Barbara Mikulski

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. I rise today as an original cosponsor of Senator Boxer's After School Education and Anti Crime Amendment. I am very pleased to support this important legislation with Senator Boxer. One of my highest priorities as Senator is to promote structured, community-based after school activities to help kids stay safe. I will support this amendment for three reasons. First, there is a desperate need in this country for constructive after school programs for our youth. Second, it authorizes increased funding for after school programs. Third, this amendment specifically includes Police Athletic Leagues as part of the after school effort. Mr. President, America's youth needs our help. Kids need constructive after school activities to keep their young minds healthy and active. In many families today, both parents have to work. And that's if they are lucky enough to have two parents. Many kids are raised by single moms who hold down one or more often, even two jobs just to make ends meet. I talk to single moms in my state of Maryland who can barely get by. Many of them hold down steady jobs while trying to go to school. They are trying to improve themselves so they can get better jobs and take care of their families. These parents can't always be there after school to supervise their children. They cannot leave their jobs at 3:30 when school lets out. They cannot quit their jobs because even if there are two parents working, they still need every dime. So what do we tell these people to do with their kids after school? What if they aren't lucky enough to have grandparents or aunts and uncles to take care of the kids after school? Most of these parents can't afford the high costs of day care. Do we just blame the parents when their kids get in trouble? No. This is a responsibility for us all. This situation presents a problem for us all. Gangs, drugs, and violent crimes has become an epidemic among our children. These kids are the future of our country. One day, they will be our leaders. Here in Congress we have the ability and the duty to save our youth. And this amendment helps communities build after school programs for our youth. I also support this amendment because it authorizes $600 million for after school programs. This money will allow 1.1 million kids each year to go to an after school program. In the budget last year, we put $200 million in after school programs. Last year, we made the downpayment. This year, the President has tripled that amount to $600 million. And what will this funding mean? It means that after school programs could get more space. They could hire more staff and add programs and services. It means that these program can serve more young people. Mr. President, I will also support this amendment because it specifically includes Police Athletic Leagues as part of the after school effort. I have made it a priority to do all I can to help the PAL programs in Maryland. We have 27 PAL centers in Baltimore, Maryland. The first PAL center in Maryland was in 1995, in northeastern Baltimore, located in a transformed convenience store. Our PAL centers were not started with the help of the federal government. The success of this program is due to the hard work of the Baltimore Police Department and the support and involvement of members of the community. But now it's time for the federal government to help fund the PAL centers and the excellent work that they do. The PAL centers provide adult role models for our kids. They promote character & responsibility. The people there help kids with their homework. They teach them about art, cultural activities and sports. This is all part of our effort to get behind our kids and combat juvenile crime. PAL centers help to make our streets safe and give kids the tools for success. These programs recognize that we need to give kids alternatives to the streets. Mr. President, after school programs must be a priority. We don't have the luxury of funding after school programs just because we want to do something extra for our kids. After school is not an extra anymore. After school programs are now a necessary fact of life. We need to give kids a fighting chance. I will be fighting to enact this bill into law and I encourage all of my colleagues here to get behind our kids and vote for this amendment.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I would like to congratulate one of our local news outlets, WTOP Radio, on their 30th anniversary. Thirty years ago, on March 9, 1969, WTOP began its news broadcasts. Today, WTOP has become a vital source of news and information in the nation's capital. Along the way, Dave McConnell, WTOP's congressional correspondent, has become a familiar voice to Washington residents and one of our nation's most respected journalists. America's Constitution is unique and special in the responsibility it has bestowed on our nation's press corps--in print, on TV, and on the radio. With our revered First Amendment, the nation gives reporters the awesome responsibility to help communicate the needs of the nation and report on the day-to-day governmental events that affect all Americans. In return, we hope those reporters recognize that responsibility and carefully tend their role as stewards of public information. WTOP has taken that responsibility seriously and sought to provide high-quality, timely information for residents in the greater Washington area. For thirty years, WTOP has covered the news as it happened--in Washington and around the world. From the War on Poverty to the War in Iraq, WTOP's reporting has kept millions of Washingtonians informed. They have tracked legislation that affects residents in Virginia, the District of Columbia, and Maryland, and helped bring perspective to issues facing the nation. As important, WTOP provides a critical service to local residents in alerting them to breaking local stories. In addition to their comprehensive news coverage, they have warned residents of dangerous weather, alerted commuters to traffic snarls, and celebrated sports victories of our Orioles, Ravens, and Redskins. WTOP's committed staff are part of the daily lives of countless Washingtonians who listen as they brush their teeth, drive to and from work, or cook the evening meal. My constituents in Maryland's DC suburbs rely on them to get information they need to know to stay informed, stay healthy, and stay tuned. I commend the WTOP family and its listeners on 30 years of service to the greater Washington area and welcome 30 more years. Our nation's capital, and our nation, are proud of their work and appreciative of their commitment.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I am very proud to introduce this Resolution with my colleague Senator Hutchison, who, like me, is a former Girl Scout. This Resolution designates next week as National Girl Scout Week. I am so happy that we are able to recognize the important achievements of the Girls Scouts with such broad bipartisan support. Scouting instills the values that really matter--duty, honor, patriotism and service. I am so proud to honor the Girl Scouts for all they do to prepare our young women to be leaders for the future. As a Girl Scout, you participate in a broad range of activities--from taking nature hikes to taking part in the arts. You serve in local food banks and learn about politics. The skills, values and attitudes you learn as a Girl Scout can help guide you through your life. As your skills grow, so will your self confidence. Eventually you will earn your badges which will serve as symbols that you are succeeding and doing something constructive for your community. You learn the importance of treating other people fairly and with the dignity they deserve. You have the confidence to know that you can reach your goals. You can learn to be a leader. In today's hectic world, Scouts are more important than ever. Young boys and girls desperately need before and after school activities to keep their active minds' focused. They need adult role models like their Girl Scout leaders, who are dedicated to inspiring young people. As the Senator from Maryland, one of my highest priorities is to promote structured, community-based after school activities to give children more help and more ways to learn. After school activities also keeps children stay out of trouble and keeps them productive. That's just what the Girl Scouts do. They promote character & responsibility. They teach the arts and cultural activities. They give kids the tools for success. I applaud the Girl Scouts. I also thank them for what they did for me and what they do for millions of young women across the country. I hope the Resolution that Senator Hutchison and I have introduced here today calls more attention to the good work of the Girl Scouts. I hope it shows that there are solid after school activities that children can actively participate in while learning real life skills. Mr. President, I congratulate the Girl Scouts as they celebrate their 87th anniversary. