Barbara Mikulski

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Is the Senator from Colorado going to speak extensively on this amendment because the Senator from Florida had an amendment. You might recall, I say to the Senator, the Senator from Florida had spoken to us this morning.

Ms. MIKULSKI. The Senator from Minnesota I believe will be speaking for 45 minutes.

Ms. MIKULSKI. In other words, the Senator from Minnesota yields to the Senator from Florida and then the Senator from Colorado. I must say we really do thank the Senator from Minnesota for his cooperation in advocating veterans and advocating us finishing the bill. Does the Senator want to withdraw his unanimous-consent request?

Ms. MIKULSKI. Start over.

Ms. MIKULSKI. No objection.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, as the ranking member of the VA-HUD Committee, of which NASA is one of our key agencies, I thank the Senator from Ohio for his detailed speech about what NASA is doing, not only today, but what it will do tomorrow. I believe the Senator, by talking about the exciting projects that we have, many of which have originated from the work at the Johnson space station, in the Presiding Officer's home State, the work in the area of health care. I visited these programs, know the merit they have, particularly in cancer research, tumor research, the issues outlined by the Senator from Ohio. Also, in 1992, NASA and NIH signed a joint memorandum of agreement on how they can work together to maximize the research being done by the space agency, along with NIH, on issues related particularly to cancer and to issues related to women's health. Issues like osteoporosis, the same kinds of problems that the astronauts face being in orbit, are what many face, particularly we women on Earth. We lose bone density. There has been a lot of joint effort and a lot of joint agreement. I think the Senator made a very valuable contribution and I thank him for his remarks. Sometimes for those of us who seek funding for NASA, it sounds self- serving, that we would tout, pull out an item or two. But when Senator John Glenn, an astronaut-Senator, speaks to it, I think the whole world listens. We thank him for his comments and his contribution to the Senate and to the American space program. I yield the floor.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, thank you very much. Privilege Of The Floor

Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, I now ask unanimous consent that during the consideration of S. 1034, the VA-HUD appropriations bill for fiscal year 1998, Ms. Stacy Closson, a detailee from DOD serving with the VA-HUD Subcommittee be provided floor privileges during the consideration of this bill.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Thank you, very much, Madam President. Today, I rise to join my distinguished colleague, the Senator from Missouri, to offer for floor debate and the consideration of the Senate the fiscal year 1998 appropriations bill for VA-HUD and independent agencies. This is an extraordinary bill because it deals with 7 Cabinet-level Government agencies and 18 other agencies that are important to the United States of America. These agencies range from Veterans, Housing, the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Space Agency, the National Science Foundation, Federal Emergency Management Agency, as well as the National Corporation for Volunteer Services, and we go on to Selective Service. People would be surprised to know that Arlington Cemetery is also funded in this bill. We stand sentry for consumers through the consumer product safety legislation. Those little pamphlets that taxpayers send for from Pueblo, CO, a big chunk of their funding comes out of this bill. So when we say veterans, housing, and independent agencies, this is probably, along with defense and the Labor-HHS bill, the most complex bill. Therefore, when we bring it to the Senate, sometimes our funding sounds like it is significant in terms of its dollar amount, but we really have worked very hard to get a dollar's worth of services for a dollar of taxes. The bill before the Senate is a $90 billion bill that includes $21.5 billion in mandatory spending which is primarily directed at veterans, and appropriates a total of $69.4 billion in discretionary budget authority. This is almost equal to the House in total funding, and more than $90 million below what President Clinton requested. However, the allocation for the Senate, which is the total amount given to us to spend, was almost $800 million below that of the House. Given the tight allocation, the chairman and I did the best we could to balance the needs of diverse groups of agencies funded within this subcommittee. With a better allocation, we could have funded all the agencies in this bill at higher levels. But we were ready to make tough choices and set priorities. On the majority of the aspects of the bill, I want to say unequivocally I support Senator Bond, the chairman of the committee, the Republican, on his priorities. There are some yellow flashing lights related to President Clinton's agenda that I will address in my remarks, but we are very much in sync and in alignment with what we want to do. I am particularly grateful for Chairman Bond's efforts reflected in this bill to continue many of the initiatives voted by the subcommittee over the past several years when I chaired it. As I said, I wholeheartedly agree with Chairman Bond's attempt also to avoid controversial riders this year and to keep out significant new legislative provisions not dealt with by this subcommittee. We have essentially said to Democrats and Republicans alike, don't play pin the tail on the donkey with this bill, adding controversial riders, and also, if you have new ideas for new initiatives, hey, why not try the authorizing committee for a change and see if we can move legislation that way. There are several things, though, that I really approve of in this bill. Both Chairman Bond and myself consider veterans to be a very high priority and veterans medical programs to be of special priority. This bill restores $300 million worth of cuts assumed in the budget agreement and puts them in veterans medical care and also in veterans medical research. Veterans funding remains a key concern of mine, and I will continue to fight to ensure that promises made are promises kept. I will also stand sentry to make sure that the Veterans Administration meets its projections in third-party insurance collections that are designed to help increase medical care spending. This bill also restores several cuts made to key programs at the Department of Housing and Urban Development. This was restored as the community development block grant funds so important to mayors and local communities, the project HOME, public housing and homeless assistance. Also, something I am particularly pleased to work with Chairman Bond on is we restored the cuts in elderly and disabled housing. When the budget agreement was first proposed, there was a suggestion that this particular area of funding receive $400 million. Senator Bond and I agreed we should fully fund it at last year's level and have $839 million that will go to being able to build housing for the elderly and for the disabled. The Senate bill has also added a modest increase to the Hope 6 revitalization program. This is a program that is very important because, hopefully, it ends public housing in the way we know it and says that public housing should not be a way of life, but be a way to a better life. Always where there is compelling need there is often sometimes sloppy administration. I concur with the report language offered by Senator Bond directing the Government Accounting Office to continue its analysis of Hope 6 to make sure that the effectiveness of the program is being monitored to ensure that for those receiving Hope 6 benefits in public housing, which was designed to community build and have work force readiness, the GAO will make sure that the work force readiness aspect is really doing what it should. Then we move on to our very important science programs as well as Federal Emergency Management. Thanks to the efforts of this subcommittee, the national space agency, the National Science Foundation, and Federal Emergency Management are all funded at the President's request level. We, on this side of the aisle, say thank you, thank you to Chairman Bond for working with us to make sure that core science programs are funded and Federal Emergency Management continues to be fit for duty should other people around the United States have to dial 911. I think all of us who watched Hurricane Danny were glad it was downgraded to a tropical storm, but when it hits Alabama with over 25 inches of rain in a very short time and you see people carrying out their children and their most precious possessions, we know why FEMA exists. Despite the tight allocation, I am pleased we were able to meet the President's request for these key agencies while protecting the funding in veterans medical care, disaster relief, critical science and space. I think America has to be incredibly thrilled with the breakthroughs NASA has made as Sojourner continues to roll across Mars. Scientific developments, such as the Sojourner, the Hubble telescope, Mission to Planet Earth, are truly special American projects, and show that we are No. 1 in space. FEMA is another agency that is doing a very good job, and this critical agency has shown steady improvement in recent years in responding to America's natural disasters. Madam President, I also want to call to your attention the fact that the administration does have some serious concerns with the reductions in this bill. I call these yellow flashing lights. Given the tight allocation, I understand that not all the programs could be funded at the President's request. Measures had to be taken, protective measures, for several key programs. That meant that other important initiatives could not be adequately addressed. So, in looking out for veterans' medical care, that meant fulfilling the President's full request for an $850 million increase to the EPA budget simply was not possible. As a result, the request for a 50-percent increase in the Superfund was not yet met. As you know, the President is a strong advocate of the Superfund. This will be a key issue to resolve during the upcoming weeks while the House and Senate are in conference on this bill. I really encourage the authorizers, while we are in conference, to try to pass the authorizing bill so that the authorizing bill could match, perhaps, what we were able to do in conference. Another yellow flashing light is the $146 million reduction to the President's request for the Corporation for National and Community