Barbara Mikulski

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, with sadness, I rise today to pay tribute to a remarkable member of the U.S. Senate, the senior Senator from Arkansas, Dale Bumpers. Senator Bumpers has announced his retirement after more than 25 years in public service, including the last 22 years in the U.S. Senate. When Dale Bumpers leaves the Senate at the end of next year to return to his family and his beloved Arkansas, I will miss his leadership and his friendship tremendously. There has rarely been a Senator in this body with the courage of his convictions like Dale Bumpers. During his time here, he has stood up valiantly for the causes he believes in. He has been an advocate for his home State and has fought against a number of Government projects that he felt were wasteful or inefficient. His object has always been to protect the people of Arkansas and the American taxpayer. We have not always agreed with each other on the merits of every project. But I have always been able to count on Senator Bumpers' integrity, his honesty, and his good humor. When Senator Bumpers retires, I think my colleagues will agree that the back of the Senate Chamber will never be the same. In an institution known for its orators, Senator Bumpers is among the most accomplished of them. His passion for public debate, and his commitment to justice have been obvious to all Senators when Dale Bumpers takes the floor of the Senate. He speaks with eloquence and with feeling, whether the issue is protecting our environment or cutting corporate welfare. Throughout his career in public service, Senator Bumpers has remained true to his constituents by being a strong advocate for his home State of Arkansas. He knows that a Senator's ultimate responsibility is to the people of his State. As a result of his advocacy and his honesty, Arkansas voters have returned him to Washington three times with landslide re-election victories. I have no doubt that the voters of Arkansas would have made it a fourth re-election landslide if he wished. Senator Bumpers' insights into the issues and problems we address in the Senate, and in his Environment and Public Works Committee have made him a valuable and trusted Member of this body. Our leadership, the Senate, and most of all the State of Arkansas have greatly benefited from his service. I believe that I speak for all of my colleagues when I say that the departure of Senator Bumpers will leave a void in this institution. As he approaches retirement, I want to thank Dale Bumpers for his service to his country and congratulate him for his extraordinary career. I wish him excellent health and happiness in retirement, and I will truly miss him.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I am proud to rise as a cosponsor of Senate Concurrent Resolution 21 and commend the people of Israel on the 30th anniversary of the reunification of Jerusalem. Jerusalem is and always will be the capital of Israel. For thousands of years the Jewish people prayed, ``next year in Jerusalem.'' This prayer helped to sustain Jews even through the darkest days of the diaspora. After Israeli independence, Jews were forced out of Jerusalem--where they had lived for three millennia. The holy sites of Jerusalem were closed to Christians and Jews. The Jewish quarter of the old city was destroyed. But since Jerusalem was unified in 1967, it has been open to all religions for the first time in its history. I have visited Israel with Jews who were there for the first time. When we visited the Western Wall, I saw what it meant for them to touch the stones that their ancestors could only dream of. I saw that Jerusalem is not just a city or a capital. It is the religious and historic homeland of the Jewish people. Jerusalem is the capitol of Israel--though the world ignores this fact. Why is Israel the only nation that is not allowed to chose its own capital? There is much talk about building in Jerusalem. Well, there is a building project that I particularly look forward to. America will build its Embassy in Jerusalem by 1999. We should have moved our Embassy long ago. Mr. President, This year, as we celebrate the 30th anniversary of the unification of Jerusalem, let us mark this great event by reaffirming that Jerusalem is and always will be the capital of the State of Israel.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I reluctantly rise to oppose the supplemental appropriations bill currently before us. But first, let me once gain take this opportunity to extend my deepest sympathies to those communities and families in the Upper Midwest who have had to deal with the loss and anguish caused by the terrible flooding several weeks ago. I know all Marylanders join me in extending our thoughts and prayers to everyone in the Midwest. Like many of my colleagues, I had hoped for a quick and speedy passage of this critically needed assistance to the disaster victims. I know they are counting on us to help them get back on their feet--to help them rebuild their homes and businesses. I am therefore deeply troubled by the fact that what should have been a speedy, nonpartisan targeted relief bill has instead turned into yet another nasty partisan battle that is designed to divide us and provoke a veto from the President. I have several major concerns with the supplemental, the first of which is the census sampling amendment that prohibits the Census Bureau from using funds to conduct statistical sampling in the year 2000 census. While to many this is a dry, academic topic, it impacts all Americans on a daily basis. In addition to being the manner for determining representation in the Congress, the census has become the basis for which billions of dollars in Federal assistance are allocated. Programs such a low-energy assistance, community block development grants, and other vital programs to Maryland for transportation, housing, and education all rely on accurate census data. This amendment does not follow the congressionally sought recommendation of this Nation's top statistical experts who advise using statistical sampling to get accurate data. Instead this provision would result in an undercount of many of the Nation's citizens. Especially hard hit would be those in rural areas and the inner city poor. That's wrong. There is no reason to play games with the census, particularly when so many people's lives are at stake. Everybody counts in America, and everybody should be counted. Mr. President, I am also very concerned by the continued inclusion in this disaster relief package of what has artfully been called the Shutdown Prevention Act. Nobody knows the pain of a Government shutdown better than me and the Marylanders I represent. When the last shutdown occurred, numerous people from across my State felt the shock and dislocation of those events. When I visited the Government agencies that had to remain open, I saw the frustration on the faces of the workers and the financial hardship it caused for all Federal employees. Let there be no mistake, I do not want another shutdown and will do everything I can to prevent it. But this bill is not the answer. Instead, this bill which provides for a permanent continuing resolution, is nothing more than a partisan exercise designed to hamstring Congress from exercising its constitutional role in the legislative process. If we fail to enact our appropriations bills on time, the continuing resolution contained in this bill simply prevents Congress from increasing spending on such crucial items as cancer research, crime fighting, and education. It also hampers Congress in cutting unnecessary spending and eliminating waste. Lastly, I am disappointed by the method we have chosen to pay for this bill. By taking over $3 billion in unobligated funds from HUD's section 8 public housing program to pay for FEMA's disaster relief fund, we are simply robbing Peter to pay Paul. We cannot keep on raiding this program to pay for disaster funding. We must find a new way to pay for emergency supplemental appropriations bills because these disasters are not going to end. We could be facing even more expensive disasters in the near future. Are we going to continually rob one or two agencies to pay for these bills? I believe we need a new system or a new arrangement to deal with these types of disasters--a new system that is off-budget. Mr. President, because of the census sampling amendment, the continuing resolution, and the way in which we have chosen to pay for the bill, I am forced to oppose this bill. It is my sincere hope that in the future we can avoid these partisan fights over disaster relief bills and find a more equitable way to pay for them.