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this important Resolution.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President: I am proud to support the Soldiers', Sailors', Airmen's, and Marines' Bill of Rights. This legislation fulfills the promises made to the men and women of our armed forces. Our men and women in uniform stand for everything that is good about our country--patriotism, courage, loyalty, duty and honor. They deserve our full support--not just with words but with actions. I am alarmed about the problems of recruitment and retention facing our military. Improved pay and benefits are essential to recruiting and retaining the best people to serve our country. We are all concerned about the problems the services are having in meeting their recruitment goals. We're also troubled that so many of the highest skilled military choose to retire early. This legislation will address these problems. By providing a 4.8 percent pay increase, we will help to close the gap between military and civilian pay. We will provide special incentives to those serving in critical specialties. We will also improve educational benefits and health care for our active military and retirees. I am pleased that the Senate has amended this bill to improve benefits for the National Guard and Reserves. They are our nation's 911--always ready in time of emergency at home or abroad. They deserve recognition for their important role. This bill also includes the Sarbanes/Warner/Mikulski amendment that puts the Senate on record on behalf of our federal employees. Our civilian workforce is essential--whether they work at our defense bases, at the National Institutes of Health or at any other federal facility. They have the same patriotism, honor and dedication as our military--and they can't be left behind on pay or benefits. I share my colleagues concerns about the cost of this legislation. It will require tough choices and it may require some changes in conference. I hope that these issues will be considered in the context of our entire defense budget. Mr. President, if we are to maintain the world's best military, we need to invest more in our most important national security resource-- the men and women of our armed forces. This legislation will show that we support our American military--both with our words and our actions. Mr. CRAIG: Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to speak about S. 4, the Soldiers', Sailors', Airmen's, and Marines' Bill of Rights Act of 1999. For too long, Idahoans have been contacting me to express their concerns about quality-of-life issues for service members. I am pleased that this bill is a step to address some of the most urgent quality-of- life needs of the men and women in uniform, and their families. It contains a much needed pay raise, and reforms the current military pay tables. It also provides more options for retirement benefits, and increases educational benefits through changes to the Montgomery G.I. Bill. These quality-of-life improvement will help to ensure that we are able to recruit and retain the best personnel. However, despite my support for this bill, it is important to keep in mind that this bill will do nothing to change one of the factors driving so many of the best and the brightest away from service. This legislation will not decrease the operational tempo of our troops. In the last five years the President has sent U.S. forces abroad in major engagements some 50 times in comparison to 18 times during the Reagan Administration and 14 times during the Bush Administration. To exacerbate the problem, the number of men and women in uniform has been significantly reduced over the last decade. Simultaneously, the number of deployed missions has nearly quadrupled. Not only are U.S. soldiers forced a work longer and harder than ever before, they are also sent on deployment for longer period of time than before. We continue to enforce the so-called ``peace'' in Bosnia, maintain a presence in Haiti, and in recent days President Clinton was virtually promised to deploy, on a moments notice, 4,000 soldiers again make peace in Kosovo. Frankly, I find the Administration's eagerness to engage in non- traditional military missions such as humanitarian and peacekeeping endeavors not only a dangerous foreign policy proposition, but extremely detrimental to doing the very thing S. 4 is trying to accomplish--ensuring real quality-of-life for service men and women. I would be willing to bet that a number of soldiers might consider foregoing a pay raise if it meant that he or she wouldn't miss another Thanksgiving or Christmas away from home and loved-ones. Let me close by saying, I am pleased that the Senate has made this important legislation the first item of business in the new session of Congress. I certainly believe that the young men and women of Idalho's 366th Wing at the Mountain Home Air Force Base deserve a raise, better retirement benefits, and better options for educational opportunities through the Montgomery GI Bill. However, the President must also carefully consider the impact of the current operational tempo on our troops, and work to better this tremendous impediment to true quality- of-life.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. Chief Justice, I will vote against the articles of impeachment accusing the President of the United States of perjury before a grand jury and obstruction of justice. The Republican House Managers have asked the Senate to remove the President from office, overturning a free and fair election in which 100 million Americans cast their vote. Short of voting on whether or not to send our sons and daughters to war, I can envision no more profound decision. I have taken this responsibility as seriously as anything I have done in my life. A little over a month ago, I escorted the Chief Justice into this chamber and stood with my colleagues when we took a collective oath, as an institution, to render impartial justice in this trial. Then, we individually signed our names and pledged our honor to faithfully fulfill our oath. That was an indelible and profound moment. I have sought to fulfill both responsibilities--to be impartial and to render justice. I have sought to be impartial, which I view as a test of character and will. And I have sought to pursue justice, which to me includes the responsibility to perform the homework--do the reading, review the evidence and weigh the facts. I have listened carefully, and with an open mind, to the presentations of the Republican House Managers and the President's Counsel. I have reviewed the evidence. I have read all of the key witnesses' testimony before the grand jury. I have intensely studied the law pertaining to perjury and obstruction of justice, discussed the issue with respected lawyers, developed an appropriate standard of proof, and reviewed the House testimony of Republican and Democratic former prosecutors for their views on the charges. Finally, I have read what our nation s founders wrote about impeachment during those months in 1787 when the Constitution was formed, and considered the writings of many of today's finest scholars. As I reviewed the historical underpinnings of impeachment, I have reflected on the intentions of the Founding Fathers who developed our famed system of ``checks and balances''--our Constitution. That system, designed with the precision of Swiss watchmakers and the concern of loving parents, has served our nation very well over the last 200 years and served as a guidepost for nations around the world as they struggled to establish democracies. I wondered what the Framers of the Constitution would think of this trial--how they would counsel us. In fact, we can use their rationale and their framework to guide us as we reach conclusions about the evidence and as we determine whether that evidence merits removing a president from office. Using all this as my guide, I have concluded that the evidence presented by the House Managers does not meet a sufficient standard of proof that President Clinton engaged in the criminal actions charged by the House. I conclude that the President should not be removed from office. In coming to that conclusion, I have used the highest legal standard of proof--``beyond a reasonable doubt,'' which is required in federal and state criminal trials. I believe that removing a president is so serious, and such an undeniably tumultuous precedent to set in our nation's history, that we should act only when the evidence meets that highest standard. The United States Senate must not make the decision to remove a President based on a hunch that the charges may be true. The strength of our Constitution and the strength of our nation dictate that we be sure--beyond a reasonable doubt. The House Managers' case is thin and circumstantial. It doesn't meet the standard of ``beyond a reasonable doubt.'' The first article