Service. This request was to be used for the President's program called the America Reads Challenge. It is to be a national literacy campaign to ensure that every child can read, and read well and independently, by the third grade. The budget agreement called for funding in this program. However, it was not funded in either the House or the Senate bill. Illiteracy in this country is of great concern for all, and all ages, but, really, if we could make sure every child was immunized by the time they were 2, could read by the time they were in third grade, had access and knew how to use a computer by the time they were 12, we would do a lot about empowering our children. I support the restoration of that funding. A third flashing light to the administration is the elimination of funding for the community development financial institutions, something called CDFI, another program that was protected in the budget agreement, which helps to spur business activity and traditionally underserved communities, and is particularly focused on microenterprise endeavors that enable women of modest means to be able to move in terms of economic development in business. The House bill funded this at $125 million, and we hope this will be a restoration where there is some type of agreement. This is a high priority of mine during the conference. It will be my intent to offer an amendment or perhaps work with Senator Bond as we go through the other amendments to see if we could not address the issues of empowerment zones, America Reads, and Federal emergency mitigation efforts to see if we could find some funds to be able to have a placemarker in this budget going to conference for these very important programs. I do appreciate Chairman Bond's willingness to fund the EPA brownfields request and the inclusion of the report language allowing the HUD-CDBG money to be used for brownfield activities. A concern for the administration is the absence of the request of increase for the HUD brownfields program. The brownfields initiative can play a critical role in restoring urban areas. In my own home State of Maryland, in the Baltimore metropolitan area alone, we estimate that there are over 3,000 acres of brownfields in and around our port area which, if we could clean them up, would offer kind of a second version of an empowerment zoning. Madam President, given these concerns, I will be offering an amendment, as I said, that will restore funding, some funding, modest funding, for the America Reads Program under the Corporation for National Service, empowerment zoning in the HUD budget and predisaster mitigation for FEMA. I will in no way make an effort to restore full funding for those programs, because it just is not fair. But I will be looking to see what we could do to have a placemarker to go to conference. Madam President, there is mixed news in this bill for the administration. Like you, I am interested in producing a final bill that is agreeable and signable. I believe the bill that we have produced is a very good start. In fact, it is an excellent start to ensuring funding for many of this Nation's vital programs. I will work with my colleagues now on the floor to see how we could accommodate them. I will work with my chairman during conference and continue to try to address the administration's concern. In closing, I want to thank Senator Bond again for his hard work and his willingness to listen to my side of the aisle's concerns and to honor many of the requests made by President Bill Clinton. I am pleased, when it came to funding like NASA, like the National Science Foundation, the funding for Federal Emergency Management, it knew no party, because when we are up there on Sojourner, when we might have to be part of the rescue operation for Mir, when we are doing so many very important things at the National Science Foundation and helping rescue Americans who have been hit by national disasters, this is not about party. I commend the cooperative nature in which this bill has been crafted. I believe we have produced a bill that can be signed into law with some of the appropriate amendments in conference consideration. Madam President, before I yield the floor, I say to all of my colleagues from my side of the aisle, if you have amendments, please let us know them. We know that between now and 5:15 when we start voting on Treasury, Post Office, it would be enormously useful to Senator Bond and myself to know what any amendments are so that we could either work with you to accommodate you or be able to set the stage on how we can proceed with this bill. I believe it is Senator Bond's intention, and I will do my best to cooperate with him, that we will conclude this bill tomorrow at the earliest possible time. Having said that, I look forward to the debate, as always, on this bill and, as always, have enjoyed working with my colleague, Senator Bond. I yield the floor.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, I, too, am looking forward to the statement on the space program of our distinguished colleague from Ohio. I have been advised by his staff that the distinguished Senator from Ohio is in a meeting and hopes to join us perhaps around 4. In the meantime, if any other Senators have statements they wish to make, they could do that, and this might be a good time to offer an amendment. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, I have discussed the floor situation with the Democratic leadership. They are currently doing a hotline asking that all Democrat Senators who have amendments to please apprise us of them this evening so that we will be able to report to the chairman tomorrow and to our leadership what those amendments are. Upon the completion tomorrow on Treasury, postal, it would be my hope that anyone who must offer amendments on NASA--and some amendments have been traditionally offered on NASA--that they be on the floor so we can do this before the party conference. I know there are many Senators who have given a great deal of thought on how to improve these programs. We will be anxious to hear about their amendments. So, Madam President, we are doing our best to make progress on this particular bill, and moving this bill forward. We will be able to report to you tomorrow morning. I yield the floor. Mr. GRAMS addressed the Chair.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I am proud to cosponsor the Lautenberg amendment to cut foreign aid to any country that violates U.N. sanctions against Libya. You cannot seek to undermine important policies of the United States and expect to receive economic assistance. The international community imposed sanctions on Libya because of their failure to extradite their intelligence agents who were indicted for the bombing of Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland. This one act of terrorism cost the lives of 270 people. Libya provides sanctuary to their murderers. Yet Egypt--which receives billions of dollars of United States aid--has allowed Libyan airlines to land on their soil. They also attempted to weaken U.N. sanctions and even to build a free trade zone with Libya. The families of those murdered on Pan Am 103 need no reminder of why we have sanctions on Libya. They live with this tragedy every day of their lives. Seven people from Maryland died in this tragedy. They were Michael Bernstein, Jay Kingham, Karen Noonan, Ann Lindsey Otenasek, Lousie Rogers, Miriam Wolf, and Jordy Williams. They were so young. They were college students, a young Army lieutenant, a businessman and a lawyer. They were sons, daughters, and fathers. We swore that we would never forget them. We would improve airline safety, we would fight terrorism--and most importantly, we would seek justice. One of the victims, Michael Bernstein, was a renowned Nazi hunter working for the Justice Department. Throughout his life, he sought justice for the victims of the Holocaust. How tragic that his family has not yet had justice. His wife continues to seek justice. I ask unanimous consent that Stephenie Bernstein's letter to the Egyptian Ambassador be printed in the Record.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, the Senate chose to reinstate the earmark for aid to Egypt. They cannot assume that we will continue to do this unless they become partners in the fight against terrorism. China MFN Renewal and Proliferation Violations

