that passed the House. I am very concerned that the funding level for the bill overall has been reduced to pay for other programs. The spending caps put us in a tough position. And it is education that always suffers the most. Like I said, even though the Senate funding levels are much better than the House, there are at least two major problems with the Senate bill. There is no funding in this bill for school construction and there is no funding in this bill for lowering class size and hiring 100,000 new teachers. Last year, we passed a bipartisan bill, and we all agreed to lower class size. We agreed that this is one of the most important things we can do for our kids and our classrooms. Yet this bill contains no money for class size. There is also no funding for school construction. What happened to our commitment to make sure our kids are not attending classes in crumbling schools? I see there is $1.2 billion in the bill for something called ``Teacher Assistance Initiative.'' As far as I know, no one knows what this means exactly. Like Senator Murray said on the floor of the Senate last week, it clearly isn't class size reduction. I have serious reservations about this bill. It does not live up to the commitment we made here in the Senate to reduce class size and hire 100,000 teachers. It does nothing to fix our broken down schools. And the House bill is even worse. The House bill cuts $2.8 billion out of the President's education agenda to improve public schools. It denies 42,000 additional children the opportunity to participate in Head Start. It repeals last year's bipartisan agreement to fund 100,000 new teachers to create smaller classes. It combines Class Size Reduction, Eisenhower Teacher Training and Goals 2000 into a block grant funded at $200 million less than the authorized level and $396 million less than the President's request for comparable programs. Given our recent tragedies in our schools, it is a shame that the House bill denies after school services to an additional 850,000 ``latch key'' children in 3,300 communities during the critical 2-6 p.m. hours when children are most likely to get into trouble. The bill also freezes federal funding to help schools to create safer learning environments and denies funding for an additional 400 drug and school violence coordinators serving 2,000 middle schools. We need to work hard in conference. We are going to have to fight to keep our stand behind our kids. We cannot allow the House to gut these important programs. We cannot let the Senate ignore class size and school construction. I look forward to working with my colleagues to make sure we increase the Federal investment in education.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise to extend my sincerest congratulations to the town of Oakland, Maryland, as it enters its Sesquicentennial Year on October 10, 1999. Oakland, the county seat of Garrett County, enjoys a long and proud history in the State of Maryland. Nestled in the Appalachian Mountains, Oakland is blessed with a natural beauty all four seasons, from snowy hills in winter to pastel flowers in spring to lush foliage in summer to gorgeous red, orange and gold trees in autumn. Even Oakland's early name, ``Yough Glades,'' conjures up images of river and forest, natural beauty and abundant resources. Oakland's rich history tells a story of a small farming community which grew with the opening of the first sawmill, expanded with the arrival of the railroad and continues to grow with old and new livelihoods alike, all the while treasuring those qualities which make it special--beauty, peacefulness and small town charm. ``A Brief History of Oakland, Maryland'' by John Grant describes the people, forces and events which shaped the town of Oakland. Three Indian trails met in a meadow on the western edge of Oakland and formed an entrance into the Yough Glades where Native Americans hunted in the forest and fished in the Youghiogheny River for hundreds and hundreds of years. White settlers followed in the 1790s as the fertile soil in ``Glades" country attracted more and more farmers. Around 1830, the first combination gristmill and sawmill provided lumber for the homes and shops in the growing community. On October 10, 1849, the town which had been known by several different names including Yough Glades became ``Oakland.'' The arrival of the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad in 1851 triggered a growth spurt in Oakland. Business and tradesmen frequented the newly built Glades Hotel and more people moved to the town. In 1862, Oakland incorporated a regular town government and in 1872 Oakland was selected as the County Seat of the newly formed Garrett County. The B&O Railroad continued its influence on the growth of the town with its construction of the Oakland Hotel in 1875. The hotel attracted many summer visitors, several of whom later built summer homes in Oakland. Tragedy has struck Oakland more than once, and each time the town bounced back. The Wilson Creek flooded in 1896 and periodically over the next 70 years before a series of dams built in the late 1960s controlled the flooding. A devastating fire destroyed the business section of Oakland in 1898. The town used brick fire walls when rebuilding the downtown area, a farsighted decision which paid off in 1994 when fire struck again. This time only two buildings were destroyed. Natural resources and beauty have long contributed to Oakland's economy and continue to do so today. The lumber industry, which began in the late 1800s, still provides jobs in Oakland. Coal, another natural resource, is found in the mountains near Oakland and adds to the economy of the town. And Oakland's natural beauty, which drew visitors to the Oakland Hotel in 1875, continues to attract people from all over the country seeking not only its beautiful vistas, but also its myriad of recreational opportunities all year round. Today, visitors to Oakland can choose from a variety of activities including hiking, biking, fishing, boating and skiing. The town of Oakland reminds us of all that is good in our country. Oakland is a place where fire and rescue services are still staffed by volunteers, where folks greet each other with a friendly wave and hello, where people work together to support their schools and community, and where patriotism runs deep. In so many ways, Oakland is truly a ``Main Street Community,'' as the State of Maryland has so fittingly designated it. Once again, I extend my congratulations to Oakland on their 150th anniversary and I invite all my colleagues to visit this Maryland treasure.