of impeachment, charging the president perjured himself before the grand jury, has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. For instance, the House Managers claim that President Clinton committed perjury when he used the term ``on certain occasions'' to define the number of times he had inappropriate contact with Ms. Lewinsky. The Managers believed the term ``on certain occasions'' meant fewer than the 11 times that were counted by Federal investigators and they labeled it ``a direct lie.'' But there is no clear numeric or legal definition of ``certain occasions.'' To disagree about the definition of ``certain occasions'' is not perjury. And it is not material whether it was 11 times or ``on certain occasions.'' President Clinton admitted the relationship, which was the material point. The Republican House Managers also claimed President Clinton committed perjury by not recalling the exact date, time, or place of events that occurred two years before. This was because other witnesses recalled things slightly differently. I do not believe this is or can be perjury because well-established court standards state that ``the mere fact that recollections differ does not mean that one party is committing perjury.'' Overall, the House Manager's assertions rest on Mr. Clinton's vague and unhelpful responses to the Independent Counsel's questions. While those responses may be frustrating to the Independent Counsel, the Republican House Managers, and, perhaps the American public, they are not perjurious as defined by law. Similarly, the case presented by the Republican House Managers has not presented sufficient direct evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the President obstructed justice. Instead, the House Managers relied on extensive conjecture about what the President may have been thinking. In fact, there is direct and credible testimony by multiple witnesses that is directly contrary to the House Managers conjecture, leaving ample room for doubt. The Republican House Managers also did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there was a causal connection between Ms. Lewinsky s job search and the affidavit she gave in the Jones lawsuit. Ms. Lewinsky testified clearly and repeatedly that she was never promised a job for her silence. That testimony is not challenged by any other witness. In fact, other witnesses support that testimony and her most recent deposition by the House Managers confirms it. From the outset of this trial, I established that I would use a two- tier analysis for my deliberations. First, I would determine whether the evidence proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the president was guilty of the charges. Second, I would then determine whether or not those charges rose to the level of ``high crimes and misdemeanors''-- the standard required by the Constitution for conviction and removal of a president. Since my analysis of the charges brought by the Republican House Managers determined that they had not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, the question of determining high crimes and misdemeanors is, I believe, moot. I will say, however, that I am again taken by the wisdom and prescience of the Founding Fathers in addressing this point. I, like many, have read and re-read the work of Alexander Hamilton with particular interest. On March 7, 1788, he wrote ``Federalist 65,'' outlining the reasons for, and consequences of, an impeachment trial in the Senate. In that writing, Mr. Hamilton asserted that the proper subject of an impeachment trial would be ``the abuse or violation of some public trust . . . as they relate to injuries done immediately to the society itself.'' I believe it is clear from those words, and the words of others who drafted the Constitution, that impeachment was not intended to be used for an act that did not meet that standard it was not meant to be used for punishment of the president. I believe that the Framers intended the last resort of impeachment to be used when a presidential action was a clear offense against the institutions of government. I do not believe that President Clinton's conduct, as wrong as it was, rises to that level. I wish to choose my words judiciously for I believe the behavior of the president was wrong, reckless and immoral. President Clinton has acknowledged that his behavior has harmed his family and the nation, and that his behavior, in the end, is what brought us to this day. Mr. Clinton engaged in an illicit, inappropriate relationship and tried to hide it out of shame and the fear of disgrace. Those actions are clearly deplorable and should be condemned in the most unequivocal terms. But the evidence simply and profoundly does not prove criminal wrongdoing. Certainly, the impeachment process has been a difficult period in our nation's history. It has challenged the strength of our institutions and the strength of our nation. But, Mr. Chief Justice, I still find reason for tremendous hope. First, I find hope in the unflagging commitment of the United States Senate to do the right thing for the right reason. I am proud to be a part of this Senate that was ably led by Mr. Lott and Mr. Daschle and conducted this trial in a serious, bipartisan, reflective, and cooperative spirit. I am reassured that Alexander Hamilton and other constitutional Framers saw fit to charge the Senate with the responsibility to try such a case. I hope and believe that we have fulfilled their expectations to be a sufficiently dignified and independent tribunal, one that could preserve ``unawed and uninfluenced, the necessary impartiality'' between the parties in this trial. I would like to thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for meet their responsibilities with such commitment, honor, professionalism, and concern for this body and the judgment of history. I will modestly presume that history will say we discharged our duty well. I will never forget one of our finest hours--when, early in the process, we convened in the old Senate Chamber to deliberate. I had the honor to preside, with my Republican colleague Mr. Mack, over that colloquy in which we established a process that would maintain the dignity of the Senate and provide a framework for conducting the trial. That precedent set an important tone for the proceedings that followed and I believe that the good will generated in that historic meeting held throughout our deliberations. Finally, I also find tremendous hope in the growing national consensus that we must move forward together to address pressing problems in our neighborhoods, communities and cities. Over the last month, the nation has cried out for a focus on education, preserving Social Security and Medicare, investing in our economy, and providing global leadership. We should now heed those calls. I will not say that now we must ``return to the nation's business.'' In fact, as difficult and time consuming as this process has been, I believe fulfilling our duty to ``render impartial justice'' has been the nation's business. I am hopeful that with the conclusion of this trial, we may all return to the work of making our nation more prosperous, our families stronger, our children better educated, our communities more cohesive, and our world safer at home and abroad. I believe we will move on knowing that we have fulfilled our constitutional responsibilities with diligence and honor. Thank you.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, the United States Senate experienced a great and sudden loss on Friday night with the untimely death of our legislative clerk, Scott Bates. Mr. Bates was, in many ways, a symbol of the endurance and integrity of our institution, and his passing is a time of sadness for our Senate family. For thirty years, Scott Bates was a faithful, dedicated and passionate servant of the United States Senate. He devoted his life to ensuring that our legislative body operated with efficiency, precision and dignity. Neither I nor my colleagues, nor any of our predecessors here will ever forget the clear, powerful voice of Scott Bates--calling the roll, announcing our votes, or just saying ``hello.'' Scott Bates was a man of honor and humility. He was a mainstay of our sacred institution for three decades. I join my colleagues in mourning his passing and celebrating his life. To his wife, Ricki, who is still recovering in the hospital, we wish you a speedy recovery--please know that you and your three children, Lori, Lisa and Paul, are in our thoughts and prayers. You will remain a cherished part of the Senate family.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. Chief Justice, I thank the majority leader.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Point of clarification for the majority leader. Did the Senator say that we would come in tomorrow at 1 p.m.?

Ms. MIKULSKI. Reserving the right to object, I note that the Democratic leader is not in the Chamber. May I inquire, has this been cleared?