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise in support of the budget resolution. I support this resolution for two reasons. First, it continues the progress we have made since 1993 in moving toward a balanced budget. Second, it protects priorities which are vital to our Nation's future. It is not a perfect plan. There are parts of it that give me serious pause. I am especially concerned by the deep cuts in Medicare. I know that this budget resolution only provides a blueprint for other committees to follow. So, I reserve the right to vote against the final Medicare package if the cuts threaten health care for our senior citizens. With this resolution, we are finally taking the historic step of balancing the Federal budget for the first time since 1969. In 1993, I was proud to support President Clinton's economic plan. Since that plan was enacted, our deficit has been reduced from $290 billion to less than $70 billion. The 1993 vote was strong medicine. But it was the right medicine for our economy. Today, we have an opportunity to finish the job we began in 1993. We can adopt this resolution which will bring us to a balanced budget by the year 2002. But, unlike previous attempts to balance the budget, this resolution protects crucial investments in our future. Balancing the budget must be based on principles. First and foremost, it must meet families' day- to-day needs. I believe this resolution succeeds in putting families and children first. It makes major investments in education--from adding 1 million children to the Head Start Program to making it possible for millions of students to receive a college education. This resolution expands health care coverage to 5 million uninsured children. I want to do more. This resolution still leaves another 5 million children with no health insurance. I am supporting the Kennedy- Hatch CHILD bill which would make sure that every child has access to immunizations, early detection screening, and basic health care. I view the commitment made in this budget resolution to children's health as a downpayment on the job. I hope we will finish the job by enacting the CHILD bill later this year. The bill before us will continue our progress in making our neighborhoods safe. It ensures that the programs of the 1994 crime bill, which have been so effective in bring down crime rates, will be continued. I am particularly pleased that the budget resolution protects the violent crime reduction trust fund, including the community policing or COPS Program. The COPS Program has already put over 1,200 new police officers on the streets in my State of Maryland. Under this budget agreement, environmental protection will also be strengthened. It ensures that another 500 Superfund sites can be cleaned up by the end of 2000, and provides funding to help communities clean up brownfield areas so that they can be redeveloped. Under this balanced budget agreement, we will also be taking important steps to move people from welfare to work and to provide tax relief for working families. It will enable us to provide help for those who practice self help. As the Finance Committee begins putting together the tax component outlined in this budget agreement, I hope they make tax relief for middle income families their priority. I want to enact capital gains relief. I think we owe it to those who have invested in their community through purchasing and maintaining a home. They should be able to realize the full gain on their investment, and not have it taken away through capital gains taxes. I hope we can do something to provide capital gains relief for other types of investments as well. I believe that the longer you hold an investment, the less you should pay in capital gains. That rewards those who invest in our economy for the long run, without rewarding those who are just out to make a fast buck. I want us to have estate tax relief, so that a car dealer in Frederick can pass on the business to the next generation, or a small family farm in western Maryland or the Eastern Shore can stay in the family. I hope the Finance Committee will put together a tax package that puts families first. If the tax package is unfairly tilted toward the well-to-do, I will oppose it. Although I will support this budget resolution, I must be clear that there are parts of it that give me great pause. I am particularly troubled by the $115 billion in cuts in the Medicare Program. If we were given the opportunity to vote separately on each of the major components of this package, I would oppose the Medicare component. In the last Congress, when the majority party was attempting to push through $270 billion in cuts to the Medicare Program to provide tax cuts for the wealthy, I opposed them. I said at the time that we did not have a $270 billion solvency problem in the Medicare Program, rather we had a $89 billion solvency problem. I was joined by the majority of my Democratic colleagues in that point. So to see a resolution which calls for $115 billion in cuts to Medicare is of deep concern to me. I acknowledge this is much better than plans that were before us over the last 2 years. However, I am still concerned about the impact on seniors and on health care providers of this magnitude of cuts. I realize that the budget resolution does not cut a single dollar from the Medicare Program. It only provides a guideline for the authorizing committee to follow. We are a long way from making any actual changes in Medicare. So I hope that the Finance Committee will exercise extreme care in crafting the Medicare piece of the budget reconciliation bill. I believe we can ensure the solvency of Medicare without creating a financial burden for seniors or providers. Let me acknowledge one final area of concern. America owes a special debt to our veterans. We have a sacred commitment to honor all of our promises to them. I want to ensure that we provide adequately for veterans' health care. I am pleased that we passed an amendment to express the sense of the Senate that we must provide sufficient funding for veterans programs and benefits. This amendment includes language to urge that third party payments--that is, payments from private insurers--be used only to supplement, not supplant veterans health care funding. It makes clear that the Senate intends to keep our faith with America's veterans. I won't stand for anything less than that. Despite these reservations, I will support this resolution. It plots our course toward a balanced budget and puts families and children first. I believe this budget resolution will make a real difference in the lives of working Americans, and I will support it as a framework for future action.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to support the amendment offered by my colleague, Senator Carol Moseley-Braun, to help rebuild our Nation's schools. This amendment would ensure that any budget agreement that we reach will include funding for school construction. I believe that we must ensure that we meet the needs of our local communities to help them upgrade the Nation's schools. I am an original cosponsor of S. 456, the Partnership to Rebuild America's Schools Act. This bill would provide $5 billion over 4 years to subsidize up to 50 percent of the interest or other financing costs for school construction. These funds would help States and localities leverage scarce resources to help upgrade, repair, and build new schools. In my State of Maryland, school enrollment is at an all time high. Many of the counties in Maryland like Prince Georges and Montgomery are rapidly expanding and the school districts are struggling to keep pace. I hear from parents, students, and teachers about the need to upgrade the schools. Our children must be in environments which are conducive to learning. Over one-third of the schools in Maryland are in desperate need of repair. Under S. 456, Maryland would receive approximately $57.9 million in Federal funds to support $231.6 million for school construction. Baltimore public schools would receive $31.4 million. I believe that funding school construction has to be a priority for our Nation. Children cannot learn in schools with leaky roofs, poor ventilation, crumbling walls, and other problems. This problem is especially acute in rural areas and inner cities. Many of these schools fail to meet even minimum local health and safety codes. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Our Nation's school children deserve no less.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. I believe the Senator from New Jersey was prepared to yield me 5 minutes.