Barbara Mikulski

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. I don't understand that. I appreciate the Senator's indepth knowledge of the Budget Committee, but if I am a Governor, say, in California or Florida where the bulk of the El Nino disasters have occurred, what are you saying that we should do to fund? You say it is under the caps and all this. If we follow your suggestion, do we or don't we have to find offsets for the $1.6 billion?

Ms. MIKULSKI. That would mean finding an offset.

Ms. MIKULSKI. To be clear, talking of baseline and living within caps, if we eliminate the emergency designation, fund the $1.6 billion, it means we will have to find $1.6 billion by taking money from some other account or some other agency or agencies; am I correct in that?

Ms. MIKULSKI. Do we or do we not have to use offsets?

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to support this amendment to the fiscal year 1998 emergency supplemental bill. But first, let me extend my deepest sympathies to those communities and families who have had to deal with the loss and anguish caused by the terrible natural disasters over the last 6 months. From the ice storms in New England that left thousands without power, to the devastating floods in California, and the deadly tornadoes in Florida. Across this country in these States and in others, we have seen the destruction and despair that nature can cause. I know all Marylanders join me in extending our thoughts and prayers to everyone impacted by the recent disasters. Mr. President, this amendment will provide $1.6 billion to the Federal Emergency Management Agency to meet its requirements for fiscal year 1998 and prior years. Mr. President, FEMA is the Government's ``911'' agency. It is crucial that FEMA have the resources necessary to provide the type of response that our communities so desperately need. I am pleased that we are finally providing this money as emergency money--off budget. As you know, the VA-HUD subcommittee is annually raided to provide funds for disasters in our emergency supplemental appropriations bill. Often, the result is that we have to make decisions about cutting critical programs at agencies like the VA, HUD, EPA, NASA or the National Science Foundation to provide funds for the much needed emergency recovery efforts. Mr. President, this amendment also provides $260 million for the HUD emergency community development block grant--CDBG--account. This money will be used to provide funding for several critical needs: For disaster recovery needs in communities that are not covered by FEMA, SBA or the Army Corps of Engineers. This money is designed to fill the gap for legitimate emergency needs. Mr. President, I am a strong advocate for fiscal prudence. I am also a strong believer in the notion that this is a Government ``of the people, by the people and for the people''. The emergency funds provided with this amendment is our way in Congress, in a clear way, of working for the people. When people are suffering, trying to rebuild lives, homes and communities, it is no time to be partisan. The citizens we serve deserve a swift, decisive and effective response. I am proud that we are working in a bi-partisan way with this amendment to provide the resources necessary to ensure that the agencies responsible can respond to the real needs of our people. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. We want to debate them tonight?

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I wish to speak on NATO enlargement and wish to consume such time as necessary.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, this is a truly historic occasion. Today the Senate begins debate on the ratification of NATO enlargement. By ratifying this treaty, we are building an undivided, peaceful, and democratic Europe for the new millennium. I stand here to support NATO enlargement because it will make Europe more stable and America more secure. It means that the new democracies of Central and Eastern Europe will share the burden of European security. It also means that future generations of Americans might not have to fight nor die for Europe. America has fought and won three wars in Europe: World War I, when an assassination in Yugoslavia led to years of bloodshed; World War II, the bloodiest war in history when thousands of Americans left factories and farms to fight on the battlefields of Europe; and we won the cold war, when Soviet expansionism forced us to prepare to defend Western Europe when the captive nations of Eastern Europe were forced behind the Iron Curtain. If NATO does not enlarge, the Iron Curtain will remain permanent and the unnatural division of Europe will live on longer than the Soviet empire did. As a Polish American, I and members of my family have been waiting years for this debate to occur. I know that the Polish people did not choose to live behind the Iron Curtain. They were forced there by the Yalta agreement, by Potsdam, and because they and the Baltic States and the other captive nations were sold out by the free world. My great grandmother had three pictures on her mantlepiece: One of Pope Pius XII, because we were Catholic and are Catholic, and that was her Pope; my uncle Joe, who was on the Baltimore City Police Department, and we were so proud of what he had achieved; and the other picture, of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, because of what he had done for working people. But after Yalta and Potsdam, my great grandmother turned the Roosevelt picture face down on her mantel and she let it stay there until the day she died because of what happened at Yalta and Potsdam. That is why many of us cannot forget the history of that region, the placing of a nation and the other nations, the captive nations, involuntarily under the servitude and boot heel of then the evil empire. But my support for NATO enlargement is not based on nostalgia, nor is it based on the past; it is based on the future, and it is support as an American. I support NATO enlargement because I believe that it will make America and Europe more stable and more secure. NATO enlargement means a future in which the newly free and democratic countries will take their rightful places as members of Europe. NATO played an important role in securing this freedom. It has been the most successful defense alliance in world history. It is an alliance that helped us win the cold war. It deterred war between the superpowers, and it has helped prevent confrontation between member states. But if NATO is to survive, it must adapt to meet the needs of the post-cold-war world or it will become irrelevant. NATO has evolved since it was created in 1949. We have enlarged NATO on three different occasions, and each new member strengthened NATO and increased security in Europe. Today, we are facing very different threats to security and stability in Europe. We have civil wars, as in Bosnia; we have hot spots caused by ethnic and regional tensions, as in Kosovo; we have international crime, drugs, and terrorism; and we have the very real threat of the spread of weapons of mass destruction. NATO must meet the needs of these new threats, and I believe it will do so by changing and expanding. Europe's new democracies will help us meet these challenges. The countries of Central and Eastern Europe want to help us address these new threats. How many times have we in the Senate discussed burdensharing in Europe? How often have we complained that European countries were not willing to pay their fair share for the European defense? Now we have countries that are asking to share the burden. They are asking to pledge their troops and equipment for the common defense. They are asking to share the burden of peacekeeping. In fact, they are doing it right now in Bosnia, where there are thousands of troops from Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic. Mr. President, Hungary is a base camp for our troops which enables them to be in Bosnia. These new nations have even committed to joining us in Iraq to help us deal with ending Iraq's chemical and biological weapons program, which is more than some of our allies. These countries are not asking for a handout; they are asking for a handshake, a handshake to welcome them into NATO. They are not asking for our protection; they are asking to be full partners in the new Europe and in the new world order. By transforming these countries into free-market democracies, they have earned this right. These new democracies will contribute to America's security by making NATO stronger. They are adding troops and equipment. They will