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the Wellstone/Harkin motion. This motion would allow open Senate debate during the Impeachment trial. Mr. Chief Justice, the American people should not be excluded from one of the most important Senate deliberations in United States history. The result of the debates and discussions over the next days or weeks could require the removal of the President of the United States for the first time in our nation's 222 year history. In our deliberations, my colleagues and I will contemplate no less than reversing the outcome of an election in which nearly 100 million Americans cast their vote. Such a significant decision, a decision with such profound consequences, should not be reached behind closed doors. I believe my constituents and all Americans deserve to hear Senate deliberations from Senators--not leakers and speculators and commentators. From my earliest days as a Baltimore social worker to my tenure as a United States Senator, I have lived by the principle that the public has a right to know and a right to be heard. This principle is no less important when a Presidential Impeachment trial is underway. It is more important than ever. Now, some of my colleagues have said that these deliberations should be closed because we are jurors and jurors' deliberations are kept secret in a court of law. But let me tell you that this Senate tribunal cannot be compared to a simple court of law. Of course, the law is the foundation for our work in the Senate. But as my colleague from Iowa, Senator Harkin, noted during the trial, we are more than jurors. We are representatives of our nation. We are given responsibilities to deliberate on matters of public importance and vote in the public interest. Never was that more true than in the Senate Trial in which we are now engaged. The United States Senate is, ultimately, the public's institution-- not ours. It is for them we work and it is to them we owe our continued service. I hope and believe we serve the institution well and that our stewardship gives credit and credence to the wisdom of our Founding Fathers. By keeping our deliberations open, we will do service to the American public we serve, this institution we cherish, and those Founding Fathers we revere. I absolutely will not support closing the doors to the public and hope that my colleagues will join me in supporting the Sunshine motion.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I'm proud to join my colleagues in introducing the Democratic agenda for the 106th Congress. I am so proud that the people of Maryland have returned me to the United States Senate for a third term. I promised to continue fighting for their agenda. That agenda means keeping a robust economy. It means fighting for a safety net for seniors. Maryland's agenda means getting behind our kids and our families. It means fighting for safe streets and a safer world. It means that we have to continue to invest in science and technology. The legislation we are introducing today will help us achieve these goals. It is a Democratic agenda--and it's Maryland's agenda. I would like to highlight a few initiatives that are particularly important. Our agenda strengthens the safety net for seniors. I believe that when we say ``honor your mother and your father,'' it is not only a good commandment to live by but it is good public policy to govern by. What does that mean? First of all, it means helping Americans with long term care. Since my first days in Congress, I have been fighting to help people afford the costs 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, the American Association of Retired Persons tells me that we've kept over six hundred thousand people out of poverty and stopped liens on family farms. The Democratic agenda will make it easier for families to provide long term care. The agenda also includes my bill to provide long-term care insurance to federal employees and retirees. This provision is a down-payment on extending long-term care insurance to everyone. It will create a model for other employers to use in providing long-term care insurance for their workers. The Democratic agenda also includes measures to expand access to Medicare for individuals aged 55 to 64, and, importantly, calls for reauthorizing the Older Americans Act, an effort I helped lead in the last Congress. Although we did not complete action on the reauthorization last year, I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will recognize how critical the OAA programs are to American seniors. In 1994, the last year OAA was authorized, it provided health and welfare information to 3 million seniors, served 240 million meals to low- and moderate-income seniors, and provided more than 800,000 seniors with critical transportation to and from doctor visits and other needed services. We also recognize that we must get behind our kids and families. We know that our children are our most important resource. Our Democratic agenda puts these words into action. We put the Public Schools Excellence Act at the top of our agenda. That bill will improve achievement by helping communities lower class sizes and help teachers get the training they need for the twenty-first century. We're also helping communities create structured after school initiatives. The Democratic agenda will enable one million children to participate in safe and constructive after school programs. We'll do this by helping schools and community groups set up after school programs that provide academic enrichment, tutoring, recreation or other beneficial activities. But we know that we've also got to get behind our families by making sure they have high-quality, affordable health care. The Democratic Patients' Bill of Rights will do just that. It will provide consumers of HMO health care enforceable patient protections. Democrats believe that health care decisions need to be made in the consultation room, not the board room. This legislation will provide 161 million Americans with critical protections for their health care. It will ensure the right to treatment that is medically necessary by the most appropriate health care provider, using best practices. It will provide continuity of care and patients will have the right to hold their health plans accountable for medical decisions even if it means taking the company to court. Right now, we don't have managed care--we have manacled care, and the Democratic Patients' Bill of Rights will help make sure we put patients ahead of profits. We're also fighting for a safe world for our children to grow up in. The Democratic crime initiative focuses on prevention, police and punishment. It continues to put more cops on the streets. It helps schools stay free of drugs and violence. And it gives law enforcement more tools to fight international drug pushers and terrorists--who threaten the safety of our world. We will also focus on ensuring our nation's food supply is safe for consumption. S. 18, The SAFER Meat and Poultry Act, will be a top initiative in the coming Congress. Every person should have confidence that food is fit to eat and imported food is as safe as food produced domestically. Our food supply has gone global. We need global food safety. Too frequently, Americans suffer food borne illness and even death due to the contamination of imported foods. Just last year, infected raspberries were found in my home state, in Montgomery County. I introduced the Safety of Imported Food Act 1998 and will work with the Democratic leadership to implement safe, effective, and common- sense improvements to our food inspection process, and authorize enforcement tools needed to revolutionize the process and ensure compliance with safety laws. The Democratic agenda seeks to strengthen our economy by increasing the economic security of working Americans. It does this by increasing the minimum wage and by decreasing taxes that unfairly target working families--like the marriage penalty. Mr. President, the Democratic agenda is the American agenda. It will help us meet the day to day needs of the American people--and it will also help prepare our nation for the twenty-first century.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to honor the contribution of an outstanding Marylander, Mr. Les Chittenden. I hope my colleagues will find inspiration in this story of devotion and persistence. Les and his wife Mary lived in an apartment building in Columbia, Maryland where handicapped access and parking were limited. When Mary became ill and required the use of a wheelchair, the Chittendens discovered just how inadequate the handicapped facilities at their building were. Mr. President, Les Chittenden was not content to simply accept the situation. He fought to change it. His devotion to his wife of 36 years motivated him to take on the powers that be and propose solutions to make disabled residents safer each time they parked their car and entered the building. Even though agreeing on and implementing a solution proved to be difficult, Mr. Chittenden still refused to give up. Five months after he began his fight to improve access for disabled residents, Les' beloved wife Mary passed away. Mr. President, I want to send my condolences to Mr. Chittenden and his family during this difficult time. But, Mr. President, I also want to send my congratulations and my admiration. Shortly after his wife's passing, Mr. Chittenden returned home one weekend to find that his hard work paid off at last--a new handicapped ramp and several new handicapped parking spaces were added to the building as a result of his persistent efforts. I want to share this story with my colleagues today because I think it's important that we honor the meaningful contributions of Americans like Les Chittenden. Mr. Chittenden is a wonderful example of how one person can make a valuable difference in our communities. Mr. Chittenden's story is an inspiration to us all.