Barbara Mikulski

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 Scouts of Central Maryland 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 Scouts of Central Maryland Claire Adams, Laurie Lee Albright, Lisa Birkenheuer, Lyndsay Braswell, Jennifer Breighner, Joanna Buckley, Clair Cozad, Melissa Daniels, Sarah Vezzetti, Emily Wilson, Melissa Wittnebel, Marla Conley, Allison Mays, Penelope McLaughlin, Sheri Scoville, Kathryn Fryer, Sarah Gibbons. Jessica Hamman, Diana Maddox, Sarah Magliano, Jillian McFarland, Michelle Middleton, Erin Owen, Elizabeth Ruifrok, Amanda Sadeghin, Christina Santoni, Jonette G. Shaffer, Stephanie G. Zonak, Jamila Howard, Janelle Milam, Elizabeth Disharoon, Anne Fowler, Keri Jamison, Courtney McDevitt. Brighid Tewey, Emily Wright, Katherine Barrow, Diana Constantinides, Mary Hood, Shannon Lawson, Abigail Link, Christina Miller, Chris Mullinix, Trisha Sater, Julie Day, Kathleen Hall, Kristin Heisey, Jennifer Lewis, Julie Petr, Lisa Philipose.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to a very special American, Mr. Fred Vanderveen, of Salisbury, MD. I am proud to say that Mr. Vanderveen is the 1997 winner of the National Heroes Award from the Sporting Goods Manufacturer's Association. This prestigious award is given each year to three individuals who make outstanding and unique humanitarian contributions to local sports programs throughout the Nation. Fred Vanderveen is a full-time high school biology teacher. But the classroom is only one area where Mr. Vanderveen is preparing our children for the future. He knows that developing the health and fitness of our children's bodies is as important as developing their minds. He also knows that kids need a safe place to go where they can have positive experiences, where they will be among friends, and where they will feel important. So he invested his life's savings in a sports and training facility called Youth Exercise Services. His facility is designed to meet the needs of mentally and physically handicapped athletes, at-risk youths, and anyone who will say no to drugs and yes to exercise. Mr. Vanderveen takes to his playing field at Youth Exercise Services the same way I take to the Senate floor: mission-driven, determined, and unwilling to lose. Through his dedication and hard work, the kids he touches learn that they don't have to lose either. Whether they are handicapped, at-risk, or just looking for a positive after school environment, they've got the chance to come out winners because Fred Vanderveen cares about each and every one of them. Mr. President, I want to give my warmest congratulations to Mr. Vanderveen, and to the kids whose lives he helps make better. His 1997 Heroes Award is richly deserved, and the State of Maryland is proud to call him one of our own.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Yes.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I am honored to be joined by my colleagues, both men and women from both sides of the aisle, in introducing the reauthorization of the Mammography Quality Standards Act [MQSA]. The bill I am introducing today reauthorizes the original legislation which passed in 1992 with bipartisan support. What MQSA does is require that all facilities that provide mammograms meet key safety and quality-assurance standards in the area of personnel, equipment, and operating procedures. Before the law passed, tests were misread, women were misdiagnosed, and people died as a result of sloppy work. Since 1992, MQSA has been successful in bringing facilities into compliance with the Federal standards. What are these national, uniform quality standards for mammography? Well, facilities are required to use equipment designed specifically for mammography. Only radiological technologists can perform mammography. Only qualified doctors can interpret the results of mammography. Facilities must establish a quality assurance and control program to ensure reliability, clarity, and accurate interpretation of mammograms. Facilities must be inspected annually by qualified inspectors. Finally, facilities must be accredited by an accrediting body approved by the Secretary of Health and Human Services. This current reauthorization makes a few minor changes to the law to ensure the following: Patients and referring physicians must be advised of any mammography facility deficiency. Women are guaranteed the right to obtain an original of their mammogram. Finally, both State and local government agencies are permitted to have inspection authority. I like this law because it has saved lives. The frontline against breast cancer is mammography. We know that early detection saves lives. But a mammogram is worse than useless if it produces a poor-quality image or is misinterpreted. The first rule of all medical treatment is: Above all things, do no harm. And a bad mammogram can do real harm by leading a woman and her doctor to believe that nothing is wrong when something is. The result can be unnecessary suffering or even a death that could have been prevented. That is why this legislation is so important. This law must be reauthorized so that we don't go back to the old days when women's lives were in jeopardy. I want to make sure that women's health care needs are met comprehensively. It is expected that 180,000 new cases of breast cancer will be diagnosed and about 44,000 women will die from the disease in 1997. This makes breast cancer the most common cancer among women. And only lung cancer causes more deaths in women. We must aggressively pursue prevention in our war on breast cancer. I pledge to fight for new attitudes and find new ways to end the needless pain and death that too many American women face. This bill is an important step in that direction. On behalf of all the women of the Senate, I invite the men of the Senate who have not already cosponsored to do so. The women of America are counting on your support.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I am honored to be joined by my colleagues, both men and women from both sides of the aisle, in introducing the reauthorization of the Mammography Quality Standards Act [MQSA]. The bill I am introducing today reauthorizes the original legislation which passed in 1992 with bipartisan support. What MQSA does is require that all facilities that provide mammograms meet key safety and quality-assurance standards in the area of personnel, equipment, and operating procedures. Before the law passed, tests were misread, women were misdiagnosed, and people died as a result of sloppy work. Since 1992, MQSA has been successful in bringing facilities into compliance with the Federal standards. What are these national, uniform quality standards for mammography? Well, facilities are required to use equipment designed specifically for mammography. Only radiological technologists can perform mammography. Only qualified doctors can interpret the results of mammography. Facilities must establish a quality assurance and control program to ensure reliability, clarity, and accurate interpretation of mammograms. Facilities must be inspected annually by qualified inspectors. Finally, facilities must be accredited by an accrediting body approved by the Secretary of Health and Human Services. This current reauthorization makes a few minor changes to the law to ensure the following: Patients and referring physicians must be advised of any mammography facility deficiency. Women are guaranteed the right to obtain an original of their mammogram. Finally, both State and local government agencies are permitted to have inspection authority. I like this law because it has saved lives. The frontline against breast cancer is mammography. We know that early detection saves lives. But a mammogram is worse than useless if it produces a poor-quality image or is misinterpreted. The first rule of all medical treatment is: Above all things, do no harm. And a bad mammogram can do real harm by leading a woman and her doctor to believe that nothing is wrong when something is. The result can be unnecessary suffering or even a death that could have been prevented. That is why this legislation is so important. This law must be reauthorized so that we don't go back to the old days when women's lives were in jeopardy. I want to make sure that women's health care needs are met comprehensively. It is expected that 180,000 new cases of breast cancer will be diagnosed and about 44,000 women will die from the disease in 1997. This makes breast cancer the most common cancer among women. And only lung cancer causes more deaths in women. We must aggressively pursue prevention in our war on breast cancer. I pledge to fight for new attitudes and find new ways to end the needless pain and death that too many American women face. This bill is an important step in that direction. On behalf of all the women of the Senate, I invite the men of the Senate who have not already cosponsored to do so. The women of America are counting on your support.