provide additional strategic depth to NATO. They will also provide the will to fight for our values. Their history and geography make them passionate defenders of peace and democracy. They know what it means to be occupied and oppressed by tyrants. During the 19th century, Poland was partitioned among three countries. At the end of World War I, she had a very brief moment of democracy, and yet this is the nation that sent its own men to help fight in our war of revolution, went back to Poland and wrote the first parliamentary constitution on European continental soil, had an elected monarchy, and began to establish a parliament when many of the other countries had not even been unified. When we look at Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic, in the days after Yalta and Potsdam, they rose with gallantry in terms of their dissident movement. We know about Charter 77. We, of course, know about Solidarity, and we know the role that dissidents played. In fact, the three foreign ministers who came here each had been in prison and even had suffered public humiliation at being dissidents in their own country. What do they say when they come here and come to NATO? They say they will put our common values into action. They will join with us in defending national security and our Western values, whether it means peacekeeping in Europe or preventing the spread of weapons of mass destruction anywhere in the world. They are ready for us. I hope we are ready for them. Opponents of NATO have very valid concerns, and I would like to comment on just a few. First, opponents of enlargement point to the cost. They say that NATO enlargement has a cost, and they are right. The new NATO members must modernize their militaries and must make them compatible with the NATO systems. The new NATO members have committed to pay this price. There will also be a cost to the United States. Our funding of NATO's common budget will increase. NATO estimates that the total common budget will increase $1.5 billion over 10 years. The American share will be $400 million, or $80 million a year. That is a lot. But, Mr. President, what is the cost of not enlarging NATO? I believe the cost of not enlarging NATO will be far higher. What if we fail to enlarge NATO? What will be the cost to European security? What will be the cost to the new democracies of Eastern Europe? I can tell you, as a member of the Senate NATO observer group, I met recently with the foreign ministers of Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic, and I asked them these questions. The Polish Foreign Minister Bronislaw Geremek, a hero of the Solidarity movement, said Poland would feel abandoned by the West and that Poland would still pay to modernize their military. In fact, in the absence of belonging to NATO, they would spend even more of their own money. The Hungarian and Czech Foreign Ministers agree that they would have to spend more money for defense if they did not join NATO. Also, they would form their own military alliances, which would be very decidedly more anti-Russian than NATO. The other foreign ministers said that by refusing to enlarge NATO, it would give the hardliners in Russia a great victory. The antidemocratic forces in Russia would feel vindicated and proud and would say that they themselves stopped the expansion of NATO. What would be the long-range cost to America of failing to prepare NATO for the 21st century? The cost would be instability in Europe and the increased chance of being pulled into yet another conflict. The cost of preventive security is always less than the cost of war. I also will take a minute to discuss the benefits of enlargement and weigh them against the cost. The strategic benefits of enlargement are important. NATO enlargement will create a zone of peace and stability that includes Eastern Europe. It will include NATO's stabilizing influence to more of Europe and reduce the chance of aggression or conflict in Eastern Europe. Enlargement will bring peace and security for Eastern Europe just as it did for the West. There are economic benefits. Europe is America's largest trading partner, with $250 billion in a two-way trade each year. Our new NATO partners will increase trade opportunities. They are building vibrant free-market economies. NATO brings stability, and stability brings prosperity. We are creating a prosperity zone. In addition, there are benefits for democracy. The young military officers of new NATO members are learning from us, learning what it means to be part of a democratic military, to be under civilian control, to have a code of conduct, also to have transparent defense spending budgets, no secret police. They are also learning English. When they leave the military, they will bring these skills. They will bring a sense of democracy. They will bring great skills to the operation of their free market. It is clear these benefits of NATO enlargement far outweigh the cost. Let me conclude by saying this treaty is very important, and treaty ratification is one of our most fundamental duties. We are extending our Nation's commitment to the collective defense. We do not take this responsibility lightly. We are extending our Nation's commitment to collective defense, the so-called article 5. We do not take this responsibility lightly, and in the very best tradition of the Senate, we are addressing NATO enlargement as a national security issue, not as a political issue. I am delighted and proud to say that NATO enlargement has been a bipartisan process. I remember when we began this debate some years ago with the really wonderful leadership of Senator Hank Brown of Colorado. It has truly been supported by members of both parties. We have worked closely with the President and Secretary Albright, and the Senate has been consulted every step of the way. I am proud to support NATO enlargement. By ratifying this resolution, we are marking the end of the cold war and we are also marking the beginning of a new century. We want the new century to be rid of the repugnance of the old century. We are laying the groundwork for a new era of peace and stability. Mr. President, before I yield the floor, I note on the floor is a distinguished war hero, my colleague from the State of Arizona. I was not here yesterday to lend my wonderful tribute to him on the anniversary of his release from a prison camp. I extend my great respect to the senior Senator from Arizona. When I visited Vietnam, I saw where they had taken the Senator prisoner. Obviously, he is a guy who will never let himself be taken prisoner. It is an honor to serve with him in the Senate and to enjoy these kinds of debates and discussions. God bless. Godspeed. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise in support of final passage of S. 1173, the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act. I support this bill because of its strategic importance to Maryland's economy and the national economy. To put it simply Mr. President, Maryland will receive more dollars for highways under this bill than it does now. Under this legislation, Maryland can expect to receive almost $400 million per year for its highway system and roughly $100 million for its transit needs. That means better highways, byways, trains and buses for Marylanders. Maryland's interstate highways are among the busiest in the nation. Funding under this bill will help maintain our highways and help relieve the congestion that so many of our commuters face each day. Highways and transit systems are the arteries for our economy. This legislation will help increase the capacity of our highways and transit systems, and will promote economic growth and job creation. This bill also means more money for transit, to keep our buses, trains and subways in top form. For Maryland, this means that our MARC trains, the Baltimore Metro, as well as our rural and suburban bus systems such as Montgomery County's Ride-On system will continue to receive the help they need to buy new equipment and expand capacity. The ISTEA bill also maintains the important programs for our environment to reduce congestion and improve air quality. It funds the development and construction of a state of the art Maglev system. Maryland is one of the states that has a Maglev project on the drawing board and could receive federal assistance to build the nation's first Maglev system. A Maglev line between Baltimore and Washington would reduce commuting time to less than 20 minutes between the two cities. While I am pleased at the funding for highways, transit, environmental programs and Maglev, I am disappointed that this bill does not provide full federal funding for the replacement of the Woodrow Wilson Bridge. The bill provides $900 million to replace the Wilson Bridge. This is substantially higher than the $400 million that was proposed by the U.S. Department of Transportation. In my opinion, $900 million is a down payment. I am hopeful that funding and additional financing measures can be included as the legislation proceeds. Maryland and Virginia cannot shoulder a majority of the cost for replacement of the Wilson Bridge. It is the responsibility of the federal government, not the states, to construct a suitable alternative to the current bridge. It is my hope that this will be resolved in conference with the House. Despite my concerns over the Wilson Bridge, I believe this legislation will make major improvements to our nation's infrastructure, and Maryland's economy. That is why I support this legislation.