Barbara Mikulski

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Reinstatement of the Medicare Rehabilitation Act of 1998, introduced by Senators Reid and Grassley. I have always been a strong advocate for the senior citizens of our nation and I believe this bill will help provide a safety net for some of our sickest seniors. I was pleased to recently join my colleagues as a cosponsor of this bill for two reasons--it repeals an unnecessary $1,500 cap on Medicare outpatient rehabilitation services and will allow seniors to receive treatment services that are essential to their health. Every year our elderly are threatened by strokes, multiple injuries, and diseases. Seniors who suffer from strokes and multiple diseases in a given year often have complex health care needs that require costly, comprehensive treatment. One study has estimated that almost 13% of all Medicare beneficiaries or 635,000 seniors who receive rehabilitative services outside of a hospital setting will exceed the $1,500 cap. The treatment that they desperately need would exceed the $1,500 cap and require seniors to pay out of pocket for services or seek treatment in a hospital outpatient department in order for Medicare to cover their treatment. How could our senior citizens be treated this way? How did this come to be? Well let me tell you, in 1997 Congress passed the Balanced Budget Act. Within that Act we placed a $1,500 cap on outpatient rehabilitation services. Limits on the cap were adopted without adequate committee hearings and a detailed analysis was not conducted by HCFA to determine the likely effects on beneficiaries' ability to obtain medically necessary services. This was a mistake, but fortunately we can correct it by passing this legislation. The Reinstatement of the Medicare Rehabilitation Act ensures senior citizens the right to receive the medical services they need to recover. Under this bill, senior citizens will no longer be hindered by financial limitations on rehabilitation services and seniors who don't live near a hospital won't be forced to travel there just to have Medicare pay for their treatment services. I don't want an 85-year-old woman who has had a stroke and is trying to regain her ability to speak or eat to have to travel to a hospital 30 minutes away to receive treatment. I want to let those who depend on Medicare know that we are working to protect their health. While we must continue to work diligently to protect the solvency of Medicare, we can't let seniors who need rehabilitation services fall through the cracks. I salute the sponsors of this bill and urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to voice my strong support for raising the minimum wage. In 1996, Congress helped millions of working Americans by increasing the minimum wage by 90 cents over two years. Passing that historic measure was a good first step. Now, it is time for us to take another one. I am proud to be cosponsoring the Fair Minimum Wage Act of 1998, a bill that will help even more Americans take that next step. This much- needed legislation would raise the hourly minimum wage to $6.15 over the next two years. The first part of this bill would take effect on January 1, 1999, and would raise the minimum wage from $5.15 to $5.65 per hour. Then, on January 1, 2000, the minimum wage would be raised to $6.15 per hour. I support this minimum wage increase for many of the same reasons I supported the last one. In 1995, I said that an increase in the minimum wage would help working Americans improve their standard of living. I said that it would help them move one step closer to self-sufficiency. And I said that it would give them the opportunity to practice self- help. It has done all these things, and it has helped business and trade at the same time. The results in my state alone tell the story. Since we increased the minimum wage in 1996, employment in Maryland is up and unemployment is down. We've added 54,500 new jobs since September 1996, and the unemployment rate dropped to 4.7%. I'd say that's progress. I believe we can expand upon the progress we've already made by increasing the minimum wage again. A minimum wage increase would give a raise to more than 129,000 Marylanders and their families. It would enable Marylanders to improve their standard of living. It would move them closer to self-sufficiency. And it would allow them to practice self-help. An increase in the minimum wage equals an increase in the standard of living for working Americans. This is especially important to me. Since I first came to Congress, my economic mission has always been a pretty simple one: to help those who are in the middle class stay there or do better and to give those who are not in the middle class the chance to get there. I support this bill because it gets at the heart of my mission. I know that to some people, a $1.00 increase in the minimum wage over the course of two years may not seem like much at all. But even a small increase like this one will mean a whole lot to many others. An increase in the minimum wage will also help many Americans move one step closer to economic self-sufficiency. We all know by now that minimum wage workers aren't just high school kids working part-time jobs after school and on the weekends. In fact, two-thirds of minimum wage earners are adults, and nearly 60% are mothers, many with young kids to support. We don't have to tell working moms who are struggling to make ends meet what an extra $1.00 an hour means. An extra $1.00 an hour means more groceries in the refrigerator. An extra $1.00 an hour means that the mortgage or the rent gets paid. An extra $1.00 an hour means a full tank of gas in the car. And, most importantly, an extra $1.00 an hour can mean more time to spend with their families. That single dollar goes a long way for those moms. Finally, an increase in the minimum wage will give people the opportunity to practice self-help. For too long now, Americans, including those working moms, have been working longer and harder only to see their paychecks get smaller and smaller. This cycle has got to stop. Those Americans who are working for minimum wage are not asking for handouts. They're asking for fair pay for hard work. Right now, even after the previous minimum wage increase, a mother who works full-time--that's 40 hours per week and 52 weeks a year-- earns only about $10,700 a year. That is $2,600 below the poverty level for a family of three. I don't think that someone who shows up everyday and works hard should be condemned to a life in poverty. A fair day's work should mean a fair day's pay. Does that $10,700 salary reward a working mom's hard work? No. Does that salary give her an incentive to stay off welfare? No. Does that salary give her the time to walk her kids to school, help them with their homework, or even read to them at night? Absolutely not. In fact, that $10,700 salary barely allows her to clothe them, put a roof over their heads, or put food on the table. No mom should have to make the choice between paying the heating bill or buying her child new school shoes. Forcing working moms to make choices like that is wrong. That same mom who works full-time, plays by the rules, and does everything else we ask of her ought to be able to get ahead. I don't think that's asking too much. Hard-working minimum wage workers are just like everyone else--they want to climb up the American economic ladder. Too often, however, that ladder looks too tall to climb. Too often, the rungs on that ladder are too far apart from each other. Too often they are just a little bit out of reach. As representatives of those workers, we can help them climb that ladder. We can and should give them that little push they need to grasp the next rung. This bill gives them that little boost, and that is why it has my full support.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, Sunday, September 20, 1998 marked the end of an era in sports. Cal Ripken, baseball's Iron Man, took a well- deserved day off. As the Baltimore Sun put it, ``The Streak died of natural causes. It was 2,632.'' Cal Ripken sat in the dugout Sunday night not because of injury, or illness, or a manager's decision. Cal voluntarily took himself out of the lineup because he felt he was not playing up to his own standards, and would not contribute enough to the team. Cal's quietly monumental decision exemplifies the dignity and class with which he has conducted himself throughout his career. When Cal Ripken began his streak in 1982, Ronald Reagan was President, I was a Congresswoman, ``Dallas'' was the most popular TV show, and the movie ``ET'' was setting box office records. A baby born that year is about to be a junior in high school. Ryan Minor, who played in Cal's place Sunday night, was 8 years old. I was in the stands September 6, 1995, the night that Cal played game number 2,131. I've watched history being made on the Senate floor, but that night I watched history being made on the glorious green field of Camden Yards. I will never forget the joy we all felt as the banners rolled, the light bulbs flashed, and Cal took his victory lap. Records are made to be broken, but I can't imagine Cal's record being broken in our lifetime. The next closest player, Albert Belle, would have to play in every game for the next 14 years to equal The Streak. What Cal has accomplished is simple: Every day for the last 16 years, he got up, got dressed, and went to work. He represents the old- fashioned ethic displayed by millions of Marylanders every day as they work hard, play by the rules, and take care of their families. It's not fancy, it's not flashy, but it is the glue that holds our communities, our society, and our nation together. So to Cal Ripken, I say hats off, thank you for being you, and thank you for showing all of us how it's supposed to be done.''