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I would like to engage in a colloquy with the distinguished ranking member of the Foreign Operations Subcommittee. It is my understanding that the foreign operations bill for fiscal year 1998, S. 955, includes an increase of $30 million to combat infectious diseases such as TB, malaria, dengue fever, and the ebola virus. It has been brought to my attention that the Gorgas Memorial Institute is developing an innovative regional TB control initiative designed to address major issues in reducing the global TB epidemic through training and new approaches to disease control. I believe the work done at the institute would fit well with the priorities outlined by the committee. Would the ranking member join me in urging the Agency for International Development to provide funding for this initiative?

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate 14 individuals who recently completed the American Association of Health Plans [AAHP] Minority Management Development Program [MMDP]. This intensive year-long fellowship program prepares minority managers for middle management positions in network-based health plans. The 1997 graduates are: Cheryl Bitoun, M.H.A.; Michelle Browne, M.P.A., M.S.W.; Kendrick Carpenter; Janice Cartera; Bernadette Cooper, M.H.A.; Lisa Lawrence Eggleston, R.N., M.H.A.; Juli Harkins, M.S.H.A.; Lisa Little Axe; Elizabeth Mendoza, M.B.A., M.H.A.; and Erik Thorne, M.P.H. The Minority Management Development Program was created in 1994 when AAHP and the health plan community recognized the need to develop diverse management teams--especially in light of the growing number of minorities joining health plans. Since the MMDP's inception in 1992, 42 fellows of diverse ethnic backgrounds have participated in this innovative management training program and have distinguished themselves as leaders throughout the health care community. The MMDP is a comprehensive program designed to provide managerial training, work experience, and knowledge of health plans through focused didactic and practical interactive training opportunities. The program's varied curriculum is focused on key health care related management tools, including quality management and accreditation, marketing, delivery systems, financial management, and operations. Fellows in the 1997 class trained at health plans in Washington, DC, and in several neighboring counties in Maryland. This year's training sites were Kaiser Foundation Health Plan/Mid-Atlantic States, Rockville, MD; NYLCare Health Plans, Greenbelt, MD; Blue Cross & Blue Shield of the National Capital Area and Chartered Health Plan in Washington, DC, and Total Health Care, Inc. and Prudential Health Care Plan in Baltimore, MD. Next year, the program will expand to provide training at additional sites in four southwestern States: Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, and California. AAHP is the national association representing health maintenance organizations [HMO's], preferred provider organizations [PPO's], and other similar health plans. Together, these health plans provide care for more than 140 million Americans. I hope that this Congress will recognize that programs such as the Minority Management Development Program are of vital importance and that they meet a critical need in the education and training of America's health professionals.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Thank you very much. On behalf of Mr. Wellstone and myself, we have an amendment at the desk that will strike the committee action and restore something called the Boren amendment. The Boren amendment was passed and signed by President Reagan in 1981 to ensure adequate access to health care services for Medicaid beneficiaries. The Boren amendment simply stated that payment rates for hospitals and nursing homes must be reasonable and adequate to meet the cost of operating the facilities. That is reimbursements by Medicaid. Now, under the committee action, we would take that away. We would give permission to States to further reduce payment rates to nursing homes at this time. This would have a devastating affect on quality care, and it would have a devastating affect on access to care for beneficiaries. The simple fact is that Medicaid payment rates to nursing homes does affect quality and our ability to meet the standards that are mandated for health and safety. Nursing homes have stopped taking Medicaid patients. Because of that, I urge adoption of the amendment.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Will the Senator yield?