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Safety of Imported Food Act of 1998.'' I am proud to be the sponsor of this important legislation to provide the American people with safer imported foods. This legislation is part of President Clinton's food safety initiative. Its purpose is to provide for improved safety of imported food consistent with U.S. food safety requirements. The bill expands FDA authority to ensure the safety of imported foods in two very important ways. It authorizes the Secretary to deny entry of imported food products if it is determined that the products do not meet the U.S. food safety requirements. It also authorizes the secretary to consider, in determining whether imported food products meet U.S. food safety requirements, a refusal to allow necessary inspections or testing. Our nation's food supply has gone global. Once our imported food consisted mainly of bulk staples. Now we import growing quantities of fresh fruits and vegetables, seafood, and many other foods. Thirty- eight percent of all fruit and 12% of all vegetables consumed in the U.S. are imported. Imported food entries doubled in the last 7 years and a 30% increase is expected by 2002. We have been put on alert by recent cases of food borne illness. Michigan school children were sickened by imported strawberries contaminated by Hepatitis A. There have been widespread reports of cyclospora from imported raspberries. Soft cheese from Europe has been found to be contaminated with listeria and salmonella. And radish seed sprouts from the Far East have been found infected with Ecoli 0157:H7. The impact of unsafe food is staggering. As many as 33 million people become ill each year from contaminated meat, poultry and produce. Over $3 billion are spent in hospitalization due to food related illness. Added to that are the losses in productivity. Now that our food supply has gone global, our food safety measures must go global as well. Current authority requires FDA to rely on inspection and testing at the border to ensure that safety standards are met. With the ever increasing quantities of imported foods, it is impossible for FDA to inspect more than a small percentage of shipments. Additionally, such inspections are often impractical, given the perishable nature of many of the imported foods. The FDA may also place more general restrictions on imports, but only after a problem has surfaced, often after a major outbreak of illness has occurred. Both of these types of measures address the problem of unsafe food reactively. The ``Safety of Imported Food Act'' places the emphasis on the underlying food system of control at the food source, a more preventive means of addressing food safety. It focuses on the conditions that cause problems rather than the problem once it has occurred. By allowing FDA to consider the food safety system in place, the bill provides the means by which FDA can use its limited resources more efficiently. There are several things this bill does not do. It does not shut our borders or immediately deny entry of imported food upon enactment. It does not require inspections or access without consent. In fact, it does not create any new inspection authority, either foreign or domestic. The bill is short, but what it will achieve is significant. It will provide FDA with authority to ensure that all imported foods meet the U.S. level of protection, consistent with rights and obligations under international trade agreements. It provides FDA with a more effective enforcement tool and the ability to use its resources more effectively. Under the bill, foreign producers may have an incentive to upgrade their food safety systems. Most importantly, the bill will provide the American public with greater assurance that imported foods meet the same safety standards as do foods produced in the U.S. I wish to commend President Clinton and Vice President Gore in making food safety a top priority. By strengthening the food supply both here and abroad, I believe we make the world a safer place to live. I look forward to the Senate's support of this important legislation.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. I can enter my statement into the Record. I am not debating the merits, if my colleague will yield--but just to affirm the competency.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues for this arrangement. Mr. President, It is a great honor for me to support the nomination of Dr. Satcher. I enthusiastically support his nomination to be Surgeon General and Assistant Secretary of Health. This position, which serves as the nation's spokesperson on public health issues, has been vacant far too long. When I decide whether to support a nominee, I look at the nominee's competence and personal and professional integrity. Dr. Satcher is highly competent. Dr. Satcher has the greatest personal and professional integrity of any nominee who has come before our Committee in recent years. Dr. Satcher has a truly remarkable story. He's overcome substantial odds and hardships. He graduated from that great institution Morehouse College in Atlanta, Georgia, where Dr. Martin Luther King graduated and thousands of African-American men. At a time when there were few African-American physicians in our country, Dr. Satcher attended Case Western University in Cleveland, Ohio, where he received his medical degree. Dr. Satcher was the first African-American to earn an M.D. and a Ph.D. at Case Western. He was later a professor at Charles R. Drew Medical School in Los Angeles, California and returned to his alma mater, Morehouse, to become the head of the school of Medicine there. He served as president of Meharry Medical School in Nashville, Tennessee from 1982 to 1993 before becoming the director of the Centers for Disease Control. I have worked closely with Dr. Satcher, when he was the head of the Centers for Disease Control. He was enormously helpful and responsive with my state's psfesteria crisis. During his tenure at the Centers for Disease Control Dr. Satcher established himself as a very capable leader in the arena of public health. He aggressively took on the responsibilities of promoting health and preventing disease, injury and premature death. Whether it was increasing childhood immunization rates, expanding the breast and cervical cancer screening program, researching effective treatments for AIDS, or stressing preventive measures in pursuing good health, Dr. Satcher has done an excellent job. I admire his work on the issues of minority health, especially sickle cell anemia, which affects mostly African-Americans. I also admire Dr. Satcher's courage to look at the link between guns and the public health. Too many young African-American men are being killed by gun violence in our cities. I was also pleased with the way Dr. Satcher took on the issue of food safety. I am very concerned about recent incidents which have forced us to take a good look at the safety of our food supply. Dr. Satcher was on cue when he laid the groundwork for a new Early Warning System to detect and prevent food-borne illnesses. This initiative will help respond to outbreaks of food-borne illness earlier, and give us the data we need to prevent future outbreaks. The work Dr. Satcher has accomplished at CDC, along with his experience as a physician and scholar before that, directly prepare him for the role of a good surgeon general. As Surgeon General, Dr. Satcher will be America's advisor on public health issues and the national leader in developing public health strategies. I know Dr. Satcher will provide this country with a strong voice for public health. I wholeheartedly endorse this nominee. I urge my colleagues to support Dr. Satcher's nomination.