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, today the Senate will vote on whether or not to override the President's veto of H.R. 1122, the so-called ``Partial Birth Abortion Ban''. I will cast my vote to uphold the President's veto. I do so for several reasons. First and foremost, this bill denies a woman, in consultation with her physician, the right to make necessary or appropriate medical decisions. Second, it does not provide any protection for a woman whose health is grievously threatened by her pregnancy. Third, this bill will not stop a single abortion from occurring. Finally, it is unconstitutional. I believe that women, in consultation with their physicians, must make decisions on what is medically necessary or appropriate in reproductive matters. These must be medical decisions not political decisions. Mr. President, 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 determine what is necessary or appropriate for their patients. Not bureaucrats. Not managed care accountants. And certainly not legislators. Who is best equipped to decide whether a difficult pregnancy threatens a woman's life? Who decides whether a woman would suffer grievous injury to her physical health if a pregnancy is continued? Who decides what is medically necessary for a particular woman in her unique circumstances? The answer must be that doctors decide. The women themselves must decide. Legislators should not take the decision away from them. This bill is unacceptable because it shackles physicians. It prevents them from exercising their best medical judgement on behalf of their patients. I also will vote to uphold the President's veto because this bill does not offer any protections for women's health. I know that there are many who view efforts to provide for the health of the woman as some sort of loophole. But I believe we must acknowledge the realities of women's health and women's lives. Even the most ardent opponent of reproductive rights would have to acknowledge that there are medical crises that arise during pregnancy that could cause profound harm to women's health. Yet the authors of the bill before us refused to make any concession to health concerns I will vote today to sustain the President's veto because this bill would not prevent one abortion--not one. By banning a particular procedure, it does nothing to stop abortions from occurring. A doctor can still opt to use any other abortion procedure--even ones that might be less suitable for the woman's particular health circumstances. So let's be clear--this bill would not prevent abortions. Finally, this bill fails the test of constitutionality. The Supreme Court in Roe versus Wade and in its subsequent decisions has been quite clear. Prior to the point of fetal viability, a woman's right to an abortion is constitutionally protected. The Court has also insisted that any legislation restricting abortion must ensure that the woman's life and her health are protected. The woman's physician must place her health as the paramount concern. On both of these points, this bill fails to meet the constitutional standard the Court has established. This is not mere speculation. In 19 out of 20 states that have passed ``partial-birth'' abortion bills, either a court or state attorney general has prevented those laws from taking effect. Six of those states used language that is identical to the bill now before the Senate. Seventeen courts have ruled that these state laws are unconstitutional. So it should be clear that this bill cannot pass constitutional muster. For all of these reasons this bill is seriously flawed. The President's veto of this legislation was the right thing to do. It was the constitutional thing to do. I expect that the Senate will vote today to uphold that veto. When the Senate passed this legislation last May, I said that its passage was a hollow victory. It was hollow because the bill could never be enacted into law and could never be upheld as Constitutional. I believe that subsequent events are proving that prediction to be correct. There is a better way to address this issue. I believe the vast majority of my colleagues would agree that--absent a threat to life or a grievous threat to a woman's health--abortion in the last months of pregnancy is not defensible. Why can't we enact legislation that would provide a ban on those post viability abortions? When the Senate considered this issue last May, I worked with my Democratic Leader Tom Daschle and a bipartisan group of Senators to craft such an approach. The Daschle alternative would have meant fewer abortions. It banned all abortions once a fetus had achieved viability. It provided only two exceptions--first, when the woman's life was threatened by continuing the pregnancy. Second, when she was at risk of grievous injury to her physical health. And it allowed the woman and her physician to make that medical determination. I still believe that is the correct approach, the common sense approach. The Daschle alternative was respectful of the Constitution. It safeguarded women's health. I was disappointed that we were unable to pass this alternative. I believe the President would have signed a bill along the lines of the Daschle alternative. Because I believe so strongly that this is the correct approach to take, I have joined with my colleague, Senator Durbin, and others, in introducing a bill modeled after the Daschle alternative. I urge my colleagues--whether you support the bill we are considering today or not and whatever your views on reproductive choice--to take another look at this proposal. It is our best chance to forge a consensus on this issue. We can stop inappropriate post-viability abortions while still protecting the lives and health of women. The Durbin bill shows us the way. I believe it reflects the values and views of the American people. So, Mr. President, I will vote to sustain the President's veto today. But I would urge my colleagues to bring fresh thinking to this matter. We can have a real legislative solution, rather than a political wedge issue. We should certainly try.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, once again the Senate is considering campaign finance reform. As my colleagues know, the House of Representatives in August passed a strong reform measure. I'm pleased that their action has prompted a renewed effort here in the Senate to pass a comprehensive campaign finance reform measure. 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 process. I want them to know that their efforts matter. I want people to have an opportunity to participate in their communities and in our political process. I want to restore each American's faith and trust in government. The McCain-Feingold amendment is an important part of that effort. I have consistently supported campaign finance reform, so I will gladly vote to close debate on the McCain-Feingold amendment. I hope we will invoke cloture, and move quickly to a vote on final passage of this amendment. Vote after vote this year has shown that a majority of the Senate supports McCain-Feingold. Unfortunately, through parliamentary tactics and filibuster, a majority of the Senate has not been able to work its will on this issue. I hope we will be successful today in at last ending the filibuster on this issue. 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? Today we have a chance to help break that culture of cynicism. We can enact legislation to eliminate the undue influence of special interests in elections. How does this amendment 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. It will end the sham of ``issue ads'' that are really designed to support or oppose federal candidates. This amendment will improve the disclosure of contributions, and expand the Federal Election Commission's enforcement capabilities. It will 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. It will make it less likely for wealthy candidates to try to buy elections, by barring political parties from making coordinated expenditures for candidates who do not agree to limit their personal spending. These are all reasonable reforms. They will 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 McCain-Feingold amendment will help us to do that. I am proud to support it with my voice and my vote.