Ms. MIKULSKI. The amendment Senator Wellstone and I wish to do is a version of the restoration of the Boren amendment on nursing home reimbursement to ensure safety standards and adequacy.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, 32 years ago this summer I graduated from the University of Maryland School of Social Work. And my very first job was to go out to the Baltimore neighborhoods to tell people what this new bill called Medicare was; to tell them what medical services they would be entitled to. As I went door to door to door in the streets and neighborhoods, onto the white-marbled steps of Baltimore, people's eyes opened wide. They could not believe that the United States of America had passed legislation that would provide them universal affordable health care in their old age and that it would be the next step to the Social Security commitment; that they would have in perpetuity a safety net that did not have a previous condition on it; that the premium would be affordable; that it would be undeniable. Thirty-two years later we are changing the rules of the game. The very people that were 30 years old then are now in their sixties. They didn't know it was going to be means tested. I respect the Finance Committee. But I will tell you that there has been no national discussion on what it means to the solvency of Medicare. All we are asking is strike the means testing now. Let's have an American national debate, not a time-limited rule which we agree to temporarily. But let's have a national debate. The Finance Committee might have studied it. It might not be a new idea to them. But I will tell you something. It is a new idea to the American people. And the middle class knows that the minute you start this class-warfare language of means testing people over $100,000 and say it is fair, button down your hatches, blue-collar workers. They are coming after you next. The PRESIDING OFFICER [Mr. Coats]. Who yields time?