Ms. MIKULSKI. I will speak for less than 5 minutes.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, today I voted in support of renaming Washington National Airport as the Ronald Reagan National Airport. I am aware of the concerns about the need for local control over the airport. That's why I voted in favor of the Daschle Amendment that would have given the Washington Metropolitan Airports Authority the final say over renaming the airport. I have always been a strong supporter of local control over National Airport. However, in the end, I decided that the decision to rename National Airport should rise above party politics. My decision to support S. 1575 was a personal one. It's no secret that I didn't always agree with President Reagan's policies. As a matter of fact, when it came to politics, President Reagan and I disagreed quite often. However, Ronald Reagan and I shared one important thing: our respect for the Presidency. President Reagan devoted much of his life to serving the people of this country--first as the Governor of California, then as our President. For that reason, he deserves our respect. He has mine. No matter how different our political viewpoints were, I have always respected President Reagan and always will. In the twilight of his distinguished life, President Reagan and I have something else in common. Like the President, my father suffered from Alzheimer's disease. I know how devastating this illness is and the strength it requires from a family. My thoughts and prayers are with Mrs. Reagan and all of the President's family. One thing I learned during my father's illness was the importance of gestures. Renaming National Airport as the Ronald Reagan National Airport is a gesture that I support. Today, like many of my fellow Senators, I saluted President Reagan. While I would have preferred that the decision was made by the Airports Authority, I believe it is the end that matters, not the means. That is why I voted in favor of this bill. Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to celebrate the Senate passage of the Mammography Quality Standards Act. I am delighted that the Senate acted on Sunday, November 9 to unanimously approve this important legislation. The bill that the Senate has now passed reauthorizes the original legislation which passed in 1992 with bipartisan support. This year's bill is presented to the Senate with 55 cosponsors. 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 bringing facilities into compliance with the federal standards. 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 a few minor changes to the law to ensure the following: Patients and referring physicians must be advised of any mammography facility deficiency. Women are guaranteed the right to obtain an original of their mammogram. Finally, both state and local government agencies are permitted to have inspection authority. I like this law 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. This law needs to be reauthorized so that we don't go back to the old days when women's lives were in jeopardy. A strong inspection program under MQSA is extremely important to ensure the public that quality standards are being met. In a GAO report which evaluated the MQSA inspection program, GAO praised the program. They also recommended changes to further strengthen the program. FDA is in the process of implementing these recommendations. The FDA has proposed to direct its attention to conducting comprehensive inspections on those facilities where problems have been identified in the past, while decreasing the extensiveness of inspections at those facilities with excellent compliance records. I think it is important for the FDA to move promptly in this direction. The best way to protect the public health is for the FDA to focus its resources on the problem facilities. I want to make sure that women's health needs are met comprehensively. It is expected that 180,000 new cases of breast cancer will be diagnosed and about 44,000 women will die from the disease in 1997. 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 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 partisan 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 the cosponsors for making this happen. A special thanks to Senator Jeffords for working with me on making passage of this bill a reality. As Dean of the Democratic Women, I want to also thank the Dean of the Republican Women, Kay Bailey Hutchison, for always reaching out to work together on the issues that matter most to American women and their families. Still, Senate passage alone does not assure reauthorization. It is my hope that the strong show of bipartisan support for this bill here in the Senate will encourage the House of Representatives to promptly move forward on this bill. I hope they will follow our lead to ensure a quick reauthorization of MQSA. America's women are counting on it.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I am so happy this day has finally come, in which the U.S. Senate, and I believe the House, will pass a conference report to modernize the Food and Drug Administration and to bring it into a 21st century framework. I want to thank Senator Jeffords for the patient leadership he has provided in moving this bill, and a special thanks for the collegiality of his staff in working with mine. I also would like to acknowledge the special role that Senator Coats has played. I have enjoyed working with him these last 3 years. We will miss him here as he undertakes next year a new life in encouraging faith-based community groups to become more involved. I think in this bipartisan collegial exchange we have come up with an outstanding bill that is going to save lives, save jobs in the United States of America, give us a product to export around the world that is translingual, transcultural, but certainly helps our people and at the same time puts patients first. I want to particularly thank my own staff, Lynne Lawrence, for the active work she has done, and Roberta Haeberle and Kerry O'Toole in the excellent backup they have provided. Why do I like this bill? First of all, we reauthorize the Prescription Drug User Fee Act. What this will mean is we will be able to have 600 reviewers who will be able to work at the Food and Drug Administration making sure that we cut the review time, streamline the process, be able to move drugs, biologics and devices for clinical practice in a more expedited fashion, and at the same time be able to protect safety and efficacy. We do protect safety and efficacy while we move along at a quicker step with more people. A reauthorization of PDUFA gives us the right people and now we have the right legislative framework to do it. One of the important aspects of this legislation is the streamlining process, and yet at the same time maintaining safety and efficacy upon the approval process so more and more clinical things will be able to go into clinical practice. I am delighted that this day has finally arrived. It is a great day for patients and physicians. They will get new medical products in a more timely and efficient manner. It is a great day for American business. They won't have to go through unnecessary regulatory hoops to get these new products on the market. This legislation, carefully crafted between the House and Senate, represents a solid, bipartisan effort. We could not have reached this point without the incredible dedication and persistence of the chairman of the Labor Committee, Mr. Jeffords. I thank him for his heartfelt devotion to this bill, and for never giving up. I also thank his staff, Jay Hawkins, Sean Donohue, and Mark Powden for all their hard work. Let me also acknowledge the tremendous contributions of our ranking member, Mr. Kennedy. There is no doubt this is a better bill because of his efforts. I also want to acknowledge the hard work of our counterparts in the House, the chairman of the Commerce Committee, Mr. Bliley and the ranking member, Mr. Dingell. Many thanks also go to the fine staff of the Commerce Committee for their excellent work. Mr. President, I have worked on FDA reform for a number of years. When I was a Member of the House of Representatives, we embarked, on a bipartisan basis, to ensure consumer protection and to prevent dumping drugs that did not meet our standards on Third World countries. Coming to the Senate, I joined with my colleague from Massachusetts, Mr. Kennedy, and the Senator from Utah, Mr. Hatch, in fashioning the Prescription Drug User Fee Act [PDUFA]. PDUFA has enabled FDA to hire more people to examine products that were being presented for evaluation and get them to patients more quickly. The leadership of Kennedy-Hatch on PDUFA has not only stood the test of time, it has shown that we can expedite the drug approval process while maintaining safety and efficacy. I am so pleased that this successful legislation will be reauthorized for 5 years. But while PDUFA has made a huge difference, it became clear PDUFA was not enough. More staff operating in an outdated regulatory framework, without a clear legislative framework, was deficient. That is when we began to consult with experts in public health, particularly those involved in drugs and biologics. While we were considering all this, the world of science was changing. We experienced a revolution in biology. We went from a