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I want to state very clearly that I agree with the distinguished majority leader, the Republican leader, and the respected chairman of the Labor and Education Committee, Mr. Jeffords, in reauthorizing the Prescription Drug User Fee Act this year. And I also support strong bipartisan agreement on FDA reform. The time has come. The time is now. It is a window of opportunity to just do it. I am so pleased that we are proceeding on this, and not only in a bipartisan fashion, but a nonpartisan fashion. I had the pleasure of working with the former chairman, Senator Nancy Kassebaum of Kansas, who retired, on fashioning a bipartisan framework on FDA reform. I am so pleased that her successor, Senator Jeffords, has picked up the same framework as a working document for us to be able to proceed because this is what the American people want us to do--to work together to be able to have a Federal agency that oversees the approval of our pharmaceuticals, biotechnology, and biomedical devices to ensure their safety and efficacy, but also to make sure they move out into clinical practice in a timely way. This is what we need to do because it will save lives and generate jobs in the United States of America. So I look forward to working with the distinguished chairman in fashioning the bill in committee and with the Republican leader in moving it to the Senate floor, because it is time to bring a smokestack regulatory framework into the computer age. FDA needs to adopt a new culture and move into the 21st century. That is why FDA reform is so important. We need a new regulatory framework that will make sure that we bring exciting new biomedical technology devices to not only millions of Americans in a timely fashion but this is a global field that will enable us to export around the world. Our country has been often known for exporting smart weapons of war but this will enable us to export smart new technology in the war against disease. This will be absolutely crucial. Reform is of great interest in my State of Maryland. Maryland is home to many biotechnology companies and medical device manufacturers and they are creating new scientific products which will save lives. In the 104th Congress, under the able leadership of now retired Senator Kassebaum, we reached that bipartisan consensus on effective and responsible FDA reform. Then I was pleased to join several of my Democratic colleagues in supporting the Kassebaum bill. And I am committed to achieving meaningful bipartisan reform this year. Coupled with FDA reform though, this is the year that we must reauthorize something called PDUFA. As has been outlined very ably by the chairman of the committee, this Prescription Drug User Fee Act has shown that it will significantly reduce drug approval time because it generated fees that have been used to hire more staff. It enabled the FDA to move more expeditiously in moving new drugs to patients more quickly. For example, new AIDS drugs are being approved now in a matter of months rather than a matter of years. FDA itself is located in my own State. They work under very difficult situations. They work out of modular buildings, many of which are spread over 27 different sites. They often are short-staffed. And they need to make sure we pass PDUFA so that they have the adequate resources they need to do the job while we help them fashion an adequate legislative and regulatory framework. We can build on this great track record. With the extension of PDUFA for another 5 years, we can have the opportunity to make further improvements. What can be done with some new drugs should be done for the benefit of many other patients. Mr. President, we are talking about the need to provide all the help we can to a Government agency that has an enormous impact on the day- to-day lives of Americans. The FDA is involved with everything from the drugs we take to the food we eat. Let us move on PDUFA and FDA reform in a sensible, responsible bipartisan manner. And as this is done, we must focus on the values of safety and efficacy while we will also streamline our process. I know also in the Chamber is the distinguished Senator from Oregon [Mr. Wyden], who when we worked on the original PDUFA was in the House. He brings a great deal of knowledge to that. And we know he will be part of our bipartisan effort. So we thank you, I say to the Senator, and look forward to working with you. In conclusion, I would like to also thank the chairman of the committee, Mr. Jeffords. He established a committee now called Public Health and Safety. It is the first time I believe in the committee's history that we have had a committee devoted strictly to focusing on the public health needs of the American people. The Centers for Disease Control and NIOSH and others will be so absolutely crucial. And being the gentleman that he is, he yielded that plum to another member of the committee, and enabled Dr. Bill Frist to chair that committee, who brings to the committee the experience as a physician of a hands-on clinical practice as well as the know-how and what it really takes to be able to save lives. This is what we need to be doing--the right committee structure, the right attitude within the committee so that we can all work together so that at the end of the term, we might not have solved every budget problem, we might not have balanced every line item, but at the end of this term people will be safer, their food, their pharmaceuticals, and so on, will be able to move quicker, faster, cheaper, maintaining safety and efficacy because of what this committee has done. I look forward to cooperating with that. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. JEFFORDS addressed the Chair.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I introduce the HHS Women Scientist Employment Opportunity Act. What this bill does is quite simple. It will require all agencies within the Department of Health and Human Services to establish policies to ensure employment opportunities for women scientists within the Department. It will ensure a fair break for the many dedicated women scientists serving at the National Institutes of Health, the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, the Food and Drug Administration, and other agencies or offices in the Department. Policies are to be reviewed regularly and revised if necessary. This bill is about the promoting equality. It is about supporting and advancing the careers of women scientists. It is about our Government leading the way in setting an example for both academia and industry on career policies for women scientists. In 1992, it came to my attention that women scientists at the National Institutes of Health were not being treated fairly. Women scientists at NIH indicated that they were not being given research and conference assignments that would help advance their careers. They were not being adequately recognized for their accomplishments. Publication opportunities were limited. Questions were raised about tenure and