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, and to all who are with us in the proceedings today, I rise with melancholy to pay tribute to four Marylanders who were killed in the tragic crash of Swissair Flight 111 late Wednesday night, September 2, 1998. Dr. Jonathan Mann and Dr. Mary Lou Clements-Mann lived in Columbia. Mark Chapman and Cauley lived in Olney. Mark Chapman was an engineer, and his wife was a flight attendant for American Airlines. They were on their way to Greece to visit his parents. Friends in their 10-house neighborhood in Olney tell stories about their kindness and thoughtfulness, how the Chapmans kept everyone entertained and had the whole neighborhood over for backyard barbeques. Mark and Cauley loved animals, and every morning Mrs. Chapman would be out with her beagle Ruby trotting along on her daily walk. In a world that too often lacks a sense of community, the Chapmans went out of their way to be a part of their community and to make others feel welcome in it. According to one neighbor, ``Knowing Cauley, she was probably helping out the other stewardesses on the plane.'' Dr. Jonathan Mann created the World Health Organization's AIDS program, and Dr. Mary Louise Clements-Mann was the director of the vaccine research at the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health. They were partners in science and partners in life, having met at a scientific conference three years ago and married last year. Their loss is felt deeply by the medical research community, and it is felt deeply by the community of caring they helped to create. More than being dedicated to research, they were dedicated to the people they were trying to help. They believed, as I do, that our policies should reflect our values. Dr. Mann was among the first to declare that AIDS was a disease that rightfully concerned all of us, that it did not recognize class, gender, or global boundaries. In 1984, he became director of an AIDS project in the central African nation of Zaire (now the Congo). It was there that he traced the transmission patterns and risk factors for AIDS. Unusual for a medical researcher, he also traced the political and social implications of this deadly disease. He spoke out about the connection between AIDS and human rights, and he worked with governments to fight cruelty and discrimination against people with AIDS. In February 1987, he was appointed head of the WHO AIDS office, and he and his staff visited 77 nations in nine months to assess the epidemic. Early this year, Dr. Mann took on a new responsibility as dean of the School of Public Health at Allegheny University of the Health Sciences. He has been described as `a dapper man who wore starched white shirts and red bow ties', who boarded the train every day to Philadelphia. Since January, he had also been a visiting professor at the Hopkins School of Public Health. Dr. Clements-Mann had an equally stellar list of accomplishments and a reputation as a gentle woman who could also be a tough taskmaster when it came to life-saving medical research. Born in Longview, Texas, she graduated from Texas Tech with a degree in chemistry at a time when few women were encouraged to consider science careers. She earned another degree in chemistry from the University of Texas Southwestern Medical School in Dallas, and advanced degrees from the University of London and from the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health. In 1986, she moved to Johns Hopkins to start and direct its vaccine center. She became one of the world's experts in developing vaccines against life-threatening diseases, from Hepatitis C to influenza. Her reputation was built on selecting vaccines for medical trials that had the best chance of success, and one of the vaccines she helped develop was just approved by the FDA last week. Even as an internationally famous researcher, colleagues said she preferred to be called Mary Lou by co-workers and volunteers alike. Dr. Clements-Mann loved to garden and they both loved to travel and go camping. Neighbors in their Hickory Ridge neighborhood in Columbia often saw the two of them taking walks and holding hands. It is a tragedy that the world has been deprived of their knowledge, their compassion, and their ability to affect public policy in the face of worldwide epidemics.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Nursing Home Patient Protection Act. I wish this legislation was not necessary, but it is. It is necessary and we must pass this bill because senior citizens and people with disabilities are being cruelly forced to leave their homes. Why? Not because of some failure of their own, not because they haven't spent their lives working hard, and not because they deserve to be kicked out for any other reason. These people, mostly senior citizens, are being told to leave their homes because of inadequacies in our Medicaid program. This is not right, Mr. President. It is unfair, unacceptable, and Un-American to sit by while many of our senior citizens are shuffled around like a deck of cards. I think honoring your mother and father is not just good practice--it is good public policy. Most seniors begin paying their nursing home bills with their own life's savings. Later, when they run out of money, they typically enter the Medical Assistance Program. All too often, nursing homes then tell these residents, some of whom have lived in a home for 20 years or more, that they must leave because Medicaid payment rates are too low. No warning is given, and little assistance for relocation is available. They are, quite literally, left out on the street to find another facility on their own. Think of your parents in a similar situation: their health is not what it once was, they are accustomed to their current surroundings, and they were promised by their nursing home that they would be allowed to stay when they ran out of money and became Medicaid recipients. Then, without any warning, they are told that they must leave what has been their home within the next two months. How would you react? I know how I would react--with anger, fear, and disbelief. It is wrong and dangerous to disrupt seniors in such a manner. Getting adjusted to a new environment is difficult at any age, but for seniors, the added stress is often enough to significantly diminish their health, leading to additional medical problems, and even premature death. This bill does not attempt to force nursing homes to accept Medicaid patients. Rather, it recognizes the fact that nursing homes should have the right to take only ``private pay'' patients if they so choose. That is the nature of the marketplace. This bill does require nursing homes to be honest about their policies concerning Medicaid and ensures that patients are not misled. This bill would require nursing homes to formally notify potential residents of their policy regarding Medicaid. Furthermore, under this legislation, if a nursing home converts to private pay only status, it must still honor its previous promise to current residents and accept their Medicaid payments. Senior citizens' advocacy groups strongly support this legislation. As noteworthy, the nursing home industry supports the bill. Calling it ``intelligent public policy,'' the American Health Care Association, which represents over 11,000 nursing homes, acknowledges the fact that no one should be lied to and kicked out of their homes. Nursing home officials realize, as we do, that this bill will not damage the economic viability of running a nursing home. It will simply give seniors the security of knowing they will not be suddenly forced to leave their homes when they run out of their own savings. I also want to say a bit about the last section of the bill. The final section is crucial because it requires the Secretary of HHS to examine Medicaid reimbursement rates and make sure they are reasonable. This work will then be compiled and submitted to Congress within five years after the bill's passage. Hopefully, this report will shed light on the Medicaid system's problems and initiate the process of correcting them. This legislation will provide some much needed security for our seniors. I hope it will also start the process of improving our Medicaid system. People on Medicaid are regularly denied services by nursing homes and hospitals because the reimbursement rates are unreasonably low. The Secretary's report, required by this bill, is a step in the right direction. In closing, I would like to thank Senator Graham for introducing this important legislation. I know that he sincerely shares my concern for the well-being of older Americans, as do all of the bill's cosponsors. We have a responsibility to make sure that Americans are treated fairly and humanely. This bill does just that. Let's take care of our parents, our grandparents, and ourselves by passing this important legislation.