smokestack economy to a cyberspace economy. We went from basic discoveries in science from the field of chemistry and physics to a whole new explosion in biology, in genetics and biologic materials. It became clear we needed an FDA with a new legislative framework and a new culture. This is when we began to put together what we called the sensible center on FDA reform. We worked with Republicans and Democrats alike, because we certainly never want to play politics with the lives of the American people. Senator Kassebaum chaired the committee during this initiative. We took important steps forward. I say to Senator Jeffords, you assumed that mantle, and you brought us to the point today where we will achieve final passage of FDA reform. I thank you for that. What will this legislation do? Why is it so important? It streamlines and updates the regulatory process for new products. It reauthorizes the highly successful Prescription Drug User Fee Act. And it creates an FDA that rewards significant science while protecting public health. It will mean that new lifesaving drugs and devices will get into clinical practice more quickly. It will enable us to produce products that we can sell around the world, and through this, save lives and generate jobs. FDA is known the world over as the gold standard for product approval. We want to maintain that high standard. At the same time, we want to make sure that FDA can enter the 21st century. This legislation gets us there. It sets up a new legislative and regulatory framework that reflects the latest scientific advancements. The framework continues FDA's strong mission to protect public health and safety. At the same time, it sets a new goal for FDA, enhancing public health by not impeding innovation or product availability through unnecessary redtape that only delays approval. There has been an urgency about reauthorizing PDUFA. Its authority expires at the end of September. PDUFA has enabled FDA to hire 600 new reviewers and cut review times from 29 to 17 months over the last 5 years. Acting now means that people who have been working on behalf of the American people can continue to do their jobs. We won't risk losing talented employees and slowing down the drug approval process. Delay would have hurt dedicated employees, but more importantly, it would have hurt patients. Patients benefit most from this legislation. Safe and effective new medicines will be getting to patients quicker. We're not only extending PDUFA; we're improving it. Currently, PDUFA only addresses the review phase of the approval process. Our legislation expands PDUFA to streamline the early drug development phase as well. Instead of a carload of paper--stacks and stacks of material--being deposited at the FDA's front door, companies will be able to make electronic submissions. This not only reduces paperwork, but actually provides a more agile way for scientific reviewers to get through the data. Updating the approval process for biotech is another critical component of this bill. Biotech is one of the fastest growing industries in our country. There are 143 biotech companies like that in my own State of Maryland. They are working on AIDS, Alzheimer's, breast and ovarian cancer, and other life-threatening infections such as whooping cough. The job of FDA is to make sure that safe and effective products get to patients. Our job as Members of Congress is to fund scientific research and to provide FDA the regulatory and legislative frameworks to evaluate new products and make them available to doctors and patients. This is why I fought so hard for this. This is exactly why I fought for this. My dear father died of Alzheimer's, and it did not matter that I was a U.S. Senator. I watched my father die one brain cell at a time, and it did not matter what my job was. My father was a modest man. He did not want a fancy tombstone or a lot of other things, but I vowed I would do all I can for research in this and to help other people along these lines. Every one of us has faced some type of tragedy in our lives where we looked to the American medical and pharmaceutical, biological, and device community to help us. When my mother had one of her last terrible heart attacks that was leading rapidly to a stroke--there was a new drug that is so sophisticated that it must be administered very quickly. You need informed consent because even though it is approved, it is so dramatic that it thins the blood almost to the hemophilia level. I gave that approval because my mother was not conscious enough to do it. Guess what? That new drug approved by FDA, developed in San Francisco, got my mother through her medical crisis with the hands-on care of the Sisters of Mercy in Baltimore at Mercy Hospital. Mother did not have a stroke because we could avoid the clotting that would have precipitated it. Thanks to the grace of God and the ingenuity of American medicine, we had my mother with us 100 more days in a way that she could function at home, have conversations with us and her grandchildren. Do you think I am not for FDA? You think I am not for safety? You think I am not for efficacy? You bet I am. And this is what this is all about. It is not a battle of wills. It is not a battle over this line item or that line item. It is really a battle to make sure that the American people have from their physicians and clinical practitioners the best devices and products to be able to save lives. That's why I'm so pleased that we were able to achieve a bipartisan bill. So, Mr. President, I thank you for the time. If I seem a little emotional about it, you bet I am. I love FDA. I am really proud they are in my State. I thank God for the ingenuity of the American medical community. And that is why I am so pleased we will be voting on the conference report today. All of us are happy that this bill will finally pass.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the nomination of Bill Lann Lee to be Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights at the Department of Justice. I'm here today because I believe that Bill Lann Lee should be favorably reported out of the Senate Judiciary Committee. He should have his day. He should have a vote on the floor of the Senate. I've heard of Bill Lann Lee for a number of years. I've heard about this exceptional person, who brings a great deal of legal competency, energy, and vitality to advocating for those who have been left out of the mainstream. Contrary to what my Republican colleagues have asserted, Mr. Lee has used the law for the benefit of all Americans. It is so obvious from his record that he loves the law and uses it as a tool to help those in our society who need help. I was troubled when I heard his nomination was being stalled in the Senate Judiciary Committee. Once again a capable person in the field of civil rights law, a person of color, was being stalled in the Senate Judiciary Committee. I feel so strongly about this nomination and about what Mr. Lee's advocacy has meant for not only people of color but for women, for the disabled, and those who are either overlooked or undermined by the law. I felt so strongly that I organized the Democratic women of the Senate to write a letter to Chairman Orrin Hatch asking to free Mr. Lee from the Senate Judiciary Committee. But because it is the Senate Judiciary Committee my letter used language far more judicious than that which is being used against Mr. Lee. My letter, which is signed by all the Democratic women Senators, urges favorable consideration of Mr. Lee's nomination. We bring to Chairman Hatch's attention that Mr. Lee has dedicated his entire career to enforcing civil rights laws. He has 23 years of professional experience ranging from cases dealing with employment discrimination, providing access to health care, helping children who have been victims of lead poisoning, to making public transportation accessible for the disabled, and then guess what, fighting for something called equal access to education. Isn't this exactly who we want to be heading up the Civil Rights Division at the Department of Justice--someone who has practiced mainstream civil rights law, who believes in opportunity for everyone, and who has pursued this under the law? We have sent this letter; I don't know what the response will be, but I will tell you once again it's the fall, so it must be the Senate Judiciary Committee. Once again, someone comes before the Senate Judiciary Committee with incredible legal competence, who is willing to serve the Nation and to come forth before the Senate Judiciary Committee only to once again face a humiliating experience. We don't want Bill Lann Lee to be the Anita Hill of 1997. I think it's outrageous that once again we have someone with a great background who is going to be stymied and humiliated. This is not what America is all about. We've heard about Mr. Lee's exceptional background. The hard work of his family, their willingness to fight for this country, and Mr. Lee's work to fight in the courtrooms to make sure the law works for everyone. It is not fair that after having an exemplary professional record, to be a person of judicial temperament, to bring these great qualities to this position, Mr. Lee has to face this. Now I don't think that the U.S. Senate should be a forum for attacking Chinese-Americans. I just don't think that's right. We have