comparability of pay with male colleagues. Legislation was introduced in the 103d and 104th Congresses to address these concerns. I am encouraged that NIH voluntarily adopted some of the provisions outlined in these bills. But, this is only a start. We must continue to address the equity issues and policies impacting career advancement of our best and brightest women scientists. These issues deserve our utmost attention. That is why this bill is so important. It will ensure that the policies are in place to promote career opportunities for women scientists. And, it will ensure that policies are reviewed regularly, that progress is monitored and that policies are revised if necessary. What I like about this bill is that it addresses a problem in our own backyard. It says we in the Federal Government have a problem, and we are going to fix it. It ensures that our women scientists working at HHS are treated fairly. It serves as a model for the private sector by setting the stage for equity among our career scientists. It shows that we are very serious about equity and fair play in the scientific community. I encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting the HHS Women Scientist Employment Opportunity Act.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I introduce the HHS Women Scientist Employment Opportunity Act. What this bill does is quite simple. It will require all agencies within the Department of Health and Human Services to establish policies to ensure employment opportunities for women scientists within the Department. It will ensure a fair break for the many dedicated women scientists serving at the National Institutes of Health, the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, the Food and Drug Administration, and other agencies or offices in the Department. Policies are to be reviewed regularly and revised if necessary. This bill is about the promoting equality. It is about supporting and advancing the careers of women scientists. It is about our Government leading the way in setting an example for both academia and industry on career policies for women scientists. In 1992, it came to my attention that women scientists at the National Institutes of Health were not being treated fairly. Women scientists at NIH indicated that they were not being given research and conference assignments that would help advance their careers. They were not being adequately recognized for their accomplishments. Publication opportunities were limited. Questions were raised about tenure and comparability of pay with male colleagues. Legislation was introduced in the 103d and 104th Congresses to address these concerns. I am encouraged that NIH voluntarily adopted some of the provisions outlined in these bills. But, this is only a start. We must continue to address the equity issues and policies impacting career advancement of our best and brightest women scientists. These issues deserve our utmost attention. That is why this bill is so important. It will ensure that the policies are in place to promote career opportunities for women scientists. And, it will ensure that policies are reviewed regularly, that progress is monitored and that policies are revised if necessary. What I like about this bill is that it addresses a problem in our own backyard. It says we in the Federal Government have a problem, and we are going to fix it. It ensures that our women scientists working at HHS are treated fairly. It serves as a model for the private sector by setting the stage for equity among our career scientists. It shows that we are very serious about equity and fair play in the scientific community. I encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting the HHS Women Scientist Employment Opportunity Act.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the nomination of Merrick Garland to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. circuit. Mr. Garland is a resident of my State of Maryland. I am pleased that his nomination is finally on the Senate floor for a vote. It is critical that vacancies on the Federal bench are filled, especially at the appellate level. Mr. Garland has a distinguished legal record in the public and private sectors. He has specialized in criminal, civil, and appellate litigation, as well as administrative and antitrust law. I believe his experience will serve him well on the Federal bench once he is confirmed. Mr. Garland is a magna cum laude graduate of Harvard Law School and a summa cum laude graduate of Harvard College. While at Harvard Law School, he was the articles editor of the Harvard Law Review and a member of the prestigious Phi Beta Kappa, while he attended Harvard College. When I decide whether to support a judicial nominee, I look at whether the nominee is competent; whether the nominee possesses the appropriate judicial temperament; whether the nominee possesses the highest personal and professional integrity, and whether the nominee will protect our core constitutional values. I believe that Mr. Garland possesses all of these qualifications. His legal and academic record are exemplary. I am impressed that he has devoted part of his career to public service. He served as the Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General in the Department of Justice. And he clerked after law school for one of the most distinguished Supreme Court Justices, Justice William J. Brennan, Jr. He's also done extensive pro-bono legal work on behalf of disadvantaged individuals. He has represented an African-American employee in a claim of racial discrimination, a mother in a custody dispute, and court-requested representation of a prisoner. I urge my colleagues to support Mr. Garland's nomination to the U.S. Court of Appeals D.C. Circuit. I hope that once Mr. Garland is confirmed, we can move forward to a vote on the other pending Federal judicial nominees.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, today I am joining with my colleagues, Senator Sarbanes, Senator Warner, and Senator Akaka to submit a very important resolution. Our resolution states a simple fact--federal retirees should not be singled out for delays in their cost of living adjustments. As my colleagues know, 1997 was the first year since 1993 that Federal retirees received a timely COLA. Their COLA's were delayed until April for the last 3 years as part of the 1993 deficit reduction plan. They were willing to accept this delay because they knew that they would have to do their fair share to help us control the budget deficit. Many of them said to me, ``Senator, I'm willing to tighten my belt another notch to help this country, as long as everyone else is asked to do the same.'' Now we have a situation where retirees are being asked to tighten the belt again. Except this time they are being singled out for special treatment. We have proposals to delay Federal retiree COLA's for another 4 years. I don't think that's right --it's not fair and its not equitable. I think all COLA's--Federal, military, and Social Security should be paid on time. They should be reliable and they should be accurate. We owe our seniors, our Government retirees, and our military retirees nothing less. I am very disturbed by the recent trend of promises broken to Federal employees, and retirees. I believe that promises made should be promises kept. When Federal employees signed up for service, they agreed to defer some compensation until retirement. They knew that they would make less salary than in the private sector, but they also knew that they would have a stable benefits package of health insurance, life insurance, and retirement. If we delay their COLA's again we are telling them--sorry, we did not exactly tell you the truth when you signed up for service. We are telling them that they cannot rely on the benefits that they planned their retirements around. I do not think this is the way we should run our Government, and it's not the way we should treat our Government retirees. I am working to make sure we honor our commitments, and I urge all my colleagues to do the same and support this resolution.