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Thank you very much, Mr. President. I wish to rise to express my strong support for the Kennedy-Hatch amendment on children's health. I cannot think of any more important issue that faces our country. The health of our children must be a national priority. This amendment will make sure that that happens. It will expand health insurance to cover America's uninsured children. Our country has failed to meet the health care needs of these children. And we all know the statistics. More than 10 million children do not have health insurance; that is one out of every seven children. In my own home State of Maryland, I am deeply concerned about what the situation is. One in five children is uninsured. Almost 200,000 children in Maryland alone lack health insurance. Most of the uninsured children are from families with parents who get up and work every day. These are families who are doing the right thing to be able to support their family and yet they also want to be able to ensure that their children have health care, where parents are working 40 hours a week, often at what I call the varicose-vein jobs. They get up, they stand on their feet, they are the checkout woman at a grocery store, clerk, or they are some man out there working as a part-time landscaper assistant, sweating, breaking his back, and in very difficult circumstances, to put food on the table, a roof over their heads. But they live in fear every time one of their children has the sniffles, that those sniffles could lead to pneumonia and they do not have health care. I have had grown men who were veterans, who were so upset that they had health care and their children did not. They support veterans' health care, and so do I. But those very same dads would say, ``Let me be a dad. And let me be able to support my own children.'' I am reminded of a case in southern Maryland where the dad is a self- employed carpenter. His youngest child has a heart disease. He is making $40,000 a year. But in order to get health insurance, it will cost $9,000 a year. That is almost one-fourth of their family income. The wife stays at home to care for this child, to be the backup, to make sure that that health condition does not deteriorate into a permanent cardiac disability. Should they go without health insurance? Should the mom go back to work? They should not have these melancholy choices to make. That is why we support health insurance for our children, and not only for the children who are acutely ill but we want to have health insurance for children so they can be immunized by the time they are two, have early detection and screening as they get ready to go into kindergarten or elementary school to make sure they are learning ready, that they know whether they need eyeglasses or they need hearing aids or whether they have undetected juvenile diabetes, all these kinds of things. I can think of no more important health investment than to have a healthy start for children. And I want to bring to the attention of my colleagues, at the fantastic, bipartisan President's summit on voluntarism, one of the goals established by Colin Powell, one of the five goals to get our kids ready for the future is to make sure they have a healthy start. I say to my colleagues, this amendment would be a very important step in being able to do that. I thank the Senate for its attention. I yield back such time as I might not have consumed.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Santorum bill. I oppose this bill for three reasons. First of all, it will not stop a single abortion from occurring. Second, it is unconstitutional. Finally, it does not provide any protection for a woman whose health is grievously threatened by the pregnancy. I want to ban all post-viability abortions, not a particular procedure. I believe the only time an abortion should be allowed after the point of viability is when the woman's life is threatened or her health is at serious risk of substantial impairment. I supported the Daschle alternative. The Daschle alternative would have meant fewer abortions. It banned all abortions once a fetus had achieved viability. In other words, once a fetus could survive outside the womb--with or without life support--a woman could not obtain an abortion. It provided only two exceptions: first, when the woman's life was threatened by continuing the pregnancy, and second, when she was at risk of grievous injury to her health. If the Daschle alternative had been adopted there would be fewer abortions. The bill before us bans one procedure. It does not ban one single abortion. It bans a method of abortion. It enables a doctor to choose any other abortion procedure--even ones that might cause a greater health risk to the woman. So no abortions would be stopped by this bill. I want to support a bill that is constitutionally acceptable. The bill before us fails the test of constitutionality. The Supreme Court has always insisted that prior to the point of viability, the woman's right to abortion is constitutionally protected. This bill infringes on that right by banning a procedure even before viability. The Supreme Court has also held that in any legislation restricting abortion, the woman's life and health must be protected. A physician must place the woman's health as the paramount concern. There can be no trade off of the woman's life and health for that of the fetus. By refusing to include any exception for instances where the woman's health is at risk, H.R. 1122 is constitutionally unacceptable. The Daschle alternative, on the other hand, was respectful of the requirements of the Constitution. It focused only on abortion procedures after the point of viability. And it ensured that a woman's health could be protected. I want to support legislation that provides for the health of the woman. I know that health of the woman is viewed by some as merely a loophole. But even those who hold that view must acknowledge that there are medical crises that arise during pregnancy that could cause profound harm to a woman's health. Conditions like severe hypertension or peripartal cardiomyopathy are caused by the pregnancy itself. These can lead to organ failure or put a woman at risk of cardiac failure. Other conditions, like leukemia or breast cancer, cannot receive the aggressive treatment they require so long as the pregnancy continues. I don't believe that anyone would argue that these are minor health problems. Yet the Santorum bill does not allow any health exception for women facing these major health threats. The Daschle alternative, on the other hand, did provide a carefully crafted exception for the woman's health. It said that a physician could abort a viable fetus when the pregnancy would ``threaten the mother's life or risk grievous injury to her physical health.'' Grievous injury was narrowly defined to include only the most debilitating problems caused by the pregnancy itself and cases where the pregnancy caused an inability to treat a life-threatening condition. It required that such conditions be medically diagnosable, and ruled out any condition for which termination of the pregnancy was not medically indicated. This was not loophole shopping. This was a serious, careful, intellectually rigorous effort to deal with the realities of women's health and women's lives. I was proud to support the Daschle alternative. I was disappointed that it did not receive broader support. It would have prevented abortions. It was respectful of the Constitution. It safeguarded women's health. I am disappointed that the American Medical Association has chosen to endorse this bill. I am particularly troubled that their decision seems to be based not on what is best for women's health but on what is best for doctors. The changes they sought in the bill were designed only to protect a physician from legal endangerment. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, on the other hand, endorsed the Daschle alternative. They represent 38,000 physicians who are experts in women's health and issues related to pregnancy. They endorsed the Daschle alternative because it would have provided a meaningful ban while assuring women's health is protected. Let me say that I do not for one moment question the sincerity of those who have called and written me in support of H.R. 1122. They want to stop abortions, and I respect the depth of their convictions. But let me also say that if this bill is enacted, it will be a hollow victory. I believe the Supreme Court will reject this bill as unconstitutional. In the end, even if it were somehow to pass constitutional muster, it will not stop a single abortion. It will merely divert physicians to other abortion procedures. So this bill will not save lives. It will not save the lives and health of women. And it will not save the lives of fetuses. It is a hollow victory indeed. I will oppose this measure.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. The bipartisan alternative has a very narrowly drawn definition of the health situations under which a postviability abortion would be allowed. It says that the physician must certify that ``continuation of the pregnancy would threaten the mother's life or risk grievous injury to her physical health.'' Does this mean that there are no situations when a woman with a profound mental health problem would be permitted a postviability abortion under your bill?

Ms. MIKULSKI. Many States have enacted their own laws on postviability abortion. My own State of Maryland has a law that bans postviability abortions. It was approved by the voters of Maryland in a referendum. The Maryland law says a postviability abortion is only allowed when it ``is necessary to protect the life or health of the woman; or the fetus is affected by genetic defect or serious deformity or abnormality.'' Other States have even more far-reaching bans. How does the bipartisan alternative affect Maryland law, which the people of Maryland endorsed through referendum?

Ms. MIKULSKI. Thank you, Mr. Leader. I appreciate that. I think that spells that out. Now, one of the reasons I support your alternative is because I truly believe it will prevent abortion, particularly postviability abortion. Can you assure me that your alternative--assure those who also want to ban all postviability abortions that your alternative would do so?