Ms. MIKULSKI. How much, then, is this going to save, or is it, as we believe, just a ruse to create the principle of means testing to get what I call the slippery slope done--that really will not save very much money in Medicare, and it really does not deal with solvency of Medicare, it just lays the groundwork for additional means testing.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to support the point of order by Senator Durbin to strike the language increasing the eligibility age of Medicare from 65 to 67. I oppose raising the eligibility age because it breaks the promise of health insurance at age 65 for all Americans. The change was made to balance the budget. It was not to make a better, more efficient health care system. The change will hurt people who work hard and play by the rules. In 1965, our country realized that it was important to make sure that all Americans over the age of 65 had health insurance. For those Americans that did not have the ability to purchase health insurance, Medicare was there. It was a promise that America's seniors had somewhere to go. Now, we are breaking that promise. I can't support that. Promises made must be promises kept. We can't turn our backs on people who have planned their lives depending on our promises. This change wasn't done to help people. It wasn't done to improve the system. It wasn't done to make sure that seniors in Maryland and the country will have a longer and happier life. It was done to balance the budget. It was done to save a few dollars. No thought was given to the real life effects on America's seniors. Raising the eligibility age hurts people when they need insurance most: in their sixties, at the end of their working lives. Retirees cannot afford insurance at that age if they can even find it. What do we say to the factory workers and construction workers whose bodies are worn down by age 60? Now when they need insurance the most, it isn't there. The government just moved the Medicare age another 2 years away. Before we start to make big changes in Medicare, we need to talk to the most important people to consider: The people who use the program. We need to ask them what works, what could be better, and what we should change. We need to have a national bipartisan debate on what Medicare should look like. We need Presidential leadership. I want the people of Maryland to be a part of that debate. That way, if we need to make big changes, everyone will have had a chance to speak up and be heard. Everyone will understand the changes. Raising the eligibility age penalizes the citizens of Maryland and the rest of the country who have worked hard, saved, and played by the rules. I ask the other Senators to join me and Senators Durbin and Reed to support this amendment. Let's strike the increase in the Medicare eligibility age from 65 to 67. We do not serve in the Senate to tell Americans, ``we needed a few more dollars for our budget so you'll have to change your plans.'' We should listen to people, debate options, and make the hard choices openly. Let's not change the rules during the middle of the game and the middle of the night.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Massachusetts. I rise to support the Kennedy-Mikulski amendment, and I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this amendment. This amendment strikes the Medicare means-testing provision in this bill. I am adamantly opposed to Medicare means testing. I have two very grave concerns about the legislation pending. First, it breaks the bonds of faith between the people and their Government. Second, it overturns 30 years of Medicare in 3 days, without any hearings and no real debate. This bill breaks faith with seniors. It breaks faith with workers currently paying into Medicare. This bill says if you paid into Medicare under one set of rules, you are going to receive your benefits under a completely different set of rules. The bill penalizes those who work hard, save and try to play by the rules. This bill puts a previous condition on getting Medicare benefits: the money you saved. It tells the American people that their savings account counts against them when they are ready for Medicare. I believe that promises made must be promises kept. This bill breaks that promise. If I were a financial planner, I would advise the senior citizens in Maryland, ``Go to Ocean City for a vacation, buy a big car, live it up. Don't save your money for retirement, because the Government will take it away from you and increase Medicare deductibles, increase Medicare premiums and place a penalty on you for your savings. If you don't have any money, at least then you might qualify for Medicare.'' But I am not a financial planner. I am a U.S. Senator, and it is my job to stand sentry to protect Medicare. Medicare was meant to be portable, affordable and undeniable. The purpose of Medicare was to provide health insurance to senior citizens because the private sector wouldn't do it in a way that was affordable, portable and universal for people over the age of 65. Medicare premiums will now go beyond what some private insurance policies now cost. This provision ends Medicare, as we know it, and turns it into a welfare program. This is unacceptable. We must ask ourselves, who are we making Medicare affordable for? Is Medicare meant to be affordable for senior citizens, or was it meant to be affordable for Government? I want to make sure that Medicare is affordable to the senior citizens who need it. Let's be realistic, we do have a problem with Medicare. Yes, the clock is ticking on solvency. Yes, we do need to address this problem with a sense of urgency. As we are concerned about the future solvency of Medicare, we need to be concerned about the solvency of senior citizens. They need Medicare now. This bill attacks them when they are sick, when they are most vulnerable, and it does nothing or little to make Medicare solvent. For those young people working who are now in their twenties, thirties, forties and fifties--the baby boomers--they should be concerned. We have 78 million baby boomers in this country. They are going to be doubly squeezed. They will be taking care of their aging parents and paying the high cost of educating their children, and now we would have them pay Medicare taxes for 47 years and then pay again when they are elderly. If we want to talk about Medicare costs, we can begin cracking down on the $23 billion of fraud in Medicare. We don't do anything by sticking it to the middle class in the middle of the night, and that is what this bill does. This legislation is a direct attack on the middle class and the beginning of a slippery slope for more attacks on work and savings. This is not the time, this is not the place or the way to change Medicare. It should be the starting point for a national debate on how we protect Medicare and reward work and saving. It is too important not to have a debate, but there has been little or no debate. We should not have spent the time this year debating contentious issues that are going nowhere. We should have spent the time debating Medicare, its solvency and a variety of alternatives to be able to educate the American people. Instead, we are changing the rules in the middle of the game and the middle of the night. We need Presidential leadership. We need bipartisan cooperation. We don't need a middle-of-the-night attack on the middle class that raises costs, does nothing to improve health care for our citizens and threatens the very health care for the middle class. I will stand sentry to protect Medicare. I will stand sentry to make sure the promises made are promises kept. And I will stand sentry for America's senior citizens. The means testing in this legislation before us breaks faith with those seniors. Retired seniors, as well as those nearing retirement age, have planned for that retirement with the understanding that they would have to pay about $100 in deductibles. Now they will be advised that they will have to contribute anywhere from $550 to $2,000 a year for a premium on a Government insurance program and at the same time have to pay Medigap insurance. When you are retired, every dollar counts, and even those with average incomes need to be able to count on every dollar. We must preserve the covenant that we established with our seniors to provide affordable accessible health insurance at old age. Out-of-sight additional fees and new income reporting requirements break those promises. What we are telling people is, if they play by the rules, they are now going to lose. Those who planned and saved the most are penalized for their efforts. The provision tells seniors that after a lifetime of hard work and savings, the Government is going to add to your burden when you are sick. So these provisions send a horrible message to seniors with higher incomes, but they also send a frightening message to every senior who depends on Medicare. If we make this change now, what does it say to seniors who fall just below the income threshold of the provision in the bill? What assurance do they have we won't be asking them to pay higher out-of-pocket expenses in the years ahead? I believe it is wrong to scare seniors this way, and it is unconscionable to undermine our commitment to people who depend on Medicare. Honoring your father and your mother is a great commandment. I think it is a great public policy. The Medicare Program must embody the values of ``honor your mother and your father.'' Mr. President, that is why I support the Kennedy-Mikulski amendment. I believe we should strike this means testing, wait for another day after we have had a national debate, a report of a national commission, and then look at the variety of tools best able to ensure the solvency of Medicare, and yet at the same time reward hard work and savings. I yield back such time as I might have.