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, with sadness, I rise today to pay tribute to a remarkable Member of this body and a very dear friend, the senior Senator from Kentucky, Wendell Ford. Senator Ford has announced his retirement after a third of a century in public service, including the last 22 years in the U.S. Senate. When Wendell Ford leaves the Senate at the end of next year to return to his family and his beloved Kentucky, I will miss his leadership and his friendship tremendously. For the past 3 years, it has been my pleasure to serve with Senator Ford in the Democratic leadership in my capacity as conference secretary. Since 1990 Senator Ford has served in the leadership as Democratic whip, where he has been an energetic leader and has had a positive impact on the Senate's agenda. During the years I have served with him I have appreciated his good advice and his no-nonsense style. Senator Ford's insights into the issues and problems we address in the Senate, as well as his good word, have made him a valuable and trusted leader. Our leadership, the Senate, and most of all the State of Kentucky have greatly benefited from his service. Throughout his career in public service, Senator Ford has remained true to his constituents by being a strong advocate for his home State of Kentucky. He knows that a Senator's ultimate responsibility is to the people of his State. As a result of his advocacy and his honesty, Kentucky voters have returned him to Washington three times with landslide election victories. Senator Ford has also served as an advocate for the Senate. As chairman of the Rules Committee he has helped ensure the smooth operation of the Senate and has been a leader in looking for ways to make the Senate work more efficiently. As a member of the Committees on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, as well as Energy and Natural Resources, Senator Ford has been at the center of many of our most important national debates. I believe that I speak for all of my colleagues when I say that the departure of Senator Ford will leave a huge void in this institution. He has been an effective leader, a strong legislator, a fearless defender of his State, and a good friend. As he approaches retirement, I want to thank Wendell Ford for his service to his country and congratulate him for his extraordinary career. We will truly miss him.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, today I am introducing an important piece of legislation called the Federal Employee Compensation Protection Act. With the 1995 to 1996 Government shutdown fresh in our minds, I think it is crucial that we take steps in this Congress to keep faith with our Federal employees and make sure they are never again sent home without pay. My bill will keep that faith by protecting Federal employee pay and benefits during a future Government shutdown. This bill ensures that Federal employees in Maryland and across the Nation will be able to make their mortgage payments, put food on the table, and provide for their families during a shutdown. The last shutdown of the Federal Government severely disrupted the lives of thousands of Federal employees and their families. In my State of Maryland alone, there are more than 280,000 Federal employees. They are some of the most dedicated and hard-working people in America today. These employees have devoted their careers and lives to public service, and they should not have been used as pawns in a game of political brinkmanship. During the last several years, Federal employees have endured their fair share of hardship. Downsizing, diet COLA's, delayed COLA's, and attacks on pensions and health benefits have damaged morale at nearly every Federal agency. These assaults must stop. We cannot continue to denigrate and downgrade Federal employees and at the same time expect Government to work more efficiently. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and also work to prevent any future shutdowns of our Government. We have a contract with our Federal employees, and we should encourage their dedication by ensuring that the contract is honored and their pay and benefits are not put in jeopardy.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, today I introduce the Hazardous Occupations Retirement Benefits Act of 1997. This legislation will grant an early retirement package for revenue officers of the Internal Revenue Service, customs inspectors of the U.S. Customs Service, and immigration inspectors of the Immigration and Naturalization Service. Under current law, with the exception of the groups listed in this legislation, all Federal law enforcement officers and firefighters are eligible to retire at age 50 with 20 years of Federal service. This legislation will amend the current law and finally grant the same 20- year retirement to these members of the Internal Revenue Service, Customs Service, and Immigration and Naturalization Service. The employees under this bill have very hazardous, physically taxing occupations, and it is in the public's interest to tenure a young and competent work force in these jobs. The need for a 20-year retirement benefit for inspectors of the Customs Service is easily apparent. These employees are the country's first line of defense against terrorism and the smuggling of illegal drugs at our borders. They have the authority to apprehend those engaged in such activities and carry a firearm on the job. They are responsible for the majority of arrests performed by Customs Service employees. In 1994, inspectors of the Customs Service seized 204,000 pounds of cocaine, 2,600 pounds of heroin, and 559,000 pounds of marijuana. They are required to undergo the same law enforcement training as all other law enforcement personnel. These employees face multiple challenges. They confront leading criminals in the drug war, organized crime figures, and increasingly sophisticated white-collar criminals. Revenue officers struggle with heavy workloads and a high rate of job stress, resulting in a variety of physical and mental symptoms. Many IRS employees must employ pseudonyms to hide their identity because of the great threat to their personal safety. The Internal Revenue Service has put out a manual for their employees entitled: ``Assaults and Threats: A Guide to Your Personal Safety'' to help employees respond to hostile situations. The document advises IRS employees how to handle on-the-job assaults, abuse, threatening telephone calls, and other menacing situations. Mr. President, this legislation is cost effective. Any cost that is created by this act is more than offset by savings in training costs and increased revenue collection. A 20-year retirement bill for these employees will reduce turnover, increase yield, decrease employee recruitment and development costs, and enhance the retention of a well- trained and experienced work force. I urge my colleagues to join me again in this Congress in expressing support for this bill and finally getting it enacted. This bill will improve the effectiveness of our inspector and revenue officer work force to ensure the integrity of our borders and proper collection of the taxes and duties owed to the Federal Government.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, today I introduce the Hazardous Occupations Retirement Benefits Act of 1997. This legislation will grant an early retirement package for revenue officers of the Internal Revenue Service, customs inspectors of the U.S. Customs Service, and immigration inspectors of the Immigration and Naturalization Service. Under current law, with the exception of the groups listed in this legislation, all Federal law enforcement officers and firefighters are eligible to retire at age 50 with 20 years of Federal service. This legislation will amend the current law and finally grant the same 20- year retirement to these members of the Internal Revenue Service, Customs Service, and Immigration and Naturalization Service. The employees under this bill have very hazardous, physically taxing occupations, and it is in the public's interest to tenure a young and competent work force in these jobs. The need for a 20-year retirement benefit for inspectors of the Customs Service is easily apparent. These employees are the country's first line of defense against terrorism and the smuggling of illegal drugs at our borders. They have the authority to apprehend those engaged in such activities and carry a firearm on the job. They are responsible for the majority of arrests performed by Customs Service employees. In 1994, inspectors of the Customs Service seized 204,000 pounds of cocaine, 2,600 pounds of heroin, and 559,000 pounds of marijuana. They are required to undergo the same law enforcement training as all other law enforcement personnel. These employees face multiple challenges. They confront leading criminals in the drug war, organized crime figures, and increasingly sophisticated white-collar criminals. Revenue officers struggle with heavy workloads and a high rate of job stress, resulting in a variety of physical and mental symptoms. Many IRS employees must employ pseudonyms to hide their identity because of the great threat to their personal safety. The Internal Revenue Service has put out a manual for their employees entitled: ``Assaults and Threats: A Guide to Your Personal Safety'' to help employees respond to hostile situations. The document advises IRS employees how to handle on-the-job assaults, abuse, threatening telephone calls, and other menacing situations. Mr. President, this legislation is cost effective. Any cost that is created by this act is more than offset by savings in training costs and increased revenue collection. A 20-year retirement bill for these employees will reduce turnover, increase yield, decrease employee recruitment and development costs, and enhance the retention of a well- trained and experienced work force. I urge my colleagues to join me again in this Congress in expressing support for this bill and finally getting it enacted. This bill will improve the effectiveness of our inspector and revenue officer work force to ensure the integrity of our borders and proper collection of the taxes and duties owed to the Federal Government.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, today I am introducing an important piece of legislation called the Federal Employee Compensation Protection Act. With the 1995 to 1996 Government shutdown fresh in our minds, I think it is crucial that we take steps in this Congress to keep faith with our Federal employees and make sure they are never again sent home without pay. My bill will keep that faith by protecting Federal employee pay and benefits during a future Government shutdown. This bill ensures that Federal employees in Maryland and across the Nation will be able to make their mortgage payments, put food on the table, and provide for their families during a shutdown. The last shutdown of the Federal Government severely disrupted the lives of thousands of Federal employees and their families. In my State of Maryland alone, there are more than 280,000 Federal employees. They are some of the most dedicated and hard-working people in America today. These employees have devoted their careers and lives to public service, and they should not have been used as pawns in a game of political brinkmanship. During the last several years, Federal employees have endured their fair share of hardship. Downsizing, diet COLA's, delayed COLA's, and attacks on pensions and health benefits have damaged morale at nearly every Federal agency. These assaults must stop. We cannot continue to denigrate and downgrade Federal employees and at the same time expect Government to work more efficiently. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and also work to prevent any future shutdowns of our Government. We have a contract with our Federal employees, and we should encourage their dedication by ensuring that the contract is honored and their pay and benefits are not put in jeopardy.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I introduce the Older Americans Act amendments of 1997. The Older Americans Act expired in 1995 and we have not been able to reach consensus on reauthorizing it since then. I am introducing last year's administration bill. This bill may not be perfect. But, I want to get the debate started. The act is critical to meeting the day-to-day needs of America's seniors. This bill serves as a starting point for our deliberations. The Older Americans Act has been the major vehicle for organizing and delivering social services to the elderly since it was passed in 1965. It has supported a broad array of service programs through a network of 57 State agencies and 670 local area agencies on aging. As a result of this act, our seniors have benefited from millions of contacts and referrals for services. They have benefited from millions of rides and meals provided through the transportation and nutrition programs. They have benefited from the elder abuse program. And, they have benefited from the jobs program. These examples show how coordinated service programs help keep our seniors in their own homes and communities as viable members of society. The bill I put forth today focuses on increasing flexibility to States, area agencies on aging, and providers. This flexibility will allow them to be innovative in designing and implementing programs and services for the elderly. It takes into account the distinct interest of all partners. It strives to balance those interest between all partners. It focuses on streamlining and enhancing effectiveness of programs for our seniors. It sets the stage for performance partnerships and innovative ways of providing services. It ensures that performance measures mandated under the Government Performance and Results Act [GPRA] are in place so that we can see the results of these programs. It retains the programs for native Americans. These are some of the things this bill will do. But, it is time for us to take action. It is time for us to address the issues at hand. It is time for us to pass a bill ensuring that the needed services and programs are available to our seniors.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to the balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. Let me be very clear, I want a balanced budget, and I am committed to do everything I can to achieve this goal. However, I do not believe we must amend the Constitution in order to balance the budget. I will oppose this amendment because it is unnecessary; because I am convinced that it threatens the viability of Social Security, and because it makes no provisions for investing in our infrastructure. This amendment does nothing to balance the budget. We already have the tools to do that. Since President Clinton's first term in the White House and my second term in the Senate, the deficit has fallen dramatically from $290 billion in 1992 to $107 billion in 1996. This amount represents just 1.4 percent of our gross domestic product, the smallest percentage of any industrialized nation. Clearly, as the past few years have shown us, we can continue to reduce the deficit--until it is balanced--without amending the Constitution. Many supporters of the balanced budget amendment believe that if you can balance the family budget, you can balance the Federal budget. But if each family lived by a balanced budget amendment, then mortgages, car loans, and student loans would be prohibited. In effect, a balanced budget amendment would prohibit the Federal Government from making the kind of investments for our future that our families make every day. Investments in our infrastructure would be threatened because the balanced budget amendment makes no provisions for a capital budget. Even State governments that require a balanced budget have a separate budget for capital projects, such as highways, schools, et cetera. The