Ms. MIKULSKI. I thank the leader for his explanation. I want to thank the Democratic leader for the excellent work he has done. I intend to support his alternative. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. DeWINE addressed the Chair.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Thank you very much, Mr. President. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the Daschle alternative, and I do so because of three reasons: No. 1, it preserves Roe versus Wade; No. 2, it prohibits all postviability abortions; and No. 3, it provides an exception for the life and the health of the mother, which is both intellectually rigorous and compassionate at the same time. The Daschle substitute respects the Supreme Court's ruling in the Roe decision. When the Court decided Roe, it was faced with the task of defining when does life begin. Theologians and scientists differ on this. People of good will and good conscience differ on this. So the Supreme Court used viability as its standard. Once a fetus is viable, it is presumed not only to have a body, but a mind, a spirit and a persona that has standing in our society and in our courts. Therefore, it has standing under the law as a person. The Daschle alternative respects that key holding of Roe. It says after the point of viability, no woman should be able to abort a viable fetus. There would only be two exceptions: to immediately save her life, and the other may be when the woman faces a serious and debilitating threat to her health. The bill before us, H.R. 1122, as proposed by the Senator from Pennsylvania, simply bans a particular abortion technique at any point in the pregnancy. Because it would ban the use of a technique during previability, it would violate the Supreme Court's standard on viability. Should this language be passed, in all probability, it would be struck down by the courts, and the proponents of the legislation do know this. The Daschle alternative bans all postviability abortions. It does not create loopholes by allowing other procedures to be used. Therefore, this Daschle alternative is superior to H.R. 1122 because it does ban abortions, it doesn't just ban a procedure, it bans all abortions after the point of viability. Therefore, it is good public policy, it is good public health and also will stand up to the test of the Supreme Court. I believe there is no Senator who thinks a woman should abort a viable fetus for frivolous or nonmedical reasons. It does not matter what procedure is used. It is wrong and we know it. Therefore, the Daschle alternative bans those abortions. However, on the other hand, H.R. 1122 does not stop one single abortion. For those who think they support this approach, know that it is unconstitutional and is, therefore, both hollow and ineffective. Let us be clear. A vote for the underlying bill will be both hollow and ineffective. It will attempt to ban a particular procedure, but allows doctors to simply go to another procedure. The Daschle alternative does ban abortions. It says that a woman cannot have an abortion once the fetus is viable. We talk about then ``What is viable?'' It means surviving outside of the womb with or without life support. Medical advances are the ones that will determine what enables a fetus to be viable. Let me tell you what else I like about the Daschle alternative. The health of the mother is rigorously, intellectually defined, but it is also compassionate. Under the Daschle alternative, the only time an abortion would be allowed--other than saving the life of the mother--is when the woman faces a medical crisis that is grave and severe. And it defines that as circumstances that ``threaten the mother's life or risk grievous injury to her physical health.'' But I want to be very clear in this. The Daschle alternative does not create a gaping loophole with its health exception. We are not loophole shopping when we insist that the Constitution requires, and the reality of women's lives demands, an exception for women's health. The health exception in the Daschle alternative has been carefully developed. I know that the Senator has consulted with medical ethicists, physicians, as well as constitutional scholars. It is specific and not vague. It is meant to cover only the most severe types of medical conditions. What kind would they be? Some of these conditions are caused or aggravated by the pregnancy itself. For instance, issues like severe hypertension or preeclampsia, which occurs in 5 to 10 percent of pregnancies. In severe instances, the woman would face severe renal failure, kidney failure, liver failure, and ultimately could die. Other women find themselves at risk for serious heart damage as a result of peripartal cardiomyophy. These women have no previous history of heart disease. It is the pregnancy itself that puts them at risk for cardiac failure. Would anyone argue that this is not a profound health crisis? There are other complications. Women with existing hypertension often find their condition dangerously aggravated by the pregnancy. Complications of hypertension occur in 10 to 40 percent of these patients. These women are at risk for organ failure, seizures, or even death. Women who suffer from diabetes may find their condition exacerbated during pregnancy, so severe that it could lead to blindness or amputations. And in some instances, where the woman is carrying a fetus with severe anomalies, she is at risk of uterine rupture and the loss of future fertility. These are real, undeniable severe medical complications. While they are rare, they do occur. Senator Daschle's alternative addresses this reality. It recognizes that to deny these women access to the abortion that could save their lives and health would be unconscionable. When the continuation of the pregnancy is causing these sorts of profound health problems, a woman's doctor must have every tool available to respond. There are also cases where a life-endangering condition, unrelated to the pregnancy, arises and cannot be properly treated because of the pregnancy. For instance, in the course of her pregnancy, if a woman is defined as having breast cancer, leukemia or some other form of cancer, she could not have her chemotherapy or radiation because it would cause profound fetal mutation. Doctors are faced with choices. Mothers and fathers will be faced with choices. The question is, who decides? I do not think it should be done on the floor of the U.S. Congress by politicians. I believe the decisions should be made in a clinical situation between a doctor, the mother, and her husband. I support the Daschle alternative because it would provide this health exception and allow the physician and the family affected to make the decision that is medically appropriate to address very grave health situations that a woman may face. That is why the Daschle alternative is so important. That is why the Daschle alternative is critical to passage. For those who are serious about banning postviability abortions, the Daschle alternative is the only alternative. For those who really want to seek common ground, the Daschle alternative is compassionate, intellectually rigorous. It enables physicians to determine what is medically necessary. I have been troubled by this issue ever since I came to the House of Representatives more than 20 years ago. I am associated as being a pro- choice U.S. Congresswoman, and now Senator. What does pro-choice mean? It is not that I am for abortion. I do not believe that abortion is an unlimited right. But I believe it is the woman, in consultation with the physician and the family affected, who should decide. Through the grace of God, I have been granted the faith of being a Roman Catholic. I will be eternally grateful for that gift of faith. But with that gift came two other gifts, one of hope and one of compassion. I hope to live as a Catholic; I hope to be able to die a Catholic. I feel that the Daschle alternative gives us an option that is not only constitutionally defensible, but is medically and morally defensible. And I hope that finally we can bring this debate and this discussion to the end. Last year, we voted 52 times on the subject of abortion. Was the public served by it? Were women served? I don't know. I do not think so. So, please, let us take politicians out of this conversation. Let us put doctors back in because if we truly cannot trust the decisions in the medical profession, then I do not know who we can trust. You ask the American people, who do you trust more, your doctor or your politician? I do not think they would debate as long as we will be debating this issue. Before closing, let me just extend my deep appreciation for the work our Democratic leader has done on this issue. He has been heroic, faithful and determined. He has reached out to every Member of the Senate. He has consulted a wide range of medical professionals, lawyers, and legal and ethical scholars. He has been absolutely committed to finding a solution that is passable, signable, and constitutional. I believe he has succeeded. So I thank him. And I compliment his excellent staff, Laura Petrou, Caroline Fredrickson, and Amy Sullivan, who have done truly outstanding work in developing the alternative before us. Mr. President, today we have the opportunity to do something very important. We can move beyond soundbites and politics, and do something real, something which I know reflects the views of the American people. We can pass the Daschle alternative. We can say that we value life and we value our Constitution. We can make clear that a viable fetus should not be aborted. We can say that we want to save women's lives and women's health. I urge my colleagues to support the Daschle alternative. I respect people on the other side who have differing views. But I am also concerned that there might be a lack of clarity about some of those issues. Before I yield the floor, I wonder if the distinguished Democratic leader would yield for two questions, if he might? There is some question whether the woman's physician would be allowed--the alternative has been criticized because it allows the woman's physician to make the medical judgment regarding the woman's need. Could you tell me what procedures your alternative provides so that a physician does not abuse the strict standards provided for in your measure, and what enforcement tools there would be so we could trust the doctors?