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Federal Employees Group Long-Term Care Insurance Act of 1999''. This important legislation will provide long-term care insurance to federal employees and retirees. It will also create a model for other employers to use in providing long-term care insurance for their workers. I am proud that this legislation is part of the Democratic agenda for long term care--which includes the $1,000 tax credit for families who are paying the costs of long-term care. 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 American Act funded senior centers, I've made it easier for seniors to get the information and referrals they need to make good choices about long-term care. Those same centers offer case managers to help families navigate the dizzying array of choices when faced with choosing long term care for 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 bipartisan bickering, shutdowns and inaction. Meanwhile, the costs of long-term care have exploded. 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 chose between sending a child to college or paying for a nursing home for a parent. Families desperately need help to help themselves and meet their family responsibilities. This bill is a down payment on making long term care available for all Americans. Let me tell you what my legislation will do: It will enable federal workers and retirees 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 pay at group discounted rates. The purchasing power of the federal workforce will empower them to get the best deal. Federal employees would pay the entire premium for their long-term care insurance, but that premium will be 15% to 20% less than they would pay individually on the open market. 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. We can use the lessons learned to help other employers to offer this option to their workers. 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, against disruptive and harmful shutdowns of the federal government, or to prevent unwise schemes to privatize important services our federal workforce provide, they can count on me. Promise 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. We promised our federal workers and their families that they would have health insurance while they were working and during their retirement. The lack of long-term care for federal workers has been a big gap in this important promise to our federal workers. My legislation will close that gap and provide our federal workers and retirees with comprehensive health insurance. I am proud that Senator Sarbanes and Senator Robb join me in introducing this bill, and that our colleague Congressman Cummings has introduced this legislation in the House. I hope that we will soon be joined by a bipartisan group of Senators who care about helping American families to cope with the costs of long term care. Mr. President, long term care requires long term solutions. My legislation is part of the solution. It is an important step forward in helping all Americans to prepare for the challenges of aging. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. As the chairman knows, hepatitis C is the most common blood-borne infection in the United States. The CDC estimates that there are 4 million Americans--or 2 percent of the population--that are infected. Each year there are 10,000 deaths due to hepatitis C and the death total will increase to 30,000 a year unless something is done to intervene with the progression of this disease in the United States. Unfortunately, the vast majority of people infected with hepatitis C are not even aware that they are infected because the disease is ``silent`` without symptoms sometimes for decades. Meanwhile these infected individuals may be passing the disease on, causing new infections to occur each year. We need to break this cycle by helping individuals learn they have hepatitis C and by getting them to seek counseling, testing, and treatment of their infection and begin to understand the seriousness of this epidemic. Additional funds are needed to support both a targeted look back effort to reach the 300,000 Americans who have hepatitis C as a result of exposure to blood products prior to 1992, when blood was not adequately screened for hepatitis C and a general media campaign to alert other Americans infected by hepatitis C. These funds are needed to fund cooperative efforts of State and local health departments and national voluntary health agencies such as the American Liver Foundation to identify, educate, counsel, test and refer for treatment those infected. The efforts should be bolstered by a toll-free hotline to help provide information and counseling. In addition, since not everyone can afford private testing, some of these funds should be made available to public health agencies for clinic testing and other testing options, including FDA-approved telemedicine testing services. The chairman and the committee have some very strong report language focused on this issue and the chairman is well aware of this problem. I compliment him for the guidance he has given to the CDC on this issue. I have been informed by the CDC that $48 million is needed and at a minimum $16 million is needed just to begin to address this epidemic in fiscal year 1999. Can this amount be found within the totals recommended by the conferees?

Ms. MIKULSKI. I thank the chairman of the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Appropriations subcommittee for his response. Again, I compliment him and the ranking member, Tom Harkin, for their hard work on the Labor/HHS appropriations bill. drexel university intelligent infrastructure institute

Ms. MIKULSKI. Will the chairman of the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Appropriations Subcommittee yield for a question?

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. I would be happy to work with the Senator. I would like to bring to my colleague's attention that Senator Sarbanes might be parachuting in, as well, to comment on the public housing initiatives. If he lands, I want to be able to accommodate him.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that during consideration of the report 105-769, that Ms. Bertha Lopez, a detailee from HUD serving with the VA-HUD committee, be afforded floor privileges.

Ms. MIKULSKI. I yield such time as he may use to Senator Sarbanes, and I very much appreciate his excellent work.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, how much time remains on our side?

Ms. MIKULSKI. Thank you. I yield the floor and look forward to proceeding on our conference.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and Mr. President. I am really proud once again to come to the floor with my colleague, Senator Bond, to bring to the Senate's attention the 1999 VA-HUD conference report and urge that we move quickly to vote on and pass what I believe is a very solid report. This is a strong conference report, and I believe it is one which will be signed by the President of the United States. And why? Because it meets the day-to-day needs of the American people as well as the long-range needs of the United States of America. It provides a safety net for our seniors. It gets behind our kids. It invests in science and technology and makes our world safer. It meets compelling human needs and at the same time makes public investments in Federal Laboratories that will come up with the new ideas for the new products, for the new jobs, for the 21st century. Let's talk about a safety net for seniors. We have often said to our veterans that we are a grateful nation for the sacrifice that they have made in the wars, and many of them bear the permanent wounds of war. But I believe the way a grateful nation expresses its gratitude is not with words but with deeds. That is why I am so pleased that we are providing in the VA medical care account $17.3 billion to meet that need. This will ensure that our veterans will receive quality medical care and that whenever they enter a VA hospital or an outpatient clinic, promises made will be promises kept. At the same time, we provided $316 million for VA medical research. VA medical research is different from NIH research. Building on basic science, it actually does research in hands-on ways to improve clinical practice--both in acute care as well as in prevention and home health care. This means that this will focus on those diseases that ravage our veterans--like diabetes and like prostate cancer as well as the Gulf War Syndrome. In addition to what we have done for senior citizens in the veterans health care program, we also worked to make sure that there is a safety net for seniors in our housing for the elderly. Misguided budget cutters sent a budget to us cutting housing for the elderly by a half a billion dollars, and at the same time they wanted to convert those funds to vouchers. On a bipartisan basis, Senator Bond and I said that was absolutely unacceptable. First of all, the Housing for Elderly Program is one of the most popular programs within HUD. And it is often run by nonprofit organizations, many of whom are faith-based, like Catholic Charities and Associated Jewish Charities in my own State, not only taking taxpayers' dollars and adding housing for the elderly but value adding to that. That is why we restored that cut of a half-billion dollars, to make sure that the funds are there. We also rejected their approach to providing vouchers. Senator Bond and I really did not believe that an 80-year-old frail, elderly woman with her walker should be walking up and down the streets of St. Louis, MO, or Baltimore, MD, or any of our communities, trying to get into an apartment that might not meet the needs of the elderly, and certainly the frail elderly. So we got rid of the misguided budget cutting and also the poor policy thinking that went into it. We are challenging HUD, however, to come up with new thinking in their housing for the elderly to develop new approaches for our seniors, and particularly those that are aging in place. There will be a demonstration project run by Catholic Charities just to do that. At the same time, in this subcommittee, we showed our commitment to the next generation in terms of our children. Within the National Science Foundation account, we have increased the funding for the training of science teachers as well as expanding the informal science