seen them attacked in hearings on campaign finance and now we hear them being attacked in the Senate Judiciary Committee. I will tell you when talking to the Asian Pacific- American constituents that I represent, they are concerned when their best and brightest come forward for an appointment to the Justice Department, he's being brushed aside and all the Republicans want to focus on is campaign finance. I think it is outrageous. Now let me tell you Bill Lann Lee has applied for a job at the Justice Department. He is not applying to be a member of a radical right wing foundation. He is applying for a job at the Justice Department. And this is what his qualifications are all about. If Mr. Lee were applying for a radical right wing foundation maybe the criteria the Senate Judiciary Committee is using would be appropriate, but it is not appropriate to use radical right wing foundation criteria for a nomination to the Justice Department. If the Republicans want to attack President Clinton, there's lots of ways to attack President Clinton. If they want to attack civil rights law then do it through the legislative process but do not attack a nominee who comes forth, who is willing to put his life aside and the practice that he's developed working with the NAACP, to serve this Nation. I don't know how many additional nominations President Clinton can bring to the Senate. One, because they are either stalled out or people are humiliated when they come forth, or two, there is going to be an increasing unwillingness to attract qualified nominees. I want Bill Lann Lee to know that I'm on his side and so are the Democratic women of the Senate. We would love to see him at the Civil Rights Division in the Department of Justice. Not because he would favor some but because he would fight for the women of this country, for the people of color in this country, for the people that need civil rights advanced within the Justice Department. And to the people of the Asian Pacific-American community I say not to lose heart. We're so proud of Bill Lann Lee. We're so proud of what you do for America, but we're not proud at all of the Senate Republican controlled Judiciary Committee. I ask to have printed in the Record a copy of the letter supporting Mr. Lee's nomination from the Democratic women of the Senate. I urge my colleagues on the Senate Judiciary Committee to favorably report Mr. Lee's nomination and let him have a vote in the full Senate. The letter follows: U.S. Senate, Washington, DC, November 4, 1997. Hon. Orrin G. Hatch, Chairman, Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Hatch: We are writing to urge you to favorably report the nomination of Bill Lann Lee to be Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights at the Department of Justice. We understand that the markup on this nomination is scheduled for Thursday, November 6 in the Senate Judiciary Committee. Mr. Lee has dedicated his entire career to enforcing our nation's civil rights laws. He has more than 20 years of experience in a wide-range of areas in civil rights law, including employment discrimination, access to health care, prevention of lead poisoning, public transportation equity, and equal access to education. The Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights must enforce our nation's civil rights laws for everyone. Mr. Lee is a problem-solver and consensus builder. His work has helped Americans regardless of age, race, and gender. He has enabled thousands of Americans to shatter the glass ceiling. Mr. Lee has practiced mainstream civil rights law. He does not believe in quotas, which are illegal. He believes in opportunity. To achieve this goal, he has pursued flexible and reasonable remedies that in each instance were approved by a court. Numerous civil rights groups, women's groups, and elected officials from both parties support Mr. Lee's nomination. The next Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights will have to address a number of potentially divisive issues. There is no doubt that Mr. Lee has the integrity, competence, and experience to lead this division. In addition, Mr. Lee has agreed to recuse himself from involvement with the California Proposition 209 case, if he is confirmed. This action is entirely appropriate and should help clear the way for his confirmation. We urge you to support his nomination and report it favorably. Sincerely, Barbara A. Mikulski, Barbara Boxer, Patty Murray, Mary L. Landrieu, Carol Moseley-Braun, Dianne Feinstein.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I am proud to join Senator Snowe in submitting the Enclaved People of Cyprus concurrent resolution. This legislation puts the Congress on record in support of human rights and freedom for all the people of Cyprus. In 1974 Turkish troops invaded Cyprus and divided the island. For 23 years, the people of Cyprus have lived under an immoral and illegal occupation. The enclaved people in the northern part of the island have suffered most. Their travel is restricted. They may not attend the school of their choice. Their access to their religious sites is restricted. They are often harassed and discriminated against. The United Nations and the European Union have documented these human rights abuses and have called on the Turkish Cypriots to respect the basic freedoms of the Greek-Cypriots and Maronites living in the northern part of the island. Our foreign policy must reflect our values. The legislation we are introducing calls for an end to the restrictions on the freedoms of the enclaved people in the occupied part of Cyprus. It states that Congress will remain active until the human rights and fundamental freedoms of the enclaved people of Cyprus are restored, respected and safeguarded. Mr. President, I am hopeful that this year we will bring peace to Cyprus. But our efforts to improve human rights on the island cannot wait. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, today, I rise to talk about an issue that is very important to me, very important to my constituents in Maryland and very important to the people of the United States of America. For the second Congress in a row, I am joining in a bipartisan effort with my friend and colleague, Senator Olympia Snowe, to end an unfair policy of the Social Security System. Senator Snowe and I are introducing the Social Security Family Protection Act. This bill addresses retirement security and family security. We want the middle class of this Nation to know that we are going to give help to those who practice self-help. What is it I am talking about? We have found that Social Security does not pay benefits for the last month of life. If a Social Security retiree dies on the 18th of the month or even on the 30th of the month, the surviving spouse or family members must send back the Social Security check for that month. I think that is an harsh and heartless rule. That individual worked for Social Security benefits, earned those benefits, and paid into the Social Security trust fund. The system should allow the surviving spouse or the estate of the family to use that Social Security check for the last month of life. This legislation has an urgency, Mr. President. When a loved one dies, there are expenses that the family must take care of. People have called my office in tears. Very often it is a son or a daughter that is grieving the death of a parent. They are clearing up the paperwork for their mom or dad, and there is the Social Security check. And they say, ``Senator, the check says for the month of May. Mom died on May 28. Why do we have to send the Social Security check back? We have bills to pay. We have utility coverage that we need to wrap up, mom's rent, or her mortgage, or health expenses. Why is Social Security telling me, `Send the check back or we're going to come and get you'?'' With all the problems in our country today, we ought to be going after drug dealers and tax dodgers, not honest people who have paid into Social Security, and not the surviving spouse or the family who have been left with the bills for the last month of their loved one's life. They are absolutely right when they call me and say that Social Security was supposed to be there for them. I've listened to my constituents and to the stories of their lives. What they say is this: ``Senator Mikulski, we don't want anything for free. But our family does want what our parents worked for. We do want what we feel we deserve and what has been paid for in the trust fund in our loved one's name. Please make sure that our family gets the Social Security check for the last month of our life.'' That is what our bill is going to do. That is why Senator Snowe and I are introducing the Family Social Security Protection Act. When we talk about retirement security, the most important part of that is income security. And the safety net for most Americans is Social Security. We know that as Senators we have to make sure that Social Security remains solvent, and we are working to do that. We also don't want to create an undue administrative burden at the Social Security Administration--a burden that might affect today's retirees. But it is absolutely crucial that we provide a Social Security check for the last month of life. How do we propose to do that? We have a very simple, straightforward way of dealing with this problem. Our legislation says that if you die before the 15th of the month, you will get a check for half the month. If you die after the 15th of the month, your surviving spouse or the family estate would get a check for the full month. We think this bill is fundamentally fair. Senator Snowe and I are old-fashioned in our belief in family values. We believe you honor your father and your mother. We believe that it is not only a good religious and moral principle, but it is good public policy as well. The way to honor your father and mother is to have a strong Social Security System and to make sure the system is fair in every way. That means fair for the retiree and fair for the spouse and family. That is why we support making sure that the surviving spouse or family can keep the Social Security check for the last month of life. Mr. President, we urge our colleagues to join us in this effort and support the Social Security Family Protection Act.