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to commend the Consumer Product Safety Commission for the kick off of its Recall Round-up campaign. The Recall Roundup is a national effort to retrieve all hazardous products that have been recalled, but may still be in people's homes. Each year the Commission coordinates approximately 300 recalls of defective or dangerous products. The task of getting these products out of American homes has been a difficult one. The existence of faulty products has been the cause of serious injury and even death to children in the United States. This is unacceptable. That's why I am pleased to report that in my own State, Maryland Lt. Governor Kathleen Kennedy Townsend on April 16 announced the State's plans to join the Commission in the Recall Roundup. Mr. President, as one of the Senators for Maryland, I would like to submit Lt. Governor Townsend's remarks for the Record. I commend the Commission and the State of Maryland on their partnership to protect American children from hazardous products. The remarks of the Lt. Governor follow: [Consumer Product Press Conference, April 16, 1997] Remarks of the Lt. Governor Good Morning. This is a very exciting day and it's great to be here with you. I want to thank Chairman Ann Brown for her leadership and hard work, as well as all of the men and women of the Consumer Product Safety Commission. Everyday, you make our homes and communities safer for children. You are doing a tremendous job of identifying hazardous products and getting them off the market and out of our homes. I am grateful, not just as the Lt. Governor of Maryland, but as the mother of four daughters. Thank you. You know that we need to do more than just identify dangerous items. Every year, scores of children die because of products that the Consumer Product Safety Commission has already recalled. But for one reason or another, they were never replaced with safer products. These children did not have to die. And if we do the job we know we must, and make sure these products are taken out of homes, we can save many, many lives in the future. Governor Glendening and I are extremely proud that Maryland and the Commission are working so closely together to make this happen. The Recall Roundup is the quintessential example of how federal and state governments can work together for our shared goals. The Commission's information about what products pose threats to children is vital to parents, and we're going to make sure that they get it. We will distribute a list of these products to local health departments, community organizations, local publications, to second-hand stores. At the State's Child Care Conference, at the State Fair, and training seminars for child care providers. We are going to blanket the State, and in case some parents cannot get to the information, we'll be coming to them. Maryland's high school student volunteers will be helping to perform Recall Roundup Home Inspections to point out potential hazards to families. Parents have enough to worry about. The world today is already dangerous for children. But we can make a difference. With hard work and cooperation, we can make sure that every child's home is child-safe. Thank you.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleagues in cosponsoring this important legislation, S. 717, to reauthorize the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act [IDEA]. S. 717 is the result of a bipartisan effort, which included parents, special interest groups, and educators. My colleagues in both the House and Senate worked hard in crafting this legislation. I believe that this bill will strengthen the current law. IDEA is a civil rights statute. It guarantees that every child with a disability has the right to a free appropriate public education. Public education is one of the core values of our country. Before the enactment of IDEA in 1975, children with disabilities had little opportunity to receive a public education. Over 20 years later, IDEA has been successful in providing opportunity to children with disabilities. S. 717 retains the principles outlined in the current law. There are five principles that IDEA encompasses: First, educational planning for a child with a disability should be done on an individual basis; second, parents of a child with a disability should participate in educational planning for their child; third, decisions about a child's eligibility and education should be based on objective and accurate information; fourth, if appropriate for a child with a disability, he or she should be educated in general education with necessary services and supports; and fifth, parents and educators should have means of resolving differences about a child's eligibility, IEP, educational placement, or other aspects of the provision of a free appropriate public education to the child. Under current law infants and toddlers have the right to receive early intervention services and children with disabilities are placed alongside children without disabilities. Children with disabilities deserve no less than fair treatment. Over 5 million special education students are served under IDEA. Decades of research have shown that educating children with disabilities is successful by having high expectations of special education students; strengthening the role of parents in the education of their child; coordinating State- and district-wide assessments; providing an education in the least restrictive environment; and supporting professional development for teachers who work with special education students. I am concerned, however, about the disproportionate number of minority students who are identified as special education students. I support the goal of this legislation to provide greater efforts to prevent the problems associated with mislabeling and the high dropout rates among minority children with disabilities. My State of Maryland will receive approximately $61 million this year to provide support services to over 100,000 students with disabilities in local school systems. I believe this legislation will help support my State's efforts to educate disabled children. I support Federal funding for implementation of IDEA. I believe that funds should keep pace with student enrollment. This legislation maintains part of the formula in current law, which provides part B funds based on the number of children with disabilities served. Once a trigger of $4.9 billion is reached, which amounts to approximately $850 per child, a new formula based on census, 85 percent, and poverty, 15 percent, will apply to any new funds in excess of the appropriation for the previous year. Although I have some concerns about how States will be able to implement and handle the additional administrative burdens under the new formula, I believe that this approach goes in the right direction. S. 717 focuses on the crucial areas of increasing funding for special education, teacher training, and early intervention for children with disabilities. This legislation reaffirms our country's commitment to educating disabled children. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the supplemental appropriations bill but do so with great hesitation. Like all of us here today, I want to extend my sympathies to the communities and families of the Upper Midwest who have experienced the terrible flooding over the past several weeks. It brings back vivid memories of the flooding that hit Western Maryland last year and I know all Marylanders join me in extending our thoughts and prayers to everyone in the Midwest. Like many of my colleagues, I was hoping for quick consideration of this important legislation so we could speed relief to disaster victims. They are counting on us to help them get back on their feet-- to help them rebuild their homes and businesses. I am so disappointed that what should have been a speedy, nonpartisan targeted relief bill has turned into another nasty partisan battle that is designed to divide us and provoke a veto from the President. I am particularly alarmed by the inclusion in this package of what is artfully called the Shutdown Prevention Act. Nobody knows the pain of a government shutdown better than me and the Marylanders I represent. When the last shutdown occurred, I visited Government agencies that had to remain open. I saw the frustration on the faces of the workers and the financial hardship it caused for all Federal employees. I do not want another shutdown and will do everything I can to prevent it. But, the revised bill now provides for a permanent continuing resolution which is nothing more than a partisan trick. If we fail to enact our appropriations bills on time, the continuing resolution contained in this bill will prevent Congress from increasing spending for cancer research, crime fighting and education. It will also prevent Congress from cutting spending and eliminating waste. In addition, I am disturbed by the way in which we have chosen to pay for this bill. This bill takes over $3 billion in unobligated funds from HUD's section 8 public housing program to pay for FEMA's disaster relief fund. I do not believe we should be robbing Peter to pay Paul. Eventually, Peter will be broke. The projected budget problems with regard to the section 8 program are well known. In fiscal year 1998, section 8 renewals will cost $10.2 billion. That is a $7 billion increase over the fiscal year 1997 funding level. We will need the unobligated funds to pay for the section 8 renewals in fiscal year 1998. We should not be raiding the program to pay for disaster funding. We must find a new way to pay for emergency supplemental appropriations bills because these disasters are not going to end. We could be facing even more expensive disasters in the near future. Are we going to continually rob one or two agencies to pay for these bills? I believe we need a new system or a new arrangement to deal with these type of disasters--a new system that is off-budget. Mr. President, I am forced to oppose this bill because of the continuing resolution and the way in which we have chosen to pay for the bill. As a result of the continuing resolution, the bill is likely to be vetoed by the President. I hope in the future we can avoid partisan fights over disaster relief bills and find a more equitable way to pay for them.