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise today as a cosponsor of Senator Daschle's bill to address the draconian cuts to Medicare under the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (BBA). I thank Senator Daschle for introducing this important piece of legislation. I support this bill for two reasons. First, I believe the BBA went too far when it cut reimbursements to Medicare. Second, as we move towards the millennium and our senior population continues to grow, our seniors must be able to rely on a sound and secure Medicare Program. This bill will help them do just that. When I travel throughout the State of Maryland, the issue my constituents want to talk about most is cuts in services for the elderly. I have worked long and hard to find solutions to these cuts. That is why I cosponsored an amendment to the recent tax bill which placed a priority on fixing Medicare before providing for a tax cut. That is why I am working on a new and improved Older Americans Act, and that is why I am cosponsoring Senator Daschle's legislation, which helps providers who are struggling under BBA cuts to Medicare. The BBA is one of the reasons why we have a projected budget surplus. It put us on the right track of fiscal prudence, but it went too far in the case of Medicare by imposing deep cuts on providers: It cut reimbursements to home health agencies; it cut reimbursements to nursing homes; it cut reimbursements to Medicare HMOs. Our seniors and our providers are now feeling the effects of these cuts. What exactly do these cuts mean? In my State of Maryland, this means that 34 Home Health Agencies have closed their doors and only two public Home Health Agencies remain. This is a particular problem in rural counties in Maryland. Agencies in these areas are committed to providing health care to those who cannot travel to hospitals or doctors offices. In fact, they are so committed to providing home-bound patients with care, I know some health care providers who have traveled to homes by a snowmobile in winter months just to get to a patient. But because of substantial cuts in reimbursements under BBA, these agencies are left with no choice but to close their doors; families lose these services, employees lose their jobs, and nobody wins. Our Skilled Nursing Facilities (SNFs) also need the relief provided by this legislation. The BBA changed the way that payments are calculated so that facilities do not get paid more money when they provide expensive services such as chemotherapy or prosthetics. In some cases, the reimbursement is so low, that facilities cannot afford to take the patients who need a high level of care. I hear stories about patients who need chemotherapy treatment but cannot find a facility to provide it. Why? The answer is because Medicare doesn't pay enough to cover the cost of the chemotherapy treatment. Where does this patient go? They could go to a hospital, but frequently this is more expensive, or might not specialize in these services. Patients and their families do not want to hear complex stories about payment methodologies, or resource utilization groups. What these families want to hear is that their loved ones can get the care that they need. My State of Maryland has also had a devastating problem with Medicare HMOs. Because of payment changes, reimbursements to many HMOs were cut. What are the effects of these cuts? One HMO in my state is projecting losses of over $5 million this year in the rural counties of Maryland alone. This HMO can no longer afford to cover Medicare patients so it is closing up shop. 14,000 senior citizens in Maryland will lose their Medicare HMO. Where do these seniors go? In the rural counties of Maryland, these seniors do not have any other Medicare HMO to choose. They all left--not because they weren't making a profit--these HMOs couldn't even break even. Rural counties throughout Maryland and the nation will have seniors with little or no access to the extra benefits many HMOs provide, including prescription drug coverage and preventive benefits such as dental, vision and hearing screenings. Imagine if your 85-year-old grandmother, living on a fixed income, got a letter in the mail that says in 4 months she will no longer have a Medicare HMO. She might not understand what it means. Is she losing her health care coverage altogether? Is she losing her doctor? Is she losing her medicine coverage? In many cases, my constituents aren't wondering where they should go for a mammogram or prostate screening, but if they can even go at all because their HMO is leaving town. Some will say these cuts aren't so bad--why can't you just buy a Medigap policy? For around $150 a month you could get some of the supplemental benefits that HMOs provide. But many of these senior citizens only have $11,000 or $12,000 a year in retirement income and many times their income is much less. These seniors cannot afford $150 a month for a Medigap policy, so many of them will be forced to make difficult choices between food, rent, health care and prescription medications. This legislation provides needed relief so that our seniors would not have to make these terrible decisions. I also know that our non-profit health facilities are having a particularly rough time. These are providers such as Hebrew Home in Rockville, Maryland, or Mercy Hospital in Baltimore, who are struggling to provide care under current reimbursements. It is especially difficult for these providers because the care they provide is frequently uncompensated. This is health care that they frequently do not get reimbursed for, also known as charity care. In many cases, they provide the health services to seniors who have no other place to go. If we do not take steps to fairly reimburse them, where will these seniors go to get the care they need? One of my priorities as a United States Senator has always been to honor your mother and father. It is a good commandment and good public policy--in the federal law books and checkbooks. We must address these cuts in Medicare because our safety net for seniors is badly frayed, and senior citizens are being left stranded because many health care providers have no choice but to close their doors. In 1965 when Medicare was created, the Federal Government promised that Americans who work hard all of their lives can count on Medicare when they retire. I believe that promises made should be promises kept. Senator Daschle's bill will help us keep the promise we have made to the Nation's senior citizens.