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, today, I rise to talk about an issue that is very important to me, very important to my constituents in Maryland and very important to the people of the United States of America. For the second Congress in a row, I am joining in a bipartisan effort with my friend and colleague, Senator Olympia Snowe, to end an unfair policy of the Social Security System. Senator Snowe and I are introducing the Social Security Family Protection Act. This bill addresses retirement security and family security. We want the middle class of this Nation to know that we are going to give help to those who practice self-help. What is it I am talking about? We have found that Social Security does not pay benefits for the last month of life. If a Social Security retiree dies on the 18th of the month or even on the 30th of the month, the surviving spouse or family members must send back the Social Security check for that month. I think that is an harsh and heartless rule. That individual worked for Social Security benefits, earned those benefits, and paid into the Social Security trust fund. The system should allow the surviving spouse or the estate of the family to use that Social Security check for the last month of life. This legislation has an urgency, Mr. President. When a loved one dies, there are expenses that the family must take care of. People have called my office in tears. Very often it is a son or a daughter that is grieving the death of a parent. They are clearing up the paperwork for their mom or dad, and there is the Social Security check. And they say, ``Senator, the check says for the month of May. Mom died on May 28. Why do we have to send the Social Security check back? We have bills to pay. We have utility coverage that we need to wrap up, mom's rent, or her mortgage, or health expenses. Why is Social Security telling me, `Send the check back or we're going to come and get you'?'' With all the problems in our country today, we ought to be going after drug dealers and tax dodgers, not honest people who have paid into Social Security, and not the surviving spouse or the family who have been left with the bills for the last month of their loved one's life. They are absolutely right when they call me and say that Social Security was supposed to be there for them. I've listened to my constituents and to the stories of their lives. What they say is this: ``Senator Mikulski, we don't want anything for free. But our family does want what our parents worked for. We do want what we feel we deserve and what has been paid for in the trust fund in our loved one's name. Please make sure that our family gets the Social Security check for the last month of our life.'' That is what our bill is going to do. That is why Senator Snowe and I are introducing the Family Social Security Protection Act. When we talk about retirement security, the most important part of that is income security. And the safety net for most Americans is Social Security. We know that as Senators we have to make sure that Social Security remains solvent, and we are working to do that. We also don't want to create an undue administrative burden at the Social Security Administration--a burden that might affect today's retirees. But it is absolutely crucial that we provide a Social Security check for the last month of life. How do we propose to do that? We have a very simple, straightforward way of dealing with this problem. Our legislation says that if you die before the 15th of the month, you will get a check for half the month. If you die after the 15th of the month, your surviving spouse or the family estate would get a check for the full month. We think this bill is fundamentally fair. Senator Snowe and I are old-fashioned in our belief in family values. We believe you honor your father and your mother. We believe that it is not only a good religious and moral principle, but it is good public policy as well. The way to honor your father and mother is to have a strong Social Security System and to make sure the system is fair in every way. That means fair for the retiree and fair for the spouse and family. That is why we support making sure that the surviving spouse or family can keep the Social Security check for the last month of life. Mr. President, we urge our colleagues to join us in this effort and support the Social Security Family Protection Act.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to support a bill introduced by my colleagues Senators Kerry and Coats to protect workplace religious freedom. I have long championed the rights of individuals to freedom of religious observance and practice. I believe individual Christians, Jews, Muslims, and others should be able to honor their religious beliefs without fear of losing their jobs. For example, employees should be able to observe Good Friday, the Jewish Sabbath or wear clothing required by one's religion. I've met with many constituents who have expressed their concern to me that they have been discriminated against because of their religious practices. My State of Maryland already has many employers who are sensitive to the needs of religious accommodation. However, there is room for improvement. One Arab-American woman from my State told me she cannot wear her traditional Muslim garb at her place of employment. I know there are other stories like this which cut across all faiths. If an employee's religious practice does not cause an undue hardship on an employer, an employee should be given the freedom to observe or practice a religious custom. I am dismayed that many individuals are discriminated against in our society, because of their religious beliefs. Our country was founded on the premise that everyone has a right to religious freedom. We need to preserve this doctrine. Unfortunately, the courts have interpreted title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 very narrowly when it comes to religious practices. This bill would restore the basic tenet of religious freedom to thousands of individuals who have met with discrimination at the workplace. I urge my colleagues to support S. 1164, the Workplace Religious Freedom Restoration Act. I believe religious accommodation is a cherished right that we must protect.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise to talk about an issue that is very important to me, very important to my constituents in Maryland, and very important to government workers and retirees across the Nation. Today, I am introducing a bill to modify a harsh and heartless rule of government that is unfair and prevents current workers from enjoying the benefits of their hard work in their retirement. I want the middle class of this Nation to know that if you worked hard to become middle class you should stay middle class when you retire. Under current law, there is something called the pension offset law. This is a harsh and unfair policy. Let me tell you why. If you are a retired government worker, and you qualify for a spousal Social Security benefit based on your spouse's employment record, you may not receive what you qualify for. Because the pension offset law reduces or entirely eliminates a Social Security spousal benefit when the surviving spouse is eligible for a pension from a local, state, or federal government job that was not covered by Social Security. This policy only applies to government workers, not private sector workers. Let me give you an example of two women, Helen and her sister Phyllis. Helen is a retired Social Security benefits counselor who lives in Woodlawn, MD. Helen currently earns $600 a month from her Federal Government pension. She's also entitled to a $645 a month spousal benefit from Social Security based on her deceased husband's hard work as an auto mechanic. That's a combined monthly benefit of $1,245. Phyllis is a retired bank teller also in Woodlawn, MD. She currently earns a pension of $600 a month from the bank. Like Helen, Phyllis is also entitled to a $645 a month spousal benefit from Social Security based on her husband's employment. He was an auto mechanic, too. In fact, he worked at the same shop as Helen's husband. So, Phyllis is entitled to a total of $1,245 a month, the same as Helen. But, because of the pension offset law, Helen's spousal benefit is reduced by two-thirds of her government pension, or $400. So instead of $1,245 per month, she will only receive $845 per