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, like all of us here today, I want to extend my sympathies to the communities and families of the upper Midwest who have experienced the terrible flooding over the past several weeks. It brings back vivid memories of the flooding that hit western Maryland last year and I know all Marylanders join me in extending our thoughts and prayers to everyone in the Midwest. Like many of my colleagues, I was hoping for quick consideration of this important legislation so we could speed relief to disaster victims. They are counting on us to help them get back on their feet-- to help them rebuild their homes and businesses. I am so disappointed that what should have been a speedy, nonpartisan targeted relief bill has turned into another nasty partisan battle. I am greatly concerned about the many extraneous provisions that have been wedged into this bill. The provisions are designed to inflame and divide us and to provoke a veto from the President. They make it so much more difficult to get assistance to the people in flood ravaged communities who are counting on us. I am particularly alarmed by the inclusion in this package of what is artfully called the Shutdown Prevention Act. Nobody knows the pain of a Government shutdown better than me and the Marylanders I represent. When the last shutdown occurred, I visited Government agencies that had to remain open. I saw the frustration on the faces of the workers and the financial hardship it caused for all Federal employees. I do not want another shutdown and will do everything I can to prevent it. But, the revised bill now provides for a permanent continuing resolution which is nothing more than a partisan trick. It is designed to lock in deep cuts to important programs under the cover of preventing a Government shutdown. I am opposed to this provision and urge my colleagues to oppose it. In addition, I am disturbed by the way in which we have chosen to pay for this bill. This bill takes $3.6 billion in unobligated funds from HUD's section 8 public housing program to pay for FEMA's disaster relief fund. I do not believe we should be robbing Peter to pay Paul. Eventually, Peter will be broke. The projected budget problems with regard to the section 8 program are well known. In fiscal year 1998, section 8 renewals will cost $10.2 billion. That is a $7 billion increase over the fiscal year 1997 funding level. We will need the unobligated funds to pay for the section 8 renewals in fiscal year 1998. We should not be raiding the program to pay for disaster funding. I am pleased that of the $5.8 billion in unobligated section 8 funds, $2.2 billion will be saved to cover fiscal year 1998 section 8 renewal costs. However, as the budget estimates show, we will need every dollar we can find to cover the huge increase in section 8 costs next year. The VA/HUD Subcommittee cannot serve as the ATM machine for the rest of the committee. If we are going to pay for emergency disasters, one subcommittee should not bear a disproportionate share of the burden. We must find a new way to pay for emergency supplemental appropriations bills. These disasters are not going to end. We could be facing even more expensive disasters in the near future. Are we going to continually robe the VA/HUD account to pay for these bills? I believe we need a new system or a new arrangement to deal with these type of disasters--a new system that is off-budget. I wanted to support this bill because it is so important to the families and communities who need help. However, the changes that were added at the last minute make it impossible for me to do so. I hope in the future we can avoid partisan fights over disaster relief bills and find a more equitable way to pay for them. Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise today in support of Senate Resolution 78, which would designate April 30, 1997 as ``National Erase the Hate and Eliminate Racism Day.'' I am proud to be a cosponsor and am pleased we have acted today to pass this resolution. While I believe it is important to set aside a day for special focus on fighting hatred and bigotry, this cannot be a 1 day event. That is why this resolution calls on every American to practice tolerance and to take a strong stand against hate crimes and violence in their communities each and every day. I commend my colleagues, Senators Baucus and Burns, for introducing this important legislation. This legislation will bring awareness to what is an unsettling trend in this country--the increasing incidents of hate crimes and the growing occurrences of discrimination. I am greatly disturbed that hate crimes are on the rise. We saw evidence of that rise in the burning of African-American churches around the country, which apparently was motivated by racism. We saw it in the bombing of the Federal building in Oklahoma City, which was reportedly motivated by anti-government hatred. We've read and seen reports in the media about hate crimes. We've witnessed the violent attacks against individuals because of their race, gender, sexual orientation or their beliefs. It's evident in the increasing number of individuals in this country who have joined fringe groups like militias and other hate groups. We've also seen it in the growing anti-immigrant sentiment in our country. As the granddaughter of immigrants, I find this particularly repugnant. I recently met with a group of Asian-Pacific-American community leaders from my State of Maryland. They shared with me very compelling stories about discrimination that is faced each and every day by Asian- Pacific-Americans. Unfortunately, I hear this all too often when I meet with minority groups. Asian-Pacific-Americans in Maryland are concerned about their right to participate in the democratic process. They shared with me their fears that their right to engage in campaign electoral activities is being questioned, simply because of a few cases of alleged campaign fundraising abuses purportedly committed by members of the Asian- Pacific-American community. I have seen reports that indicate hate-motivated attacks on Asian- Pacific-Americans have grown more than 38 percent since 1993. I find that appalling. Violence against Asian-Pacific-Americans, as with other minority groups, is bred by stereotypes, discrimination, and tensions in communities. I am concerned about what is happening in our country. It's inconceivable that more than 30 years after the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, we are still grappling with racism in this country. This plague of hatred has spread and reached our youth. A young African-American boy in Chicago was brutally attacked recently by a group of white teenagers. What happened in Chicago is one of the most brutal acts we have witnessed in recent years. It is even more appalling that the perpetrators were young teenagers. We need to educate our youth on tolerance. We need to teach them not to hate and not to discriminate. We need to start this process early. My State of Maryland is becoming more ethnically diverse. I meet with minority groups in my State often and they share the same concerns. They are concerned about the climate of hate in our society. They fear discrimination in schools and in the work force. And most importantly, they are concerned about their children and their children's future. If this plague of hate continues in our country, what kind of future are we ensuring for our most precious resource--our children? We have to change the negative attitudes and perceptions in this country about minorities. We have to eliminate the persistence of violent hate crimes against racial, ethnic, and religious groups. To succeed in making our society free of hate, racism, and discrimination, we have to take a stand that we will not tolerate random acts of hate, subtle and overt racism, and wide-spread discrimination. I am committed to doing my part. This is a commitment that has to be made by everyone. I believe that this resolution will send the message that we will no longer tolerate hate and discrimination in this country. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I join my colleagues Senators Kennedy and Murray in cosponsoring this important new initiative. The goal of this legislation is to launch a campaign to ensure that every child in our Nation can read independently by the end of the third grade. I believe that this is a worthwhile goal, which will have a wide-ranging impact on our Nation. We need to help our young children learn to read. It's the responsibility not only of parents but of schools, communities, civic groups, libraries, and business leaders. Some 40 percent of all children are now reading below the accepted level on national reading assessments. This is a national crisis. Tens of thousands of students cannot read at the basic level. If students can't read well by the third grade, their chances for later success fall dramatically. These same students are likely to drop out of school; they will have problems with delinquency; and they will have fewer job options. I believe that the America Reads initiative will go a long way in providing much needed resources to parents, schools, and State and local communities to help our children learn to read. This bill would establish a corps of 1 million volunteer tutors and give States additional resources to hire 30,000 reading specialists to coordinate the corps volunteer tutors who will work with teachers, principals, and librarians to help children succeed in reading. I support mobilizing thousands of volunteers, but I also believe that the training and screening must be adequate, especially when we place anyone in our Nation's classrooms. These are issues that my colleagues and I will be addressing. We also want to help parents. This bill establishes Parents as First Teachers challenge grants, which invests in success by supporting effective and proven local efforts that assist parents who request help to better work with their children. The President has also called upon colleges and universities across the country to dedicate half of their new work study funds to support 100,000 college students to serve as reading tutors. Already hundreds of colleges and universities across the country have pledged to have their work study students help children learn to read. In my State of Maryland, Anne Arundel Community College, Bowie State University, Frostburg State University, and the University of Maryland at College Park have all committed to the America Reads initiative. We also want accountability. This legislation will use the improvements in the National Assessment of Educational Progress [NAEP] to provide an annual measure of the reading performance of 4th graders and their progress toward meeting the reading challenge. Both the Corporation for National Service and the Department of Education will oversee and manage this program. The Corporation for National Service has the expertise to pull together the AmeriCorps volunteers and has the infrastructure in place to help mobilize the volunteers. The Department of Education has the knowledge and resources to really make this program accountable. I support utilizing the resources that we already have in place with AmeriCorps. I know that thousands of AmeriCorps volunteers across the country are already in the schools tutoring children. In Maryland, AmeriCorps volunteers are already in public schools tutoring and mentoring students. And, companies