balanced budget amendment would restrict our ability to improve our infrastructure. To address this issue, Senator Feinstein and Senator Torricelli each offered an amendment to provide for a capital budget for infrastructure investments. I voted for both the Feinstein and Torricelli amendments. Unfortunately, both amendments were defeated. Recently, 11 Nobel prize-winning economists announced their opposition to the balanced budget amendment because they felt it would put the country in an economic straitjacket. They make a very compelling case. I have no doubt that the balanced budget amendment would tie the Federal Government in knots, restricting our ability to respond to emergencies and economic downturns. Even the Wall Street Journal referred to the balanced budget amendment as politically empty symbolism. I agree with them. Finally, I believe the balanced budget amendment threatens the Social Security system. Under the balanced budget amendment, there is no protection for Social Security benefits. If the Government finds that the budget is not balanced, the Social Security trust fund could be used to make up the difference. I voted for the Reid amendment which would have exempted the Social Security trust fund from the balanced budget amendment. I regret that this amendment was defeated. Mr. President, I will not allow the Social Security trust fund to be used to balance the budget. We have a contract with our senior citizens and I plan to honor that contract. A promise made must be a promise kept. Without protections for Social Security, I will have to vote against the balanced budget amendment. I fully support the goal of balancing the budget but a constitutional amendment is not the way to do it. We need to continue to reduce spending to reach a balanced budget in an orderly manner that recognizes national priorities such as Social Security and the importance of making investments in our future. Mr. President, I stand ready to continue working toward a balanced budget but tampering with the Constitution is not the way to do it.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I introduce the Older Americans Act amendments of 1997. The Older Americans Act expired in 1995 and we have not been able to reach consensus on reauthorizing it since then. I am introducing last year's administration bill. This bill may not be perfect. But, I want to get the debate started. The act is critical to meeting the day-to-day needs of America's seniors. This bill serves as a starting point for our deliberations. The Older Americans Act has been the major vehicle for organizing and delivering social services to the elderly since it was passed in 1965. It has supported a broad array of service programs through a network of 57 State agencies and 670 local area agencies on aging. As a result of this act, our seniors have benefited from millions of contacts and referrals for services. They have benefited from millions of rides and meals provided through the transportation and nutrition programs. They have benefited from the elder abuse program. And, they have benefited from the jobs program. These examples show how coordinated service programs help keep our seniors in their own homes and communities as viable members of society. The bill I put forth today focuses on increasing flexibility to States, area agencies on aging, and providers. This flexibility will allow them to be innovative in designing and implementing programs and services for the elderly. It takes into account the distinct interest of all partners. It strives to balance those interest between all partners. It focuses on streamlining and enhancing effectiveness of programs for our seniors. It sets the stage for performance partnerships and innovative ways of providing services. It ensures that performance measures mandated under the Government Performance and Results Act [GPRA] are in place so that we can see the results of these programs. It retains the programs for native Americans. These are some of the things this bill will do. But, it is time for us to take action. It is time for us to address the issues at hand. It is time for us to pass a bill ensuring that the needed services and programs are available to our seniors.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I support the release of funds for international family planning. This program is essential to enabling the world's poorest women to improve their lives--and the lives of their families. Over the past 2 years, Congress has drastically cut funds for international family planning--and has put barriers in the way of implementing the program. We have tied our international family planning program in knots--and are denying health care to the world's poorest women. Today we will vote to right part of this wrong. We are not voting to increase international family planning. We are simply voting to release the funds--so that our family planning program will no longer be held hostage. What do the cuts and delays in funding mean for poor women? The Alan Guttmacher Institute estimates that it means that 7 million couples in developing countries will no longer have access to contraceptives. There could be almost 2 million unplanned births. And there could be up to 1.6 million additional abortions. When we deny a woman the right to choose whether or not to have children, we deny her the right to control and improve her life. We deny her the right to help herself and her family. Those who oppose international family planning assistance claim to want to reduce the number of abortions. But the effect of our policies is just the opposite. Family planning prevents unwanted pregnancies and abortions. You would think this basic fact would not need to be restated on the floor of the U.S. Senate. America's international family planning funds are not spent on abortion. So now, some insist on going after basic health care services that prevent pregnancy. Over 100 million women throughout the world cannot obtain family planning because they are poor, uneducated, or lack access to health care. Twenty million of these women will seek unsafe abortions. Some women will die, some will be disabled. We could prevent some of this needless suffering. This issue won't go away. I will join my colleagues on both sides of the aisle in fighting against the irrational and cruel effort to end U.S. assistance for international family planning. We will continue the fight to enable the world's poorest women to control and improve their lives.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I am proud to join Senator Graham in introducing the Access to Emergency Medical Services Act of 1997. This bill prohibits health plans from denying coverage and payment for emergency room visits. I support this bill for three reasons. It protects patients and patients' pocketbooks. It respects medical decisions made by doctors and nurses. It gives HMO's the opportunity to do the right thing. Personal health is not something to take chances with. That's why many people seek emergency assistance when they think something may be seriously wrong with their health. They go to the emergency room thinking their insurance company covers emergency room treatment. But when the problem turns out to be a nonemergency, the insurance company denies payment. This is called retrospective denial. I want to end retrospective denials. No family should have to second guess getting the care they need because they are worried about being stuck with an enormous bill. Last week my office received a phone call from a woman in Frederick, MD. She was distraught. She had begged her husband not to take her to the emergency room when she complained of serious chest pains. She knew their insurance company wouldn't pay. It had happened before. But her husband insisted she go. He was worried about her and wanted her to see a doctor. She cried all the way to the hospital. A few weeks later she got the notice--her claim was denied. She was stuck with the bill. She was right to go to the