education programs to reach beyond the classroom to our children to encourage them to study math, science, and engineering. Also, we have added assistance for the historically black colleges, as well as ones serving Hispanic institutions, to develop important laboratory infrastructure so that they can modernize their facilities, so they can provide the best quality education available. In addition to our educational efforts in terms of our children, we also wanted to look out for their health. That is often in the Labor- HHS appropriation, but there is a secret here often in housing, in old housing in slum neighborhoods, which is that they are loaded with lead. Lead constitutes one of the biggest problems facing many of the children in my own hometown of Baltimore. And we have taken Federal dollars and increased the funding for our lead abatement program. Again, we have worked on a bipartisan basis. Scientists and physicians at Johns Hopkins point out when a child comes into Hopkins and his or her blood is loaded with lead, the very nature of detoxification is not only painful, but it often costs in the Medicaid budget thousands of dollars. The impact of lead not only can lead to death but severe impairment of intellectual ability. By getting the lead out of our housing and getting the lead out of our bureaucracy, we will make sure we get the lead out of our children. We are very pleased to have been able to do that. While we are looking now to the day-to-day needs of the American people, we know we have to invest in science and technology. Again, Senator Bond and I believe that public investments in science and technology will lead to the new ideas, the new products and the new jobs for the 21st century. That is why we have provided significant funding for critical science and research at the National Science Foundation and the National Space Agency. This legislation will provide $3.6 billion in the National Science Foundation account. This is an 8 percent overall increase in funding. The NSF has peer review programs focusing on developing cutting-edge science and technology. We want to, again, work to make sure that this money is used wisely. We believe that the National Science Foundation is on track. In addition to that, this appropriation provides $13.6 billion for the National Space Agency. It will spur technology development, as well as look for the origins of the universe. To my colleagues in the Senate and to those also watching, while we were working on the funding for NASA we recognized a great American hero, Senator John Glenn. At the request of his colleague from Ohio, Senator DeWine, we have renamed the NASA Lewis Research Center in Cleveland the ``John Glenn Research Center,'' which we think is an appropriate recognition. We thank the junior Senator from Ohio for making that request. While we are working on NASA, we have been troubled about the funding for the space station and also the failure of the Russian Government to deliver its promises. We have instructed NASA to take a look at how we are going to get value for taxpayers' dollars and how we are going to get technology for taxpayers' dollars. After rather firm conversations with the National Security Advisor of the United States, as well as the Administrator, we believe we have language in our appropriations that will help us get both value and technology for our cooperation in this effort. We are also working on a safe world. We have funded the Environmental Protection Agency to clean up our environment and also take those steps that are necessary to prevent increased environmental degradation. One of the efforts, of course, is in brownfields, which we hope will be a new tool to be able to clean up those contaminated areas and turn a brownfield into a ``green field'' for economic development. We continue to be troubled about the lack of an authorization for Superfund. We will fund Superfund at last year's level but we encourage the authorizers to be able to move ahead and pass an authorization. We have an additional $650 million included, contingent on a reauthorization by August 1. Those are the things we believe will truly be able to help clean up our environment and do preventive work. Certain aspects in this legislation regarding EPA are important to my home State of Maryland. In Maryland, we consider good environment is absolutely good business. That is why we thank, once again, Senator Bond for work in continuing the funding for the cleanup and revitalization of the Chesapeake Bay. The bay is important because it provides tremendous jobs in our State, from the watermen who harvest the different species, including the crabs and oysters of the bay, to other small businesses that work on the bay. All of my colleagues in the U.S. Senate know we were hit by the terrible situation of pfiesteria--this ``X-like'' organism that sits in the mud, mutates 24 times, and then wreaks havoc with our fish. What our legislation provides is important research in pfiesteria. We hope to be able to come up with solutions that will be important not only for Maryland and the causes of it, but also that will help other parts of the country, like North Carolina, and rivers that are affected by animal wastes, with dire consequences. We are also very pleased the Federal Emergency Management Administration has been funded. We will meet, of course, the 9-1-1 request of the United States of America, but I believe in FEMA we provided the three ``R's.'' We have funded readiness; we have funded response; and we have also funded both rehabilitation, but more importantly, prevention. This has been the hallmark, I think, of FEMA during the last 5 years, to do training at the local community and throughout this Nation, to be ready for those disasters that normally would affect a particular region, but at the same time the readiness help to move to a quick response. Often after a disaster we can't restore it to its old condition or even better, and, therefore, we need to look at ways to prevent disasters. There is also another disaster that threatens the United States that is very deeply troubling to me. That is the whole issue of threats of terrorist attacks on our own United States of America. I know at the highest level there are coordinated task forces, particularly from our military, but within our legislation we made sure we fund FEMA's effort to do the training necessary to deal with attacks, particularly of bioterrorism and chemical weapons. We regard this as a very important effort. I want to mention before I close the very close cooperation we have had in this bill with the authorizers on Housing and Banking. I particularly acknowledge the role of my senior Senator, Senator Paul Sarbanes, and Senator Mack of Florida. They really worked hard this year to come up with a new authorizing framework for public housing. I believe that they did it. They worked on economic integration of public housing so it doesn't remain ZIP Codes of pathology. We have worked together in our legislation. We are taking their authorization and incorporating it here to make sure that there are new housing resources. In our bill there will be 50,000 new vouchers designed for welfare-to-work, to make sure that welfare is not a way of life but a tool to a better life, and that public housing is not a way of life but a tool to a better life. We have worked cooperatively with them, and we have worked long and hard on our bill to eliminate outmoded public housing rules that only hold people in place, and often have kept people in poverty. Also, this legislation will extend the life of HOPE VI. HOPE VI is a program that I helped develop that not only tried to eliminate the concentrations of poverty and bring down the old walls of public housing, but to create new hope and new opportunity. I am so pleased the authorizers have spent over 2 years looking at this to come up with a new framework. I know my own colleague, Senator Sarbanes, is trying to get here to speak on this bill. If he doesn't, I know he will speak later. We were both due at a breakfast meeting in Baltimore and he covered that so I could be here to move my bill. How I like working as a team. It is really a great pleasure to me to have my senior colleague, Paul Sarbanes, on the Budget Committee, as well as on the Housing and Banking where we have worked as a team to look at the day-to-day needs of people. He took this concept of what was happening in public housing and delved into it to come up with new ideas and a new framework. He had the support of Senator Mack, who I know has gone into public housing, talked with residents, listened to the best ideas of foundations and think tanks and also the needs of residents, as did my own senior colleague. I wish all of my colleagues could enjoy the relationship with their colleague within my State as I do. Senator Sarbanes and Senator Mack have come up with a new framework. They pushed us to the wall to come up with new funding. We had to forage for the funds, but we were able to do it. We truly hope this will create hope and opportunity. In addition to that, we are particularly appreciative of the conference report to maintain the funding for national service, which others had wanted to eliminate. We want to thank them for that because that is also another tool for creating hope and opportunity. So that is my perspective on the VA-HUD bill. Once again, working on a bipartisan basis, we show that we can meet the day-to-day needs of our American people, as well as the long- range needs of the United States of America. I thank Senator Bond and his staff for, once again, the cooperative and bipartisan way that they have worked with my staff and myself. Senator Bond, I thank you for all of the courtesies, the collegiality, and the consultation in which we engaged on this bill. I thank you for really the professionalism of your staff, Jon Kamarck and Carrie Apostolou, who really helped me in many ways to come up with good ideas and worked with you for good solutions. I also thank my own staff, Andy Givens and David Bowers, and Bertha Lopez, a detailee from HUD who has been with us, who has worked hard to make sure I could fill my responsibilities. I thank them for their hard work and effort. In closing, I also want to say that over on the House side, another member of VA-HUD is retiring. We pay our respects to Congressman Louis Stokes, who has also really helped move this bill forward. So, Mr. President, that is my perspective on the bill. In a few minutes, I know we will be moving toward a vote. I urge every single Senator on my side of the aisle to support this bipartisan effort to move the appropriations and really encourage all others with outstanding appropriations to act in the same bipartisan fashion that we have. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. BOND addressed the Chair.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I will vote against the motion to proceed on H.R. 10, the Financial Services Act of 1998. I oppose this legislation because it is inappropriate to bring down the protective firewalls in U.S. financial services while a firestorm is sweeping global financial institutions. Mr. President, this is the wrong time to be relaxing our protective financial services regulations. I understand the intellectual argument to reform our financial services. In fact, I do not dispute it. There is no doubt that the U.S. needs to be competitive in the global marketplace. I would suggest to my colleagues, though, that changes in the global economic picture make this bill unwise. The global economic situation is vastly different now than when this bill was being drafted. There are a number of what I call ``yellow flashing lights'' or warning signals that now is not the right time to enact this legislation. Let me mention a few. Former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger recently stated in the Washington Post that no government and virtually no economist predicted this global economic crisis, understood its extent or anticipated its staying power. Now the United States Senate is going to rearrange the national financial landscape? We need to modernize the United States to go global? I think we need to pause and ask what does going global mean and do we want to go there at this time? In this current global environment of national financial collapses, IMF bailouts and hedge funds rescue packages have become daily occurrences. These are the ``yellow flashing lights'' and I believe we must proceed with caution to avoid rash and irrevocable changes when the savings of hard working families and the viability of our communities could be put in serious jeopardy. Frankly, I am also concerned that the bill before us is the result of last-minute deal making. The issues here are too important for hasty decision-making. The decisions this bill makes affect the financial security of average Americans who are working and saving to provide for their families, U.S. financial institutions, the American economy and the global financial marketplace. These are not trivial issues. We are being asked to establish a legislative framework for the financial services industry for decades to come. These are irrevocable decisions. As changes were made to accommodate this interest or that interest, I am concerned that we have lost sight of the overall impact of the bill before us. I am concerned that we do not know enough about what's in the bill at this juncture, and what it will mean for our economic security. In the haste to get the job done before the Congress adjourns for the year, I have serious and deep reservations that changes have been made that have not been well thought out or thought through. If enacted, we will end up with unintended, but nevertheless, negative consequences because we rushed to the finish line. Advocates of this legislation always mention the free market. They believe that buyers and sellers acting in their own self-interests will produce winners and losers, and bring about the best and most efficient outcome for banking customers. But look at what the free market has brought us lately-- a global financial meltdown and hedge funds that are ``too big to fail''. As Kissinger suggested, indiscriminate globalism has generated a world-wide assault on the concept of free financial markets. In the United States, where we used to boast about our well functioning capital markets, we now bail out those investors who make foolish decisions. One need look no further than the Long-Term Capital debacle to see evidence that even the brightest minds on Wall Street, acting in the free market, sometimes make very poor decisions. The collapse of this high-flying hedge fund was a failure of proper supervision. As Kenneth Guenther explains in the Baltimore Sun, this raises serious questions about our regulatory structure: ``it doesn't make sense to have too- big-to-fail institutions if the regulatory structure is not up to regulating them. . . . if the regulators have to make a choice between the safety of the financial system and the free market, the financial system will win. There is no free market and there never will be. It's the height of hypocrisy to talk about the free market in one breath and bail out Long-Term Capital . . . in the next breath.'' Mr. President, I oppose this legislation because in this environment, we need more oversight and enforcement in our financial services, not less. Beyond these concerns that this is not the right time to enact these sweeping changes buttressed by the follies of the free market, I have other, structural concerns with the proposed changes to our financial services laws. 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, one of the most important decisions a family makes. It should be done with a professional who is certified and who is someone you can trust. By breaking down these firewalls 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. Finally, I believe that any modernization of our financial services law should not just retain, but expand the important consumer protections and community investment policies currently in place. Consumers need protections and regulations to guarantee the safety of their deposits and the availability of basic banking services and credit to help their communities grow. If we have a Consumer Product Safety Commission to protect children from flammable sleepware, I believe we should also have a strong regulatory framework to protect consumers, not just investors, in the financial services marketplace. A strong regulatory framework will not be provided by the Federal Reserve, as is proposed in this legislation. I share the concerns of John Hawke, Undersecretary of the Treasury Department, that shifting the regulatory power from the Office of the Controller of the Currency to the Federal Reserve Board is a highly questionable regulatory protection. This would be like letting the bankers regulate themselves. The decision making of the Federal Reserve is directly linked to the banking industry that it would regulate. Bankers elect two thirds of the Federal Reserves directors. It is true that the Federal Reserve is independent of the administration, but it is not independent of the bankers and finance companies that it would regulate. Mr. President, I am not opposed to a necessary reform of our financial services laws. But this is not the legislation and this is not the time to do it. The U.S. stock market has had one of the worst quarters since 1990 and world leaders are currently strategizing about how to stanch the global economic crisis. The Congress will be back in 90 days. Hopefully, the world market will be calmer, it will be after the election, and we will be able to study the lessons learned from the financial events of the past three months. For all the hard work and all the negotiating and compromise, now is not the time to go forward and add more fuel to what is already a very troubling global financial firestorm.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to the Agriculture Appropriations Conference Report. I oppose this bill for three reasons. First and foremost, it does not meet the needs of my state of Maryland. Second, it does not sufficiently fund agriculture programs in order to help all American farmers. Third, the method by which the funding is spent is wholly inadequate to address the farm crisis. In my state of Maryland, we have been plagued by drought for the second consecutive year. Our farmers are losing crops and they are losing money. They are struggling just to survive. Couple the drought with the record low prices, high costs and a glut in the market and that spells disaster for our farmers. Official data reports that drought has destroyed between 30 percent and 65 percent of the crops in nine Southern Maryland and lower Eastern Shore counties. Loss of soybean, tobacco, wheat and corn crops is making this a very tough season for Maryland farmers. Let me assure you I will not just stand by and let this happen to my farmers. I am already fighting with the rest of the Maryland delegation team to provide emergency loans from the Department of Agriculture to our farmers and to officially designate them disaster areas because of the drought. But this money does not really take care of the problem. This is not some heroic assistance program for our farmers. It is just a loan. This is money that must be paid back. It does not provide any real long term assistance for our farming community. That is precisely the job of Congress today. Our farmers need help so they can continue to farm. They need help now, this is true, and they need these loans. But eventually, loans must be paid back with money earned. And this money will not and cannot be earned without our help. We should be uplifting our farmers and helping them to help themselves. Not just continuing their burden of debt. We need help, and this Agriculture Appropriations bill neither addresses Maryland's agricultural problems nor the agricultural problems scourging the rest of our country. Farmers in my state of Maryland came to me with their priorities for this bill, neither of which are adequately addressed. First, this bill does not provide adequate funding for operating loans so farmers can buy the equipment and supplies necessary to plan for the next season. Without these loans, many of our farmers