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, in 1989, Sister Dianna Ortiz was brutally abducted and raped in Guatemala where she was working as a missionary. She was victimized by the Guatemalan government and by her own government. From the day of the attack, the United States government has compounded her suffering. She was accused of fabricating her story. She has been treated like a criminal instead of as a victim. I am horrified by the reports of Sister Dianna's abduction and torture--and by our government's cruel response to her suffering, which continues today. I would like to read to my colleagues from a column written by Paul Ferris in the National Catholic Reporter: Her kidnaping and confinement included multiple gang rapes; repeated beatings; intimidation and interrogation; over 100 cigarette burns on her back; video taping her captivity as a form of blackmail; and lowering her in a pit where injured women, children and men writhed and moaned and the dead decayed under swarms of rats. Finally, her abductors held her hand and arms as she was physically coerced into stabbing a woman with a machete. That is why I am a cosponsor of Senator Dodd's amendment to declassify government documents that shed light on human rights abuses. Federal agencies would be required to identify, organize and declassify all records regarding American activities in Guatemala and Honduras after 1944. This would enable Sister Dianna and other victims of torture to learn the truth about their cases. We need to learn the truth, even if it is painful. By hiding behind a wall of secrecy, we are eroding the American people's confidence and trust in their government. We undermine our foreign policy and intelligence agencies--and the important work they do--if we cover-up their past actions. Some argue that the release of this information would ``compromise intelligence sources and methods.'' I disagree. If our sources were people who attacked American citizens, we need to know it. If our methods included complicity in torture, we need to know that too. Sister Dianna Ortiz and other victims of torture are seeking to rebuild their lives. The least that we can do is to help them to learn the truth about the tragic events that have changed their lives. Mr. President: Our policies must reflect our values. If our efforts to promote democracy and human rights around the world are to be successful, we must be honest and open about the tragic mistakes we have made in the past. I commend Senator Dodd for his leadership in calling for an honest and just accounting of America's history in Central America. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting his amendment. I ask unanimous consent that the Ferris column and an article from the National Catholic Reporter be printed in the Record at this time. Sister Dianna is Inspirational (By Paul Ferris) Members of the Baltimore archdiocese should know that Ursuline Sister Dianna Ortiz, since her ordeal, (reported in CR July 2) has devoted all her energy to the task of helping other torture survivors and has worked tirelessly for the cause of human rights for the people of Guatemala and other countries where torture exists. Sister Dianna has become a model of faith and courage to countless religious and laity whom she has inspired. Through the testimonies of Sister Dianna and members of Coalition Missing, a group she co-founded comprised of American citizens, Guatemalans living in the U.S. and their families who suffered torture and murder in Guatemala, the United States government felt compelled to investigate and publicly disclose CIA and other intelligence agency abuses in paying known human rights violators, referred to as ``dirty assets,'' to spy for the U.S. As a result of the Intelligence Oversight Board investigation, at least 100 dirty assets were removed from the CIA's payroll and CIA station chiefs were fired from their positions in Guatemala for not reporting the extent of the crimes committed against the people of Guatemala by these dirty assets. This Intelligence Oversight Board (IOB) report recommended a number of reforms in the way intelligence agencies operate in an effort to bring them into line with American democratic values. The IOB also exposed the ugly fact that, for at least nine years, torture was being taught at the notorious School of the Americas in Fort Benning, Ga. Though Sister Dianna's testimony has been continually challenged by the Guatemalan government, and by U.S. State Department and Justice Department officials, the Human Rights Commission of the Organization of American States, after a thorough seven-year investigation, found Sister Dianna to be an ``entirely credible witness,'' and has demanded the apprehension and punishment of her abductors and their co- conspirators, and restitution to Sister Dianna as much as possible. Sister Dianna has been able to accomplish all of this while at the same time trying to heal from her own physical and emotional torment associated with the after-effects of torture. Her kidnapping and confinement included: multiple gang-rapes; repeated beatings; intimidation and interrogation; over 100 cigarette burns on her back; video taping her captivity as a form of blackmail; and lowering her in a pit where injured women, children and men writhed and moaned and the dead decayed under swarms of rats. Finally, her abductors held her hands and arms as she was physically coerced into stabbing a woman with a machete. Among a whole host of violated personal, civil and religious rights cited by the Organization of American States against the government of Guatemala in the case of Sister Dianna, one that concerns every Catholic directly is the denial of her right to missionary activity. The attack on Sister Dianna, who was teaching Mayan children to read by using the Bible as a text, is an attack on all Catholics and Christians who, exercising their God-given and legal right to religious freedom, seek to spread the Gospel of Jesus through missionary activity in other lands.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to pay special tribute to a special lady who passed away Wednesday July 30, 1998 in Baltimore, Maryland. Virginia S. Baker was special to me, my family and the entire city of Baltimore. Virginia Baker started as a volunteer playground monitor in Baltimore, where she brought joy and fun to the city's streets and neighborhoods. But more importantly, she always kept an eagle eye out for the children with a broken heart or the ones from a broken home. Without notice she would find a way to bring those children into her circle of compassion, to let them know they always had a home at her recreation center. She had the special gift of mending children's hearts. She came to serve in the recreation departments of nine Baltimore Mayors and always made sure children had a safe place to play. When I was a City Councilwoman I became friendly with Virginia because she was always hustling the City Council for more money. She took me to the playgrounds and community events, got me to play hopscotch, and got me leapfrogging over the bureaucracy to ensure strong community programs for the city of Baltimore. Virginia was also friends with my dear mother. My mother volunteered for me for several years when I served on the Baltimore City Council. When my schedule wouldn't allow me to tour the city streets, Virginia would take Pearl, her assistant, and my mother out to visit the senior centers and community playgrounds. They would never forget to stop at Faidley's for a crabcake, Greektown for a few stuffed grape leaves, or countless other diners and snack shops where Baltimoreans gathered. Virginia Baker was just a special person. She had a God-given gift of compassion and caring and used it selflessly. Today, I have humbly tried to express my personal experience with Virginia and her gift. I also request the Baltimore Sun article on Virginia's life be printed in the record. It really expresses Virginia's effect on Baltimore and its citizens best. The article follows: [From the Baltimore Sun, July 31, 1998] City's Queen of Fun Dies at 76--Virginia Baker Ran Recreational Activities (By Rafael Alvarez) Baltimore's oldest kid has died at the age of 76. Virginia S. Baker--who began her career in fun and games as an East Baltimore playground monitor in 1940 and hopscotched her way up to City Hall in the silly-hat regime of William Donald Schaefer--died yesterday at St. Joseph Medical Center of complications from pneumonia. ``I've made a lot of kids happy,'' she said in a 1995 interview. ``That's what I get paid for.'' Never married, Miss Baker counted generations of Baltimore youngsters as her own special brood. Her secret? The girl who grew up as ``Queenie'' in her father's confectionary at Belnord Avenue and Monument Street--where she honed her child-like playfulness and steely resolve-- never stopped thinking like a kid. In a century that whittled an American child's idea of a good time down to pushing buttons on plastic gadgets, Miss Baker championed timeless fun: hog-calling contests, frog- jumping races, turtle derbies, sack races, beanbag tosses, peanut shucking and doll shows. ``And don't forget her annual Elvis salute,'' said Sue McCardell, Miss Baker's longtime assistant in the Department of Recreation and Parks. ``We'll keep going with all the things Virginia started.'' Bob Wall, a recreation programmer in Patterson Park--where the rec center is named in Miss Baker's honor--first met his mentor as an 11-year-old Little Leaguer in 1968. ``It was a Saturday and our game was rained out and we were walking past the rec center in our uniforms. I'd never been inside it before,'' Mr. Wall remembered. ``This boisterous lady yelled out to us: `You boys want to catch frogs for me today?'' Of course they did. And that was Mr. Wall's initiation into a world he unexpectedly found himself eulogizing yesterday when the city's 58th annual doll show--launched by Miss Baker at the start of her career--coincided with her death. ``We had a moment of silence,'' said Mr. Wall. ``And then we said the show's got to go on.'' The Virginia Baker show started in 1921. Her father was a Czech immigrant who changed the family name