emergency room. There are approximately 200 medical problems that could cause the type of chest pain she experienced ranging from a heart attack to pulmonary emboli to simple indigestion. The point is, no one knows for sure what problem they are having until they get treatment from an emergency room physician. Maryland already has laws in place to guarantee that HMO's will cover to emergency services. But we can't practice good emergency medicine one patient, one ER room, or one State at a time. That's why we need a national law that ensures that medical decisions are made in the ER room, not the corporate boardbroom. This bill will set a new national definition for the term ``emergency'' without preempting stronger State laws. The ``Prudent Layperson Standard'' means that a person with average knowledge of health and medicine can seek emergency treatment when they think they have a serious medical condition. Quite often, patients do not know when they go to an emergency room whether their illness is life- threatening or not. With this standard, they are not required to know-- they can use their own best judgment. After all, we can't expect the average person to be able to diagnose like a doctor. I am proud that the State of Maryland was the first State to enact legislation to counter these unfair practices. They passed their first law in 1993. But it took two follow-up laws to clarify the intent of the first one. Work still needs to be done to make sure the law is enforced. I salute the Maryland emergency physicians who took this issue on, and continue to fight for fair play on behalf of their patients. I want to see managed care, but I don't want to see doctors managed. There is a fundamental distinction. We have to start getting our priorities straight and decide where we are going to be making our decisions. And in the case of emergencies--I believe the decisions need to be made in the emergency room and not the boardroom.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I am proud to join Senator Graham in introducing the Access to Emergency Medical Services Act of 1997. This bill prohibits health plans from denying coverage and payment for emergency room visits. I support this bill for three reasons. It protects patients and patients' pocketbooks. It respects medical decisions made by doctors and nurses. It gives HMO's the opportunity to do the right thing. Personal health is not something to take chances with. That's why many people seek emergency assistance when they think something may be seriously wrong with their health. They go to the emergency room thinking their insurance company covers emergency room treatment. But when the problem turns out to be a nonemergency, the insurance company denies payment. This is called retrospective denial. I want to end retrospective denials. No family should have to second guess getting the care they need because they are worried about being stuck with an enormous bill. Last week my office received a phone call from a woman in Frederick, MD. She was distraught. She had begged her husband not to take her to the emergency room when she complained of serious chest pains. She knew their insurance company wouldn't pay. It had happened before. But her husband insisted she go. He was worried about her and wanted her to see a doctor. She cried all the way to the hospital. A few weeks later she got the notice--her claim was denied. She was stuck with the bill. She was right to go to the emergency room. There are approximately 200 medical problems that could cause the type of chest pain she experienced ranging from a heart attack to pulmonary emboli to simple indigestion. The point is, no one knows for sure what problem they are having until they get treatment from an emergency room physician. Maryland already has laws in place to guarantee that HMO's will cover to emergency services. But we can't practice good emergency medicine one patient, one ER room, or one State at a time. That's why we need a national law that ensures that medical decisions are made in the ER room, not the corporate boardbroom. This bill will set a new national definition for the term ``emergency'' without preempting stronger State laws. The ``Prudent Layperson Standard'' means that a person with average knowledge of health and medicine can seek emergency treatment when they think they have a serious medical condition. Quite often, patients do not know when they go to an emergency room whether their illness is life- threatening or not. With this standard, they are not required to know-- they can use their own best judgment. After all, we can't expect the average person to be able to diagnose like a doctor. I am proud that the State of Maryland was the first State to enact legislation to counter these unfair practices. They passed their first law in 1993. But it took two follow-up laws to clarify the intent of the first one. Work still needs to be done to make sure the law is enforced. I salute the Maryland emergency physicians who took this issue on, and continue to fight for fair play on behalf of their patients. I want to see managed care, but I don't want to see doctors managed. There is a fundamental distinction. We have to start getting our priorities straight and decide where we are going to be making our decisions. And in the case of emergencies--I believe the decisions need to be made in the emergency room and not the boardroom.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, today I wish to pay tribute to a friend and colleague; one who has both orbited the Earth and walked the Halls of Congress. Performing either responsibility on its own has been the dream of many. Achieving both has been realized by very few. Senator John Glenn is a truly remarkable man. So it was with sadness that I received the news of his plans to retire at the end of this Congress. His early announcement will give us some time to try to get used to the idea of a Senate without his calm leadership, his uncommon commitment and dedication, and his tremendous decency and civility. Senator Glenn has helped make our Space Agency, NASA, what it is today. Senator Glenn's Mercury space mission 34 years ago sparked a national interest in space exploration that continues to this day. John Glenn is a national hero who is the personification of astronaut. Since his daring and heroic mission, children all over the country have dreamt of becoming astronauts. The environment of Washington is as foreign to many as the Moon. Senator Glenn left the Moon in orbit, while trying to bring Washington more down to Earth--closer and more responsive to the needs of the American people. John Glenn has played a vital role in helping to pass several measures important to reinventing our Government. Senator Glenn and I share a strong respect for the environment. I was a proud cosponsor of Senator Glenn's Department of the Environment Act, which would have elevated the Environmental Protection Agency to Cabinet-level status. In introducing this important bill, Senator Glenn noted that, having had the rare privilege to view the Earth in all of its beauty and grandeur from space, he was struck by how thin and fragile the environment is that sustains life on our planet. I absolutely agree with him and appreciate what he has done for the environment. Our environment has had a strong ally in the Senate, and we will miss his leadership on these issues. When this Congress is over, and Senator Glenn touches down in his home State of Ohio, we will remember him as a friend and hero whose achievements have displayed a strong respect for the Earth and its inhabitants.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to offer my strong support for the confirmation of Rodney Slater as the new Secretary for the Department of Transportation. Mr. Slater has the experience, the sense of purpose, and the commitment to make sure that our transportation infrastructure is ready for the new century. He is well suited to head the Department of Transportation, a large and complex agency which is so vital to America's infrastructure. Transportation is one of the underpinnings of our economy, and plays an essential role in the daily lives of all Americans. A safe and efficient system of transportation is needed to keep our growing economy strong. Rodney Slater understands that transportation is an engine for job creation. He knows that it provides hundreds of good paying jobs in the development of transportation technologies, in construction, and in the delivery of transportation services. From the person who drives the light rail train through my own hometown of Baltimore, to the scientists and engineers designing the transportation networks of the future, transportation means jobs. Mr. Slater understands that. Under Mr. Slater's guidance, the Department of Transportation will continue to encourage new technologies, promote safety, and protect our environment. He is the right person to manage our national infrastructure, and lead the way to better and safer roads and transit systems, airports, and to keep us globally competitive. Mr. President, I look forward to working with Mr. Slater on making the Department of Transportation a more effective and efficient agency. We must work together to meet the transportation needs and challenges that we face as we enter the 21st century. Much has been done and continues to be done as we work as partners to revitalize America's transportation system. Mr. Slater is equipped for this task. He was appointed to the Arkansas State Highway Commission in 1987, and made its chairman in 1992. Mr. Slater understands the needs of local and State governments. He understands the need for our rural, suburban, and urban areas to be connected, and provide the access to opportunity. As the Administrator of the Federal Highway Administration, Mr. Slater has shown his commitment to put people first, and to rebuild America. He has listened to thousands of constituents and incorporated their concerns into the Federal Highway Administration's decisionmaking process. He has led this agency as it rebuilt and expanded our Nation's highways, and in the process created jobs and opportunities. I look forward to working with Mr. Slater as he works to meet the transportation needs of Maryland and those across this great Nation. I urge my colleagues to confirm the nomination of Mr. Rodney Slater as Secretary of the Department of Transportation.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise to honor the life and legacy of Ambassador Pamela Harriman. She was a gallant and courageous lady--and a very dear friend. Pamela Harriman lived a full and exciting life. We all know of her grace and her charm. But she was so much more. She was, for me, first of all a good friend. She and I worked together on issues and politics for many years. She was a tremendous supporter of women candidates, and I often turned to her for her insight and counsel. I will always treasure the memory of my last visit with Ambassador Harriman. She helped me to work with European space agencies--to foster better links with our space program. She was, as always, perceptive and enthusiastic about the prospect of greater cooperation between America and Europe. She wanted to make a contribution to our political system. She brought together leaders from all sectors of society to discuss a wide range of important issues. She fostered the kind of civil political discourse that is so often lacking. Ambassador Harriman had the kind of strong patriotism that comes from being born in another country--and from witnessing first hand what America did during the Second World War. She often talked about living through the Battle of Britain--and how America's military partnership helped the British people to keep their morale high. She loved her adopted country--and she served it with great honor. She was one of our Nation's most effective ambassadors. During a period of prickly relations with France, she was able to reassure the French of the importance of our friendship and alliance. The French liked and trusted her. She knew the language, the people, and the country. She respected their history and their culture. The French honored her with their highest cultural honor--the commander of the Order of Arts and Letters. Mr. President, Ambassador Harriman's sudden death was a tragedy. But her life was a triumph. Her family is in my prayers. I will miss her deeply.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I am proud to join my colleagues in introducing this resolution in support of NATO enlargement. I support NATO enlargement because it will make Europe more stable and secure. It means that the new democracies of Central and Eastern Europe will share the burden of European security. It will mean that future generations of Americans might not have to fight and die for Europe. America has fought and won three wars in Europe: World War I, when an assassination in Yugoslavia led to years of bloodshed World War II, the bloodiest war in history--when thousands of young Americans left factories and farms to fight on the battlefields of Europe And the cold war--when Soviet expansionism forced us to prepare to defend Western Europe--and when the captive nations of Eastern Europe were forced behind the Iron Curtain. If NATO doesn't enlarge--the Iron Curtain returns--and the unnatural division of Europe into two parts will live on longer than the Soviet Empire did. As a Polish American, I know that the Polish people did not choose to live behind the Iron Curtain. They were forced there by the Yalta Agreement, by Potsdam, and because they and the Baltic States and the other captive nations were sold out by the free world. But my support for this resolution is based on the future--not the past. I support this resolution because NATO enlargement will mean a future in which the newly free and democratic countries will take their rightful place as members of Europe. NATO played an important in part in securing this freedom. It has been the most successful defensive alliance in history. It is an alliance that helped us win the cold war. It deterred war between the super powers, and it helped prevent confrontations between member states. But if NATO is to survive, it must adapt to meet the needs of the post-cold-war-World--or it will become irrelevant. NATO has evolved since we created it in 1949. We have enlarged NATO on three different occasions. Each new member strengthened NATO and increased security in Europe. Today, we are facing very different threats to security and stability in Europe. We have hot spots caused by ethnic and regional tensions. We have civil wars--as in Bosnia. And we have international crime, drugs, and terrorism. NATO must change and expand to meet these new threats. The countries of Central and Eastern Europe want to help us address these new threats. How many times has the Senate discussed burden sharing in Europe? How often have we complained that European countries were not willing to pay their fair share for their own defense? Now we have countries that are asking to share the burden. They are asking to pledge their troops and equipment for the common defense. They are asking to share the burden of peacekeeping--in fact they are doing it right now in Bosnia where thousands of troops from Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, the Baltics, Ukraine, and others are helping to secure the peace. These countries are not asking for a handout. They are not asking for our protection. They are asking to be full partners in the new Europe. By transforming their countries into free market democracies, they have earned this right. Mr. President, NATO is moving toward enlargement. In July President Clinton will join the leaders of our NATO partners in naming the first countries to be asked to join NATO. This resolution states that the U.S. Senate stands with our President as he leads our effort to prepare NATO for the 21st century. I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting this resolution.