will not have the funds they need to plant. This then becomes a vicious cycle. Without the funds to plant, the farmers cannot make money for the next year, and pay back or even be eligible for loan assistance. The second, and most important reason this bill does not satisfy the needs of my state is because this bill does not uncap the market loans. My farmers have told me that their number one priority is to take the artificial caps off the market loans. In fact, my farmers have told me they desperately needed the caps off the market loans. Last week, a new U.S. Department of Agriculture report forecasted a net farm income for 1998 at $42 billion, down $7.9 billion from last year. This amounts to nearly a 16 percent drop in farm income. The report also said that farm debt is anticipated to reach $172 billion by the end of 1998. What do these forecasts tell us? This says that any federal response that stops short of recognizing the fundamental problem of depressed prices will absolutely not address the problem. We cannot pass a band- aid measure and expect it to stick in the long term. This is just not possible. The only way to start to correct the problem is to start at the root. And this means acknowledging and dealing with the depressed crop prices. Uncapping the market loans is crucial to confronting this problem. I will not vote for this bill today because it does not provide enough funding to deal with these problems. The Democratic farm relief package offered by Senator Harkin in conference was sadly defeated along partisan lines. This package would have provided the necessary $7.3 billion in funds to cover both disaster and economic losses, including a provision to increase marketing loan rates. The Republican plan--less than $4 billion--adopted by the committee came as an extreme disappointment. All states suffer under the Republican plan. In my state alone, Maryland would receive only $7 million in assistance verses $21 million under the Democratic plan. The magnitude of losses suffered simply does not merit this meager and shallow attempt to pass this bill. All one need do is look at the facts. The level of economic assistance contained in the bill is $1.65 billion. The net farm income projected is expected to fall this year alone by $8 billion to $10 billion. Clearly, this bill does not increase the amount of relief to a level that will help farmers weather the economic crisis. Finally, I will not support this bill because the method by which the funding is spent is wholly inadequate to address the farm crisis. The assistance is not directed to the person who suffered the loss. Increasing the Republican plan would simply send money to landlords who have already been paid their cash rent for the year. These Agricultural Market Transition Act (AMTA) payments benefit the absentee landowner, rather than the farmers who need the assistance. One recent study showed that 73 percent of the nation's farmers feel the current farm bill does not provide adequate income during low-price periods. This means the current system is failing us. Rather than pump more money into a failed system, it is time we overhaul the method. Let me say that I absolutely agree with Senators Daschle and Harkin that this bill does not sufficiently address the farm crisis. More needs to be done. I am sorry not to vote for this appropriations bill. Mr. President, let me be clear--I wanted to vote for an agriculture appropriations bill today. I think we all did. In fact, I want to see all thirteen of these appropriations bills pass, as they rightly should. But I will not support a bill that short-changes our farmers. I did not vote for the Freedom to Farm bill for this very reason, I will not vote for the agriculture appropriations bill today.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to celebrate the Senate passage of the Mammography Quality Standards Reauthorization Act (MQSA). It is timely and appropriate that the Senate took action on this important legislation in time for Breast Cancer Awareness Month in October and on the eve of the march against cancer right here in Washington. The bill that the Senate passed reauthorizes the original legislation which passed in 1992 with bipartisan support. What MQSA does is require that all facilities that provide mammograms meet key safety and quality-assurance standards in the area of personnel, equipment, and operating procedures. Before the law passed, tests were misread, women were misdiagnosed, and people died as a result of sloppy work. Since 1992, MQSA has been successful in raising the quality of mammography services that women receive. What are these national, uniform quality standards for mammography? Well, facilities are required to use equipment designed specifically for mammography. Only radiological technologists can perform mammography. Only qualified doctors can interpret the results of mammography. Facilities must establish a quality assurance and control program to ensure reliability, clarity and accurate interpretation of mammograms. Facilities must be inspected annually by qualified inspectors. Finally, facilities must be accredited by an accrediting body approved by the Secretary of Health and Human Services. This current reauthorization makes some improvements to the current law. It ensures that women will receive direct written notification of their mammogram results. MQSA already requires written notification of mammography results to self-referred women. Now this provision will apply to all women. Women won't assume that ``no news is good news'' when this isn't always the case. They will know what their results are, so that they can get any follow up care they need. The Agency for Health Care Policy Research has cited studies that show that direct communication with patients, which is in addition to written communication to health care providers, dramatically increases compliance with follow up recommendations. Women are entitled to know the results of their exams. This new provision will ensure that women are informed and active participants in their health care decisions. This legislation also allows the Secretary of Health and Human Services to establish a demonstration program for less than annual inspections for facilities that have excellent track records. This program will not be implemented before April 1, 2001, which is almost two years after the final regulations implementing MQSA go into effect. The facilities that participate in this program will continue to be inspected to ensure that they continue to comply with MQSA standards. A strong inspection program under MQSA is extremely important to assure the public that quality standards are being met. In a 1997 GAO report which evaluated the MQSA inspection program, GAO praised the program. I am very interested in the results of this demonstration. This demonstration program will provide us with an important opportunity to see if less than annual inspections are just as effective in making high-quality facilities comply with MQSA. It should allow the FDA to focus more of its attention on ensuring compliance with MQSA standards by facilities where problems have been identified in the past. The best way to protect the public health is for the FDA to focus its resources on the problem facilities. This bill also contains a few minor changes to the law to ensure that: patients and referring physicians be advised of any mammography facility deficiency; women are guaranteed the right to obtain an original of their mammogram; physicians who review facility images on behalf of accreditation bodies are highly qualified and subject to high ethical standards; and both state and local government agencies are permitted to have inspection authority. I like MQSA because it has saved lives. The front line against breast cancer is mammography. We know that early detection saves lives. But a mammogram is worse than useless if it produces a poor-quality image or is misinterpreted. The first rule of all medical treatment is: Above all things, do no harm. And a bad mammogram can do real harm by leading a woman and her doctor to believe that nothing is wrong when something is. The result can be unnecessary suffering or even a death that could have been prevented. That is why this legislation is so important. And that is why I am so pleased that this law is being reauthorized, so that we don't go back to the old days when women's lives were in jeopardy. I want to make sure that women's health needs are met comprehensively. It is expected that 178,700 new cases of breast cancer will be diagnosed and about 43,900 women will die from the disease in 1998. This makes breast cancer the most common cancer among women. And only lung cancer causes more deaths in women. We must aggressively pursue prevention in our war on breast cancer. I pledge to fight for new attitudes and to find new ways to end the needless pain and death that too many American women face. This bill is an important step in that direction. As the 105th Congress comes to a close, we can look back on some great bipartisan victories and other great bipartisan frustrations. But one area Republicans and Democrats have always worked together on is women's health. I am proud of this bill's broad bipartisan support. I want to take this opportunity to thank all 56 cosponsors of my MQSA bill here in the Senate for their support. I also want to recognize Congresswoman Nancy Johnson and Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton as the original sponsors of the House MQSA bill. I applaud the Democrats and Republicans of the House Commerce Committee, especially Congressmen Bliley, Dingell, Bilirakis, and Brown for their leadership on MQSA. A special thanks also goes to Senator Jeffords for working with me to make reauthorization of MQSA a reality. As Dean of the Democratic Women, I want to also thank the Dean of the Republican Women, Kay Bailey Hutchinson, for always reaching out to work together on the issues that matter most to American women and their families. MQSA is a shining example of what the U.S. Congress can accomplish when both Republicans and Democrats work together for the good of the American people.