from Pecinka to Baker. Her mother, Hattie, was a Baltimorean of Czechoslovakian descent. ``Daddy mixed the syrup for the sodas and milkshakes and Mama cooked the chocolate for the sundaes,'' she said of the family store, now a carryout restaurant and liquor store protected by iron bars and bulletproof plastic. ``Boy, did this neighborhood smell good!'' Miss Baker had a voice so quintessentially Baltimore that Washington disc jockeys regularly put her on the radio just to let the nation's power brokers believe everything they'd ever heard about this city. On the sidewalks of her beloved hometown, young Virginia learned the tricks she would turn into a career. ``We played every game you can imagine out here,'' she said during a 1995 visit to the old store that was her home from infancy until her father died in 1954. Miss Baker rode scooters, shot marbles, made kites out of newspapers and sticks, played tag, spun tops, and made yo-yos sing and puppets dance. She collected matchbook covers and wagered hundreds of them at a time in card games of pitch, poker and pinochle down at Sprock's Garage on Lakewood Avenue. And when she got black eyes from roughhousing--Queenie was a bruiser, she freely admitted--the local butcher put beef on them to keep down the swelling. As a youngster, Miss Baker became a volunteer at the old Patterson Park recreation center. After graduating from Eastern High School in 1940, she made play her work, soon becoming director of recreation for the park. From that time, she served nine Baltimore mayors, from Howard W. Jackson to Kurt L. Schmoke. She became best known during the 15-year tenure of Mr. Schaefer, who installed her at City Hall as perhaps the only civil servant in America in charge of an office called Adventures in Fun. Miss Baker turned City Hall Plaza into a staging area for endless contests--marbles, pogo sticks, chess, checkers, Hula-Hoops, yo-yos, roller skates, bicycles, kites and tops. She invented the Fun Wagon, a small trailer with a basketball hoop on back and stuffed with toys. Five of them toured the city. She started the Kid Swap Shop, where children traded toys, an event copied across the nation because of Miss Baker's knack for publicity. ``She was a great old girl,'' Mr. Schaefer said yesterday. ``She initiated all sorts of hokey things and everybody loved them. I hog-called one year. I didn't have my own frog for the jumping contest, but she gave me one. He didn't win. But Virginia always had young people around her. She made them work hard and feel good.'' For six decades, her motto never changed: ``A kid is still a kid.'' Miss Baker lived at the Marylander Apartments from 1954 until a stroke in 1992. She did not officially retire until 1995. She resided in recent years at a Towson nursing home and is survived by several nieces and nephews. Services will be held a 10 a.m. Saturday at Church of the Nativity, Cedarcroft and York roads. Donations may be made to the Virginia S. Baker Recreation Memorial Fund, c/o Friends of Patterson Park, 27 S. Patterson Park Ave., Baltimore 21231.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to support the Department of Defense's research in prostate cancer. I know that this program has no greater champion than the distinguished Chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Senator Stevens. Throughout my time in Congress, I have fought for women's health initiatives. Women's health is one of my highest priorities and it always will be. However, I also strongly support efforts to improve the health of men. One such effort that I believe deserves our attention is prostate cancer research. In my home state of Maryland alone, 3,500 men receive the ominous diagnosis of prostate cancer each year. Nationwide, the number soars to over 200,000. Even more frightening, 42,000 American men lose their lives to this ruthless killer annually. This means that every 15 minutes, 1 man somewhere in our country dies from prostate cancer, and during the same time span, 5 more men are newly diagnosed with the disease. I am very pleased that the frequency of prostate cancer screening has increased over the past five years. These efforts have led to an overall decrease in the prostate cancer death rate. The importance of early detection through regular screening cannot be overstated. When prostate cancer is detected early, survival rates are over 90%. But, when detected late, prostate cancer kills 70% of its victims. The increased emphasis on the use of current screening techniques has certainly been a step in the right direction. However, we can, and must, do better for the men of our country. How? Through improvement of diagnostic screening and imaging technology, we can make detection of prostate cancer easier and more efficient. We've done it before-- mammograms have made screening for breast cancer a much more reliable process. We must do the same for prostate cancer. Last year, Congress provided $40 million to the Department of Defense for prostate cancer research. Overall, $130 million in government- funded prostate cancer research was performed, compared with $650 million for breast cancer. Of course, we all recognize the importance of fighting breast cancer. It is a major threat to the women of our nation and the fight to find new and better prevention methods must continue. I think it is time we started fighting prostate cancer with the same tenacity. In this year's Defense Appropriations bill we have provided $40 million for prostate cancer research. In addition to funds for peer review prostate cancer research, we have provided funding to the Walter Reed Army Medical Center for research on prostate cancer diagnostic imaging. This research is extremely important, as it could pave the way to better, faster, and more reliable screening and diagnosis. One in every ten American men will develop prostate cancer at some point during his life. We need to target sufficient resources for research into the causes, treatment and cure of prostate cancer. I hope that when the Defense Appropriations bill is in Conference, we will increase funding for prostate cancer research. Increased funding is necessary to give our scientists and researchers the tools they need to combat this deadly disease. We are blessed with great medical scientists who are scattered across our country at universities, medical schools, and government research agencies. They are an incredible resource. I believe that we owe it to ourselves, to our children, and to the American people to ensure that these great men and women have the support they need to continue their efforts to bring the people of our nation a better, healthier tomorrow. DOD Impact Aid

Ms. MIKULSKI. I thank the chairman and ranking member for their courtesy and assistance in this important matter. supplemental impact aid program Mr. KEMPTHORNE, Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the Department of Defense's Supplemental Impact Aid Program. As chairman of the Military Personnel subcommittee of the authorization committee, I included $35 million in the FY99 Defense Authorization bill for this important program. As many of my colleagues already know, supplemental Impact Aid funding is focused specifically on school districts that are heavily impacted by large numbers of military connected students or the effects of base realignment and closures. The DoD funds are in addition to funds appropriated to the Department of Education for all federally impacted schools. The $35 million included in the FY99 Defense Authorization bill will be used to ensure that military impacted schools can maintain the same standards as other, non-impacted, school districts. Without these funds, these districts, quite frankly, would be hard pressed to provide adequate educational opportunities. Mr. President, I know many of my colleagues believe that education is, and should remain, a local and state issue. I wholeheartedly agree. If there is any role for the Federal Government in funding education, however, impact aid is it. Without a Federal presence, these impacted districts would be able to provide for a quality education for their students. Because of the military presence in the districts we are discussing today, however, educational resources are severely strained. We owe it to the families of the men and women who proudly serve our country, and the families who live near an installation, to provide adequate resources to offset the military presence. Originally, it was my intention to offer an amendment today that, if passed, would have set aside $35 million in this appropriation bill for DoD supplemental impact aid. After consultation with Chairman Stevens, I will not offer the amendment. Instead, Chairman Stevens has assured me this matter will be addressed in conference. I would like to ask the distinguished Chairman, if it is still his intention to do so?

Ms. MIKULSKI. I thank the Senator. In addition, does the distinguished chairman agree with me that this pilot program will help the Navy to develop safer, more efficient methods of disposing of unneeded vessels--and that this pilot program should not be delayed?