too are leading the way with innovative methods of teaching our children to read. Sylvan Learning Center, which is headquartered in my State of Maryland, is a company that has been having great success with its methods to help children learn to read. Sylvan operates tutoring centers across the country. The centers have produced measurable results with children. The centers are community- based facilities. The student to teacher ratio never exceeds 3:1. Sylvan's approach consists of individualized instruction, variety, a creative motivational system, and parent and teacher involvement. It is an approach that works and can be one of the models that we use for the America Reads Program. Why does this approach work? Because specialists can tailor a program to meet an individual student's needs. In many overcrowded classrooms across our country, it's simply impossible for a teacher in charge of 30 or 40 students to give one student who's having problems extra attention. I don't believe that America Reads is a substitute for in-school instruction nor is it a substitute for parental involvement. What we're talking about providing is individualized after school, weekend, and summer reading tutoring for nearly 3 million children a year from kindergarten through third grade [K-3] who want and need extra help. This will supplement the learning that is taking place during classroom hours. What's more important is that this tutoring will take place at no cost to parents and students. I know that there has been criticism about having a literacy program directly aimed at children in K-3. I have to disagree with this criticism. Schools cannot do it alone. Many public schools simply do not have the resources to give students the one-on-one attention they need. We have to launch a large-scale effort to tackle our Nation's youth literacy problem. I believe we need to mobilize and train volunteers to come into the schools to help our children learn to read. I believe we need to hire reading specialists to help our Nation's children. Teachers cannot do it alone. And parents need our help. When 40 percent of our Nation's children cannot read on level by the third grade, we must ask ourselves as a nation what we're doing wrong and how we can correct it. This is a widespread problem that crosses gender, racial, and religious lines. As the Nation begins to enter the 21st century, we cannot have our young people--our future--lagging behind in basic skills. This affects our Nation as a whole. It affects our Nation's productivity. It affects our work force. When these children become adults, they will not have the basic skills needed to survive. Reading is an ongoing activity. And, if we want our children to succeed, if we want to promote work force readiness, and if we want to raise academic standards in our schools, then we have to reach our children in their early stages of development. I hear from teachers, administrators, and counselors in my State about the dismal crisis in public schools. Many children come to school from impoverished backgrounds. Many children come to school either abused themselves or the witness to domestic abuse in the home. With all of these obstacles, it's even more difficult for teachers to teach and for students to learn to read. That's why I am supporting this bold, new initiative. The idea is to use the resources that our Nation already has--libraries, volunteers, students, businesses, and civic organizations--to help our most precious resource--our youth. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I join my colleagues Senators Kennedy and Murray in cosponsoring this important new initiative. The goal of this legislation is to launch a campaign to ensure that every child in our Nation can read independently by the end of the third grade. I believe that this is a worthwhile goal, which will have a wide-ranging impact on our Nation. We need to help our young children learn to read. It's the responsibility not only of parents but of schools, communities, civic groups, libraries, and business leaders. Some 40 percent of all children are now reading below the accepted level on national reading assessments. This is a national crisis. Tens of thousands of students cannot read at the basic level. If students can't read well by the third grade, their chances for later success fall dramatically. These same students are likely to drop out of school; they will have problems with delinquency; and they will have fewer job options. I believe that the America Reads initiative will go a long way in providing much needed resources to parents, schools, and State and local communities to help our children learn to read. This bill would establish a corps of 1 million volunteer tutors and give States additional resources to hire 30,000 reading specialists to coordinate the corps volunteer tutors who will work with teachers, principals, and librarians to help children succeed in reading. I support mobilizing thousands of volunteers, but I also believe that the training and screening must be adequate, especially when we place anyone in our Nation's classrooms. These are issues that my colleagues and I will be addressing. We also want to help parents. This bill establishes Parents as First Teachers challenge grants, which invests in success by supporting effective and proven local efforts that assist parents who request help to better work with their children. The President has also called upon colleges and universities across the country to dedicate half of their new work study funds to support 100,000 college students to serve as reading tutors. Already hundreds of colleges and universities across the country have pledged to have their work study students help children learn to read. In my State of Maryland, Anne Arundel Community College, Bowie State University, Frostburg State University, and the University of Maryland at College Park have all committed to the America Reads initiative. We also want accountability. This legislation will use the improvements in the National Assessment of Educational Progress [NAEP] to provide an annual measure of the reading performance of 4th graders and their progress toward meeting the reading challenge. Both the Corporation for National Service and the Department of Education will oversee and manage this program. The Corporation for National Service has the expertise to pull together the AmeriCorps volunteers and has the infrastructure in place to help mobilize the volunteers. The Department of Education has the knowledge and resources to really make this program accountable. I support utilizing the resources that we already have in place with AmeriCorps. I know that thousands of AmeriCorps volunteers across the country are already in the schools tutoring children. In Maryland, AmeriCorps volunteers are already in public schools tutoring and mentoring students. And, companies too are leading the way with innovative methods of teaching our children to read. Sylvan Learning Center, which is headquartered in my State of Maryland, is a company that has been having great success with its methods to help children learn to read. Sylvan operates tutoring centers across the country. The centers have produced measurable results with children. The centers are community- based facilities. The student to teacher ratio never exceeds 3:1. Sylvan's approach consists of individualized instruction, variety, a creative motivational system, and parent and teacher involvement. It is an approach that works and can be one of the models that we use for the America Reads Program. Why does this approach work? Because specialists can tailor a program to meet an individual student's needs. In many overcrowded classrooms across our country, it's simply impossible for a teacher in charge of 30 or 40 students to give one student who's having problems extra attention. I don't believe that America Reads is a substitute for in-school instruction nor is it a substitute for parental involvement. What we're talking about providing is individualized after school, weekend, and summer reading tutoring for nearly 3 million children a year from kindergarten through third grade [K-3] who want and need extra help. This will supplement the learning that is taking place during classroom hours. What's more important is that this tutoring will take place at no cost to parents and students. I know that there has been criticism about having a literacy program directly aimed at children in K-3. I have to disagree with this criticism. Schools cannot do it alone. Many public schools simply do not have the resources to give students the one-on-one attention they need. We have to launch a large-scale effort to tackle our Nation's youth literacy problem. I believe we need to mobilize and train volunteers to come into the schools to help our children learn to read. I believe we need to hire reading specialists to help our Nation's children. Teachers cannot do it alone. And parents need our help. When 40 percent of our Nation's children cannot read on level by the third grade, we must ask ourselves as a nation what we're doing wrong and how we can correct it. This is a widespread problem that crosses gender, racial, and religious lines. As the Nation begins to enter the 21st century, we cannot have our young people--our future--lagging behind in basic skills. This affects our Nation as a whole. It affects our Nation's productivity. It affects our work force. When these children become adults, they will not have the basic skills needed to survive. Reading is an ongoing activity. And, if we want our children to succeed, if we want to promote work force readiness, and if we want to raise academic standards in our schools, then we have to reach our children in their early stages of development. I hear from teachers, administrators, and counselors in my State about the dismal crisis in public schools. Many children come to school from impoverished backgrounds. Many children come to school either abused themselves or the witness to domestic abuse in the home. With all of these obstacles, it's even more difficult for teachers to teach and for students to learn to read. That's why I am supporting this bold, new initiative. The idea is to use the resources that our Nation already has--libraries, volunteers, students, businesses, and civic organizations--to help our most precious resource--our youth. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I support the ratification of the Chemical Weapons Convention. This international treaty is our best hope to end the use of lethal chemical weapons. It will protect Americans by making it harder for terrorists to produce chemical weapons and it will protect our soldiers on the battlefield. This treaty will make America and the world more secure. The Chemical Weapons Convention bans the development, production, stockpiling, and use of chemicals as weapons. Each and every nation that signs this treaty becomes an ally in the fight against chemical weapons used by terrorists or by outlaw states. If we don't ratify this treaty, America will join countries like Libya and Iraq who refuse to join the worldwide effort to end the use of chemical weapons. I can't speak for my colleagues, but I know that this Senator does not want the United States to be aligned with those terrorist states. The Chemical Weapons Convention is not a liberal or a conservative document. It is not a Democratic or a Republican document. It was negotiated by the Reagan and Bush administrations and it is supported by the Clinton administration. It is in the tradition of a nonpartisan foreign policy. The Chemical Weapons Convention was made in America. It is inconceivable that we--the world's only superpower--would refuse to ratify a Convention that we were instrumental in drafting. Of course no treaty can ever eliminate every threat. That is why the United States must continue to maintain our strong chemical weapons defense program. At the Aberdeen Proving Ground in Maryland, scientists and technicians are developing better ways to protect our troops from the effects of chemical weapons. This important work must continue. In addition, our intelligence agencies, like the National Security Agency, must continue to provide the kind of information that prevents the use of chemical weapons. The National Security Agency is listening in on the international criminals and terrorists as they seek to buy chemicals and produce weapons. The Chemical Weapons Convention will aid these efforts by making it harder for terrorists to get chemicals that could be turned against Americans. America has always led the effort to end the use of chemical weapons--and the convention will ensure that other countries follow our lead. We have already decided not to use chemical weapons and we have started to dismantle our chemical stockpile. Maryland is one of seven States that stores chemical weapons left over from the First and Second World Wars. For many years, we have lived with the threat of an accident. We are only now preparing to neutralize the chemical stockpile that is stored in Maryland. We in Maryland know first-hand the dangers these chemical weapons pose to military personnel and civilians. America's priority must be to safely dispose of these lethal chemicals--not to produce them. Mr. President, The Chemical Weapons Convention will make it harder for thugs and rogue nations to make and use chemical weapons. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting for its ratification.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, this month, Joseph R.L. Sterne will be retiring as editorial page editor of the Baltimore Sun--a job he has held for more than 44 years. I have known Joe for more than 20 of those years. As editor, he has been one of the best. I cannot remember a time when his name was not at the top of the paper's masthead. I read his editorials and he has read my press releases. I think I liked his better. His editorials were him--they were fair, professional, insightful, instructive, tough and thorough. I've learned a lot from them. So did Baltimore and so did Maryland-- whether it was an observation or suggestion regarding foreign policy or firm recommendation on how to improve Baltimore's housing policy or Federal tax issues. Joe started his career in 1953 covering the police beat. But he didn't stay there long. He quickly moved on to report on some of the most important moments in American history--from the civil rights movement to the Vietnam war to working in Africa and Germany covering international affairs. That was his true love. But he never forgot that a great hometown paper begins with a great hometown. His kudos and criticisms spurred all of us to do our best. But then, he asked no less of us than he asked of himself. He is one of the best. I will miss Joe Sterne. Baltimore will miss Joe Sterne. I wish him our best.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I be permitted to speak for such time as is necessary for the nomination of Alexis Herman.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, once again I am deeply disturbed that Alexis Herman's confirmation to be Secretary of Labor has been held up. Miss Herman is being subjected to a level of scrutiny that is not deserving of her nor this institution. Miss Herman is being held hostage for political reasons. What is the real reason for the delay? Well, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle say it is because of an Executive order that would encourage Federal agencies to consider the use of something called ``project labor agreements'' on any construction contract sent out for bid. How ironic that it is my colleagues that would hold up the nomination of the next Secretary of Labor because of an Executive order that asks contractors and subcontractors who bid on a Federal project to consider paying union wages, provide union-scale benefits, and use union hiring halls for labor--projects that are financed with taxpayers dollars. This order does not require the contractor to sign a collective bargaining agreement. It just makes sure that we help our workers maintain a decent wage and living standard. My Republican colleagues would hold up the nomination of the Secretary of Labor, whose responsibility it is to enforce our Nation's labor laws, because we want to ensure that contractors working on Federal projects abide by Federal laws. I want the nomination of Alexis Herman and the debate about her to focus on her qualifications and her competency to lead the Department of Labor. This should not be a debate on President Clinton's Executive order. I call upon the leadership of the other side of the aisle to let this nomination go forward, let there be debate on the Senate floor about Miss Herman's competency. Is she a coalition builder? Can she provide leadership? And does she provide a framework for the future? That is what the debate should be all about. My constituents are deeply concerned that Miss Herman, who brings so many credentials and competency, has been waiting month after month, subjected to character assassination, leaks in the press that distort her record, and now, just when she thought she was going to come to the Senate floor, not have that opportunity because some people are cranky about an Executive order issued by President Clinton. Be cranky with President Clinton. Do not be cranky with Alexis Herman or hold up her nomination. We cannot have this held up because of crankpots. I know Alexis Herman and I have known her for 20 years, when she worked in the Carter administration and I was a Congresswoman. Alexis Herman comes to us having graduated from a Catholic college in New Orleans, Xavier University. She was a social worker, working at Catholic Charities in foster care. Then she wanted to make sure she prevented family breakups, and she began working in job training and placement. In 1974, she headed up a black woman's employment program that then, because of its innovation and her management skill, went to nine other cities. Miss Herman brings to us a background where, at age 27, she was running a 10-city program to help minority women break into the work force. Is that not a Secretary of Labor we want to move people from welfare to work? At 29, she was the youngest person ever named to head the Women's Bureau of the Department of Labor. Following that first Government service, she then went on to run her own business and help manage the 1992 Democratic convention. She is a coalition builder. Throughout her career, she has worked with parties on all sides to find good solutions. If you go back and talk with the people who have worked for her over the years, advocacy groups believe she will speak up for those who are left out and left behind. The community that provides the jobs, the business community, feels that she is a coalition builder and helps them solve issues from regulatory reform to how to do outreach in the minority communities. She will bring to the Labor Department a lifelong commitment to making sure that we create an opportunity ladder in this century. She has said publicly and to me privately that she wants to accept the challenge of moving people from welfare to work in a new era of time limit on welfare. She wants enhanced health and pension security for working people. She wants to ensure a safe and equal opportunity workplace, and she wants to work with the President in this on extending the lifelong education and training opportunities for our citizens. Mr. President, we need a Secretary of Labor. We need someone who is a leader, who is effective, and who has a vision for the future. I really encourage that the nomination of Alexis Herman be brought up after we finish our discussion on the chemical weapons treaty. I yield the floor.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, each year an elite group of young women rise above the ranks of their peers and confront the challenge of attaining the Girl Scouts of the United States of America's highest rank in scouting, the Girl Scout Gold Award. It is with great pleasure that I recognize and applaud young women from the State of Maryland who are this year's recipients of this most prestigious and time honored award. These outstanding young women are to be commended on their extraordinary commitment and dedication to their families, their friends, their communities, and to the Girl Scouts of the United States of America. The qualities of character, perseverence, and leadership which enabled them to reach this goal will also help them to meet the challenges of the future. They are our inspiration for today and our promise for tomorrow. I am honored to ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating the recipients of this award from the State of Maryland. They are the best and the brightest and serve as an example of character and moral strength for us all to imitate and follow. Finally, I wish to salute the families, scout leaders, and the Girl Scout Council of the Nation's Capital who have provided these young women with continued support and encouragement. It is with great pride that I submit a list of this year's Girl Scout Gold Award recipients from the State of Maryland, and I ask that the list be printed in the Record. The material follows: Girl Scout Council of the Nation's Capital Breton Aulick, Rebecca Bensur, Jacquelyn Blaser, Brianna Blaser, Kristen Bowen, Arianne Boylan, Christine Chase, Heather Ann Church, Kimberly Crowder, Margaret Eaton-Sainers, Carlita Fletcher, Jessica Gaines, Brianna Gibson, Kathleen Henley, Kishuana Jarmon, Gretchen Kallemyn. Lyndsay Madden, Grace McCann, Jennifer McKelvey, Jennifer Miller, Laura Murray, Linda Jean Rinko, Janis Sanders, Alea Lu Schroeder, Jana Siskind, Kelsi Stembel, Andrea Stuart, Tanya Wessells, Denise White.