month. This reduction in benefits only happens to Helen because she worked for the government. Phyllis will receive her full benefits because her pension is a private sector pension. I don't think that's right, and that's why I'm introducing this legislation. The crucial thing about the Mikulski modification is that it guarantees a minimum benefit of $1,200. So, with the Mikulski modification to the pension offset, Helen is guaranteed at least $1,200 per month. Let me tell you how it works. Helen's spousal benefit will be reduced only by two-thirds of the amount her combined monthly benefit exceeds $1,200. In her case, the amount of the offset would be two thirds of $45, or $30. That's a big difference from $400, and I think people like our Federal workers, teachers, and our firefighters deserve that big difference. Why should earning a government pension penalize the surviving spouse? If a deceased spouse had a job covered by Social Security and paid into the Social Security system. That spouse expected his earned Social Security benefits would be there for his surviving spouse. Most working men believe this and many working women are counting on their spousal benefits. But because of this harsh and heartless policy the spousal benefits will not be there, your spouse will not benefit from your hard work, and, chances are, you won't find out about it until your loved one is gone and you really need the money. The Mikulski modification guarantees that the spouse will at least receive $1,200 in combined benefits. That Helen will receive the same amount as Phyllis. I'm introducing this legislation, because these survivors deserve better than the reduced monthly benefits that the pension offset currently allows. They deserve to be rewarded for their hard work, not penalized for it. Many workers affected by this offset policy are women, or clerical workers and bus drivers who are currently working and looking forward to a deserved retirement. These are people who worked hard as Federal employees, school teachers, or firefighters. Frankly, I would repeal this policy all together. But, I realize that budget considerations make that unlikely. As a compromise, I hope we can agree that retirees who work hard should not have this offset applied until their combined monthly benefit exceeds $1,200. In the few cases where retirees might have their benefits reduced by this policy change, my legislation will calculate their pension offset by the current method. I also have a provision in this legislation to index the minimum amount of $1,200 to inflation so retirees will see their minimum benefits increase as the cost of living increases. I believe that people who work hard and play by the rules should not be penalized by arcane, legislative technicalities. That's why I'm introducing this bill today. Representative William Jefferson of Louisiana has introduced similar legislation in the House. I look forward to working with him to modify the harsh pension offset rule. If the Federal Government is going to force government workers and retirees in Maryland and across the country to give up a portion of their spousal benefits, the retirees should at least receive a fair portion of their benefits. I want to urge my Senate colleagues to join me in this effort and support my legislation to modify the Government pension offset. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise to talk about an issue that is very important to me, very important to my constituents in Maryland, and very important to government workers and retirees across the Nation. Today, I am introducing a bill to modify a harsh and heartless rule of government that is unfair and prevents current workers from enjoying the benefits of their hard work in their retirement. I want the middle class of this Nation to know that if you worked hard to become middle class you should stay middle class when you retire. Under current law, there is something called the pension offset law. This is a harsh and unfair policy. Let me tell you why. If you are a retired government worker, and you qualify for a spousal Social Security benefit based on your spouse's employment record, you may not receive what you qualify for. Because the pension offset law reduces or entirely eliminates a Social Security spousal benefit when the surviving spouse is eligible for a pension from a local, state, or federal government job that was not covered by Social Security. This policy only applies to government workers, not private sector workers. Let me give you an example of two women, Helen and her sister Phyllis. Helen is a retired Social Security benefits counselor who lives in Woodlawn, MD. Helen currently earns $600 a month from her Federal Government pension. She's also entitled to a $645 a month spousal benefit from Social Security based on her deceased husband's hard work as an auto mechanic. That's a combined monthly benefit of $1,245. Phyllis is a retired bank teller also in Woodlawn, MD. She currently earns a pension of $600 a month from the bank. Like Helen, Phyllis is also entitled to a $645 a month spousal benefit from Social Security based on her husband's employment. He was an auto mechanic, too. In fact, he worked at the same shop as Helen's husband. So, Phyllis is entitled to a total of $1,245 a month, the same as Helen. But, because of the pension offset law, Helen's spousal benefit is reduced by two-thirds of her government pension, or $400. So instead of $1,245 per month, she will only receive $845 per month. This reduction in benefits only happens to Helen because she worked for the government. Phyllis will receive her full benefits because her pension is a private sector pension. I don't think that's right, and that's why I'm introducing this legislation. The crucial thing about the Mikulski modification is that it guarantees a minimum benefit of $1,200. So, with the Mikulski modification to the pension offset, Helen is guaranteed at least $1,200 per month. Let me tell you how it works. Helen's spousal benefit will be reduced only by two-thirds of the amount her combined monthly benefit exceeds $1,200. In her case, the amount of the offset would be two thirds of $45, or $30. That's a big difference from $400, and I think people like our Federal workers, teachers, and our firefighters deserve that big difference. Why should earning a government pension penalize the surviving spouse? If a deceased spouse had a job covered by Social Security and paid into the Social Security system. That spouse expected his earned Social Security benefits would be there for his surviving spouse. Most working men believe this and many working women are counting on their spousal benefits. But because of this harsh and heartless policy the spousal benefits will not be there, your spouse will not benefit from your hard work, and, chances are, you won't find out about it until your loved one is gone and you really need the money. The Mikulski modification guarantees that the spouse will at least receive $1,200 in combined benefits. That Helen will receive the same amount as Phyllis. I'm introducing this legislation, because these survivors deserve better than the reduced monthly benefits that the pension offset currently allows. They deserve to be rewarded for their hard work, not penalized for it. Many workers affected by this offset policy are women, or clerical workers and bus drivers who are currently working and looking forward to a deserved retirement. These are people who worked hard as Federal employees, school teachers, or firefighters. Frankly, I would repeal this policy all together. But, I realize that budget considerations make that unlikely. As a compromise, I hope we can agree that retirees who work hard should not have this offset applied until their combined monthly benefit exceeds $1,200. In the few cases where retirees might have their benefits reduced by this policy change, my legislation will calculate their pension offset by the current method. I also have a provision in this legislation to index the minimum amount of $1,200 to inflation so retirees will see their minimum benefits increase as the cost of living increases. I believe that people who work hard and play by the rules should not be penalized by arcane, legislative technicalities. That's why I'm introducing this bill today. Representative William Jefferson of Louisiana has introduced similar legislation in the House. I look forward to working with him to modify the harsh pension offset rule. If the Federal Government is going to force government workers and retirees in Maryland and across the country to give up a portion of their spousal benefits, the retirees should at least receive a fair portion of their benefits. I want to urge my Senate colleagues to join me in this effort and support my legislation to modify the Government pension offset. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. The PRESIDING OFFICER [Mr. Inhofe]. The Senator from Maryland.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, now that we have concluded our bill, I too want to express my appreciation to Senator Bond and his very able staff--I am sorry Sarah Horrigan is not with us, her able cooperation-- and, to my own staff, Andy Givens, David Bowers, and Stacy Closson. I wish all bills could move as quickly and as rigorously and thoroughly as ours did. I yield the floor.