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I would like to engage the chairman and ranking member of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee in a colloquy. The Department of Defense appropriations bill provides funds for a Navy ship disposal pilot program. I would like to clarify the Senate's intent in creating this pilot program. I support the Navy's goal of disposing of these ships efficiently. However, by considering only short-term costs, the Navy has ignored the long term costs of worker death and injury and environmental degradation. For example, during the scrapping of the Coral Sea in Baltimore, there were many worker injuries and fires. We don't yet know the environmental damage caused by the improper disposal of asbestos. The ship is still in the Baltimore harbor, and it will now cost millions of dollars for the Navy to dispose of the ship properly. American taxpayers would have saved a lot if we had disposed of the ship correctly the first time. To prevent these problems, does the distinguished ranking member agree that it is the Senate's intent to encourage the Secretary of the Navy to give significant weight to the technical qualifications and past performance of the contractor in complying with federal, state and local laws and regulations for environmental and worker protection? In addition, do you agree that in making a best value determination in granting contracts, the Secretary should give a greater weight to technical and performance-related factors than to cost and price- related factors?

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, I want to thank Senators Snowe and Reid, for offering this important amendment today. I am proud to be a cosponsor of the Snowe amendment. I am also proud to be an original cosponsor of the Snowe-Reid bill on which this amendment is based. This amendment is about two things--it's about equity and it's about women's health. The Snowe amendment would help to narrow the gender gap for women in insurance plans. What it does it really is quite simple. It requires that any health plan for federal employees that covers prescription drugs must also cover prescription contraceptives. Federal Employee Health Benefit plans routinely cover prescription drugs. But they routinely discriminate against women by not including prescription contraceptives. In fact, 81% of the plans under FEHBP fail to cover all five of the leading types of contraceptives. Ten percent offer no coverage at all. Mr. President, I am a strong supporter of our federal employees. I am proud that so many of them call Maryland their home. 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 fighting to prevent unwise schemes to privatize important services our federal workforce provide, they can count on me. Today, I am fighting for equity in health insurance coverage for federal employee women. The failure of the majority of federal health plans to cover all forms of prescription contraceptions results in unfair physical and financial burdens for women. It forces women of reproductive age to spend 68% more for out-of-pocket health care costs than men. This amendment would help to correct that inequity. That is one reason why I so strongly support it. I also support the Snowe amendment because it will help to safeguard women's health. As a member of the Committee on Labor and Human Resources, I have worked hard for women's health. Whether it was establishing the Office of Women's Health Research at NIH, fighting for inclusion of women in clinical trials, or ensuring that women receive safe and accurate mammograms through the Mammography Quality Standards Act, I have fought to make sure that women's health needs are met. Contraception is a part of basic health care for women. This amendment will ensure that federally-employed women will have the tools they need to plan their families, to avoid unintended pregnancies and to reduce the need for abortion. Access to family planning is one of the most important issues facing women today. Family planning improves maternal and child health. We know that unwanted pregnancies are associated with lower birth weight babies and jeopardize maternal health. They also too often put a young woman's future academic and personal achievement in jeopardy. When the resources are available to help women make good, responsible choices about parenthood and their futures, we have no excuse for not making those tools available. I am proud that my own state of Maryland has been a leader in this area. Earlier this year, Maryland became the first state in the nation to require insurers that cover prescription drugs to also cover FDA- approved prescription contraceptives. Maryland has once again shown itself to be on the leading edge of progressive health care policy. Today, the Senate has an opportunity to take the first steps in following Maryland's example. We can adopt the Snowe amendment. We can ensure that women in the federal workforce have equitable access to prescription contraceptions. I hope we will adopt this amendment today. And I hope we will bring to the floor soon the Snowe-Reid bill to ensure that all insurance plans that cover prescription drugs include contraceptive drugs and devices in that coverage.

Ms. MIKULSKI. I thought there was going to be----

Ms. MIKULSKI. I misunderstood the parliamentary situation. The Senator from Colorado is correct. I ask unanimous consent that the Record show that had there been a recorded vote, I would have voted no.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment offered by Senator DeWine. The bill reported by the Senate Appropriations Committee would enable federal employees, whose health insurance is provided under the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan, to receive coverage for abortion services. The DeWine amendment would prohibit coverage for abortion, except in cases of life endangerment, rape or incest. It would continue a ban which has prevented federal employees from receiving a health care service which is widely available for private sector employees. I oppose this amendment for two reasons. First of all, it is an assault on the earned benefits of federal employees. Secondly, it is part of a continuing assault on women's reproductive rights and would endanger women's health. We have seen vote after vote designed to roll back the clock on women's reproductive rights. Since 1995, there have been over 81 votes in the House and Senate on abortion-related issues. It's clear that this unprecedented assault on a woman's right to decide for herself whether or not to have a child is continuing, as this amendment demonstrates. Well, I support the right to choose. And I support federal employees. And that is why I strenuously oppose this amendment. Let me speak first about our federal employees. Some 280,000 federal employees live in the State of Maryland. I am proud to represent them. They are the people who make sure that the Social Security checks go out on time. They make sure that our nation's veterans receive their disability checks. At NIH, they are doing vital research on finding cures and better treatments for diseases like cancer, Parkinson's and Alzheimers. There is no American whose life is not touched in some way by the hard work of a federal employee. They deserve our thanks and our support. Instead, federal employees have suffered one assault after another in recent years. They have faced tremendous employment insecurity, as government has downsized, and eliminated over 200,000 federal jobs. Their COLA's and their retirement benefits have been threatened. They have faced the indignity and economic hardship of three government shutdowns. Federal employees have been vilified as what is wrong with government, when they should be thanked and valued for the tremendous service they provide to our country and to all Americans. I view this amendment as yet another assault on these faithful public servants. It goes directly after the earned benefits of federal employees. Health insurance is part of the compensation package to which all federal employees are entitled. The costs of insurance coverage are shared by the federal government and the employee. I know that proponents of continuing the ban on abortion coverage for federal employees say that they are only trying to prevent taxpayer funding of abortion. But that is not what this debate is about. If we were to extend the logic of the argument of those who favor the ban, we would prohibit federal employees from obtaining abortions using their own paychecks. After all, those funds also come from the taxpayers. But no one is seriously suggesting that federal employees ought not to have the right to do whatever they want with their own paychecks. And we should not be placing unfair restrictions on the type of health insurance federal employees can purchase under the Federal Employee Health Benefit Plan. About 1.2 million women of reproductive age depend on the FEHBP for their medical care. We know that access to reproductive health services is essential to women's health. We know that restrictions that make it more difficult for women to obtain early abortions increase the likelihood that women will put their health at risk by being forced to continue a high-risk pregnancy. If we continue the ban on abortion services, and provide exemptions only in cases of life endangerment, rape or incest, the 1.2 million women of reproductive health age who depend on the FEHBP will not have access to abortion even when their health is seriously threatened. We will be replacing the informed judgement of medical care givers with that of politicians. Decisions on abortion should be made by the woman in close consultation with her physician. These decisions should be made on the basis of medical judgement, not on the basis of political judgements. Only a woman and her physician can weigh her unique circumstances and make the decision that is right for that particular woman's life and health. It is wrong for the Congress to try to issue a blanket prohibition on insuring a legal medical procedure with no allowance for the particular set of circumstances that an individual woman may face. I deeply believe that women's health will suffer if we do so. I believe it is time to quit attacking federal employees and their benefits. I believe we need to quit treating federal employees as second class citizens. I believe federal employees should be able to receive the same quality and range of health care services as their private sector counterparts. Because I believe in the right to choose and because I support federal employees, I urge my colleagues to join me in defeating the DeWine amendment.

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

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to support the Credit Union Membership Access Act of 1998. This legislation will clearly define who is eligible to join a credit union. It will also provide important safeguards and reforms to keep our credit unions strong and to protect our constituents who use credit unions. One of my priorities for Maryland is to maintain Maryland's robust economy. Credit unions offer an important alternative to consumers in the financial services market. Keeping financial services competitive and keeping fees down will help to keep Maryland's economy strong. I am pleased that the Senate is finally taking up this legislation almost four months after it was passed overwhelmingly by the House. I am pleased because I know how important credit unions are for Maryland and the Nation. In fact, I helped to start a credit union at a church in Baltimore. Credit unions are important because they provide good value and good service in a community setting. A setting where the person behind the counter knows your name not just your account number. In the current era of mega-mergers in the financial services industry, credit unions are needed more than ever. Credit unions are a part of our communities. I have heard from many of my constituents in Maryland about this legislation. They have written letters, sent e-mail, and visited my office, all to express their support for their credit unions. I have heard from Marylanders who are members of credit unions from the Allegany County Teachers Credit Union in LaVale to the Douglas Memorial Credit Union in Baltimore to the Choptank Electric Cooperative Credit Union in Denton. They love their credit unions because they know their credit unions deliver. I have also heard from members of the Maryland banking community about their concerns with this legislation. Although I can appreciate their reservations, I believe many of their concerns are addressed in this compromise legislation. However, on one significant point I disagree with them. Credit unions should not pay taxes because credit unions are non-profits. The credit union slogan is ``not for profit, not for charity, but for service.'' I applaud that slogan and I stand with the credit unions today. There are several provisions in this legislation that I feel deserve to be noted. Not only will this legislation allow small groups that share a common bond to join credit unions, but this legislation will improve credit unions by strengthening regulations to ensure safety and soundness of credit unions and to strengthen the credit union deposit insurance fund. I also want to praise the ``common sense'' reforms that are included in this legislation, such as the use of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles in credit union reports filed with the National Credit Union Administration, Independent Audits of Credit Unions with more than $500 million in assets, and restrictions on the compensation packages of senior managers in credit unions that convert to for-profit banks. Finally, Mr. President, I want to send my thanks to the 1.6 million credit union members in Maryland. I am proud of them and the work they do every day. I urge my colleagues to support this bill and to support their local credit unions.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. I also want to voice my sorrow and the sorrow of the people of Maryland following the tragic events on Friday, July 24. And I rise in tribute to the heroic acts of Officer Jacob ``J.J.'' Chestnut, from Ft. Washington in my home state of Maryland, and special agent John Gibson, of nearby Woodbridge, Virginia, who gave their lives to protect the U.S. Capitol and its residents, to protect this building that is the symbol of freedom and democracy the world over. No words can adequately express my pain and outrage at the senseless killings that took place at 3:40 on Friday. No words can adequately comfort those who were emotionally and physically injured, nor relieve the pain of the families who lost loved ones. No words can erase the horror of the Weston family upon learning that their son may have committed this horrific act. And no words can adequately express the sorrow that millions of Americans feel today about this assault on our nation's heritage and democratic institutions. However, words can be used to remember and applaud the lives and heroism of Officer Chestnut and Detective Gibson. And I want to add my voice to the call today to remember those brave men and commend all the Capitol Hill police officers who put their lives on the line to protect democracy. And I want to add my voice to the call to ensure that the People's House remains open to the people, while preserving the safety of those who work and visit this great institution. Many of my colleagues know how indispensable and brave the Capitol Hill Police Officers are, but many other Americans learned of these brave troops just on Friday. Let me tell you what I think many people didn't really know until Friday: what a Capitol Hill Police Officer does and what makes them so special. These men and women are some of the most unique officers in the country. First, they are excellent federal law-enforcement officials who protect members of Congress from crooks, terrorists, or anyone else who would want to harm us and they also protect all the people in the building, whether it's a foreign dignitary, like Mr. Mandela, or a girl-scout troop from Iowa. Second, they are also ``Officer Friendly''--welcoming people and answering questions and many have taken special language training to help visitors from around the world. Third, many are also trained for other possible emergencies: to provide basic paramedic help in the case of an ill tourist, or to provide basic fire-fighting and help evacuate buildings in the case of fires. These police are like our own ``Cops on the Beat.'' Many of the officers are assigned a primary beat, which means they get to know particular members and our hours and our staffs; the regular delivery people; and others. They know who are the usual folks coming in and can then detect anyone who is strange, or who is acting strange. So, just like thousands of towns across the country, Capitol Hill has its own community policemen. They have a beat, they get to know us, and we get to know them. And if you're on the beat, you get to know the officers on your beat. We talk about the Orioles. We talk about their families. There is always the proud dad. The one who's getting off early because his daughter is going to a prom and he's chaperoning. Or one who is the first in her family to get her college degree. They also get to know us. We talk to them about our own families. I know when my own mother was ill and we thought she needed surgery, they volunteered to organize a blood drive if I needed it. They told me that I never had to worry, that if I needed extra people to come to Baltimore, they would. They just said, ``Don't worry, Senator Barb, we'll be there for you.'' Finally, so many of the Capitol Hill Police Officers are my Maryland constituents, just like J.J. Chestnut. So, I'd hear if the fishing was good down in Southern Maryland, or if the traffic was congested. Officer Chestnut was from Ft. Washington in Prince Georges County. It's close to the Potomac River, and it is where a lot of our officers live. Where they can have a wonderful family life, fish in the Potomac, or, as I've learned about Officer Chestnut, tend a wonderful vegetable garden. Officer Chestnut was always one of the stars--trained as an MP in the military, he'd been with the Capitol Police for eighteen years and was known for having a unique touch with tourists and constituents. We were very proud of him and that he was even nominated at one time for Capitol Police Officer of the Year. And I know how proud we were of Detective Gibson as well. He was from just across the River in Virginia, and was also a star and a hero. From helping tourists to protecting dignitaries, Detective Gibson always made the safety of others his top priority. I know he was a true hero on Friday, when he stopped the gunman from entering further into the building. The Capitol Hill Police Officers are our hi-touch, hi-tech community police officers and we are very, very proud of them. And we are profoundly grieved at the passing of two of that force's brightest lights, Officer Chestnut and Detective Gibson. My heart and prayers go out to their families, as they cope with their overwhelming loss. And my heart goes out to the family of the suspect, Mr. Weston. From everything I've seen and heard, Mr. Weston was mentally ill. From interviews I've seen, the Weston family is a good family and his mom and dad are absolutely grief-stricken at the thought that their son could have done such a terrible, terrible act and our thoughts and prayers should be with them, as well today. Mr. President, I know the entire Senate joins me in saying that this act was a horror and that no family, no nation should have to endure the pain we feel today. I know that we will honor them tomorrow in a service befitting heroes because, Madam President, they were heroes. Giving their lives so that others might be safe is the ultimate act of heroism. We know that Officer Chestnut and Detective Gibson are heroes for today and all eternity. Madam President, I hope that as we respond, we are very careful to ensure that the public access continues to be granted here. We need to ensure that what they died for, which was defending not only the building, but what the building stands for, so that the public can always come see us doing our work while they so valiantly did their work. I thank the Chair and my colleague, the senior Senator, for yielding me this time. I yield the floor.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, today I join my good friend and colleague, Senator Harkin, in introducing a bill to allow for coverage of acupuncture services under Part B of Medicare and the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program (FEHBP). I am proud to be the lead cosponsor of this legislation. I like this bill for three reasons: it gives patients access to affordable, quality health care; it offers patients choice of treatment; and it lets patients decide what treatment works for them. Some years ago I had some very severe illnesses. Western medicine was of limited utility for me and I turned to acupuncture. Acupuncture helped me get well and has helped me stay well. Time after time, constituents have confirmed what I already know about acupuncture--it is an effective treatment for a number of conditions. Last November, the Western medical establishment formally endorsed what American consumers have been saying for a long time. The National Institutes of Health convened a federal panel of experts in medicine, anthropology, biostatistics, epidemiology and other scientific disciplines to discuss the validity of acupuncture as an effective treatment option. The panel concluded that there is clear evidence that acupuncture is an effective treatment for certain kinds of pain and nausea and may be effective for other conditions. Equally important, acupuncture has fewer side effects and is less invasive than many ``traditional'' medical practices. The panel decided that, given its good safety profile and the fact that it is often less expensive than conventional medicine, it's time to take acupuncture seriously. I think it's time that the federal government take it seriously, too. The time has come for Medicare and FEHBP to cover acupuncture for American patients who seek this treatment option. I urge the Senate to approve this legislation to allow American patients to choose this less invasive, less costly, and effective treatment option. I applaud Senator Harkin for taking the lead on this important effort.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. I want to speak on the bill itself regarding cyberporn and cybercrime.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Five minutes or less.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Thank you very much, Mr. President. Mr. President, I will not be speaking on the pending amendment. I will be speaking on the overall nature of the State-Justice-Commerce appropriations. I commend Senator Gregg and Senator Hollings for the outstanding job that they have done in bringing an excellent bill to the floor. Yesterday we talked about some of the things we thought were missing from the bill, and particularly what would affect the safety and well- being of children. We talked about gun locks. Mr. President, I am a supporter of gun locks. If we put locks on our cars to protect our automobiles, locks on our doors to protect our property, I think we should have locks on guns to protect our children. We worked our will yesterday. That didn't pass. But I will tell you, the Gregg-Hollings bill brings before us a real Justice Department commitment to protect our children. I would like to thank them for that. I would like to thank them for their efforts in fighting juvenile crime. I would like to thank them for bringing us legislation to prevent violence in our schools. But most of all, I am really grateful that they have put money in this budget to fight child pornography on the Internet. We need cops on the beat, and we need cops on the computers to be able to protect our communities and our children. Let me share with you a story. There was a little boy in Prince Georges County whose parents had bought him a computer where they thought it would be an opportunity for him to learn about the world and be ready for school each and every day. However, there was a sexual predator who treated that computer as if it were a virtual playground. And they stalked that little boy, and it ended in his death. But thanks to the response of the U.S. Congress--and I would like to particularly thank Senator Gregg for his cooperation and leadership on this--we have actually put money into the Federal budget for the FBI to establish a special headquarters in Maryland to fight cyber-kiddieporn on the Internet, with $10 million bringing 60 FBI folks into this, and 25 special agents. I have been there, and I have seen what they are doing to protect our children. You would love to see these FBI agents who are making use of the newest and latest technology to be able to intervene, intercept, and detect those people who sit in chat rooms coming after our children. I sat with those agents. I watched the pictures on the screen. I was repulsed. I was horrified not only at what I saw, but what others could be subjected to. Because of our prompt response, the program is actually already working. In the short time that this committee has put money in the Federal checkbook to fight cyberporn against children, there have been 400 search warrants executed, over 200 arrests, and we are well on our way to over an 85-percent conviction rate. In my home State of Maryland there have been 15 arrests, 15 indictments, and 12 convictions. That means that we will be able to protect our children. The average child molester has more than 70 victims throughout his lifetime. Because of the work we have done here to put cops on the beat through our community policing in concert with the computer, both in our streets and our neighborhoods to protect our children, children's lives have been saved. In Maryland alone 15 child molesters have been taken off the streets. That means that 1,000 Maryland children have been saved and rescued. This is just part of what we are doing to protect our children. I know through the work of this subcommittee, of which I am proud to be a Member, $210 million has been put into the Federal checkbook for a new safe schools initiative. We need to hire more security guards, improve coordination with local police, get the violent kids out of our schools, and while we are doing that, in addition to the policing that we are doing, I know that this committee has put in substantial money for prevention--not the type of prevention where we don't know what is going to be shown for it. This committee is a tough committee. We are going to go after the crooks and the criminals and the stalkers. But we know that, if we are going to have policing and punishment, we are going to do prevention, and we are going to do it by creative activity to fight and prevent gang violence--to be able to do structured, afterschool activity; working with faith-based organizations. Because of the work of this subcommittee, our streets and our schools will be safer because we put cops on the beat and cops on the computers. I thank the chairman for allowing me to speak. But most of all, I would like to thank the ranking member for this outstanding bill.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, I rise to support Senator Hollings' amendment. This amendment puts the Senate on record in support of Saving Social Security first. It says before we do anything with the budget surplus, whether that is cutting taxes or funding worthwhile programs, we must ensure the solvency of Social Security. This is a very important vote. It expresses our commitment to the Social Security system for the millions of Americans who currently rely on Social Security. It also sends a powerful message to the millions of Americans who have come to doubt that Social Security will be there for them when they retire. I support this amendment because I believe that promises made must be promises kept. We must be thoughtful and cautious when addressing the needs of a system that so many Americans count on, especially elderly women and disabled children. We need to ensure that we have the resources necessary to put Social Security on a sound footing, for both the short-term and the long-term. Now we are in the midst of a historic event: the first federal budget surplus in decades. We've gone from a record deficit of $290 billion in the last year of the Bush Administration to a projected surplus of $80 billion for fiscal year 1998. There is no end to the proposals on how to use this ``extra'' money. I believe that we should follow President Clinton's lead and not commit the surplus to any program until we first resolve the long-term solvency of the Social Security system. When you remove the Social Security Trust Fund from the budget calculation, there is no surplus and the budget isn't balanced. The Social Security Trust Fund is an important part of our current fiscal good fortune. We must continue to work to bring the budget into true balance without counting Social Security Trust Fund balances. In the past, I have voted to remove the Social Security Trust Fund from the federal budget calculation and I will continue to do so in the future. While Social Security is still in the overall budget calculation, any budget surplus should not be used to justify new spending initiatives. Our seniors, disabled, and survivors deserve better. We are in the early stages of a deliberative process to determine the best way to assure the solvency of Social Security. I am pleased that President Clinton started this initiative by putting Social Security solvency front and center in his State of the Union Address. Since then, various groups, both public and private, have brought forth a vast range of proposals. I am taking part in that debate and want to be an advocate for the original intention of the Social Security program: a safety net for our seniors and for the disabled. Let me say again that I believe that promises made must be promises kept. I want that to be a guiding principle for any plan to modify the Social Security program. I am pleased to support this amendment that reaffirms our commitment to Saving Social Security First.