Ms. MIKULSKI. I ask 2 minutes additional time for the Senator to answer a question.

Ms. MIKULSKI. The Senator just stated, according to CRS, it affects only 1 million people. If the numbers are so modest then could the Senator explain in his remarks, and I will be glad to ask for additional time, if the numbers are so modest in terms of population, then how are the financial savings so great?

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to support the Wellstone/ Mikulski amendment which maintains the Boren amendment on nursing home reimbursement. The Boren amendment ensures an adequate daily reimbursement rate for nursing homes under Medicaid. It helps nursing homes have the funds they need to meet Federal quality and safety standards. The Wellstone/ Mikulski amendment will keep this guarantee in place. Right now, the Boren policy is under attack. It is under attack by States. And it is under attack by Congress. If we repeal this law, States will be able to set their own rates of reimbursement to nursing homes. We all know the tough budget climate we are operating in. Without the Boren policy, we take away the Federal guarantee of adequate reimbursement rates. This threatens the health and safety of senior citizens. States worry about reimbursements. I'm worried about seniors. Without Boren, the State reimbursement rates may be too low to ensure that nursing homes can continue to provide quality care. Do we really want to return to the bad old days when senior citizens living in nursing homes faced inadequate care? Can we afford to forget the horror stories from the 1980's about living and quality conditions in some nursing homes? Well, the Boren amendment helped to change that. We must protect the integrity of the law. The amendment Senator Wellstone and I are offering will do that. Our amendment protects senior citizens living in nursing homes. And it ensures that nursing homes get an appropriate level of reimbursement. It does this by requiring States to reimburse nursing homes for the costs of daily care. It ensures that States will have adequate reimbursement to provide quality services. It maintains Federal Government oversight. It maintains quality standards and it will protect seniors. We have been through the fight to keep Federal nursing home standards. And Congress voted last year on a bipartisan basis to keep Federal standards and to maintain Federal enforcement. In my State of Maryland, already the reimbursement rate is very low. Maryland gets $78 per day when it costs an average of $112 to provide nursing home care. Maryland nursing homes use this reimbursement to provide room and board, around the clock medical care, three meals a day, and bathing, and feeding. You can't even get a good hotel room for that rate. We cannot have the rates fall any lower without jeopardizing patients. Mr. President, we must protect the Boren amendment. That is why I strongly support the Wellstone/Mikulski amendment. I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment.