Barbara Mikulski

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise in support of this sense-of-the- Senate resolution and am pleased to be a cosponsor of the resolution with my distinguished colleague, Senator Snowe of Maine. Senator Snowe has been an outstanding advocate for many years on the issue of women's health. This is yet one more action on her part that shows her deep commitment in this area. Mr. President, this is a sense-of-the-Senate resolution. I am pleased to tell you that my colleagues in the Democratic caucus join with us on a bipartisan basis and have endorsed this. All six Democratic women have cosponsored this legislation. Over 30 of the men that we call the ``Galahads'' also cosponsored this resolution. What does this resolution call for? It calls for three things that would protect women's health, particularly in the area of breast cancer. No. 1, it calls for further research on the benefits of mammograms for women in their forties; No. 2, it urges the public to follow screening guidelines issued by medical groups which call for mammography screenings in women between the ages of 40 and 49; and it calls upon the National Cancer Institute to again revisit the guidelines that they themselves promulgated, also urging that women who are between the ages of 40 and 49 seek mammograms. We already have clearly on the record, and clear guidelines have established, that women over 50 should get an annual mammogram. It is clear that often the older you get, the more likely you are to get breast cancer. But there is a particular group of women between ages 40 and 49 who are particularly prone to breast cancer, and each day we are learning more who that category is. Therefore, we are urging through this sense-of-the-Senate resolution that traditional guidelines urging annual or, at the very least, biannual mammograms for women between the ages of 40 and 49 be pursued. I could not believe when an NIH advisory panel decided that women in this age group might not need mammograms, and at the very best, they were either silent or tepid in their recommendations. They made this decision because they felt there was not substantial evidence that this group was at risk. This flies in the face of what we know through studies done at the National Institutes of Health, through extramural programs at our great academic centers of excellence, and also in worldwide studies of women. The NIH panel should have recognized, also, the weight that their announcement carries. This panel absolutely confused the public, scared women, and gave permission to insurance companies not to pay for a mammogram for a woman between the ages of 40 and 49. Mr. President, we think this creates a public health concern. Now, why would we believe that? First, women often have been reluctant to seek a mammogram either out of fear or because they do not have the Federal resources to do it. We have been working on education to deal exactly with those issues and even to offer opportunities for women to be able to have funding for this. Also, we have been engaged in an impressive and assertive effort to educate primary care physicians in urging women to get mammograms. We have been dealing with the insurance companies on the whole issue of breast cancer. Now some companies have that misguided approach of insisting that women leave a hospital in less than 48 hours after they have had a mastectomy. Mr. President, we say enough is enough. We should take time out, go back to our science, go back to our research, go back to the National Institutes of Health and ask them to come up with the recommendations that we need. We are urging them to do that. Not only are we urging them to do that, but the actual Director of the National Cancer Institute, Dr. Richard Klausner, is also recommending that this advisory board go back and take another look. Senator Snowe has talked about the risk of cancer. We all know that any woman can fall prey to breast cancer. It does not matter how old she is or what her income bracket is. We know she needs to be screened. We know 40,000 women die every year of breast cancer. We know over 138,000 women every year have some early signs of breast cancer. What we are saying on behalf of the women and the men who support us, let us go back to our standards. I am happy to have joined in this resolution because I know that mammograms save lives. And if breast cancer is detected early, the probability that a woman will survive is greater than 90 percent. My position is simple: Stick to science, go to the guidelines that were properly promulgated, listen to doctors and other health care providers working in this field. Mr. President, for some time we have been working in a bipartisan bicameral basis on this. I remember back in the House of Representatives when Senator Snowe and I introduced one of the first Women's Health Equity Act's that we called for activity in this area. We have been working on that ever since, on a bipartisan bicameral basis, and not only with the women taking the lead, but with the enthusiastic support of the men in our body. Thanks to the work of Senators Snowe, Mikulski, and Boxer, and Representative Morella and others, we have established the Office of Women's Health at NIH. We made more money for research available for diseases most affecting women. We ensured that women were included in the protocols of medical research, where they had been excluded not because of science but because of gender. We worked to expand the coverage for mammograms under Medicare and even provided funds for low- income women to get mammograms. We also have led the fight for mammogram quality standards, which we will be reintroducing as it expires. We hope to do this together, to show that when it comes to fighting for women's health, we are there. We want to make sure that each family is able to ensure that breast cancer does not strike them. We are going to do it not only on a bipartisan basis, we are going to do it on a nonpartisan basis. I thank Senator Snowe for taking the lead on this as she has done in so many other areas. We are pleased on our side of the aisle to also join with her. I send to the desk the list of the Democratic cosponsors. I look forward to voting for this bill and continuing our advocacy on this most crucial issue.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I want to conclude the debate on this side by reaffirming that this resolution does not meddle with the National Institutes of Health. It does not meddle with science. It essentially says let us have more research on the subject of breast cancer in terms of its cause, in terms of its prevention, and in terms of its cures. It also calls for the women of America and their physicians to follow those guidelines that are recommended by every physician group as well as the American Cancer Society on urging women in the age 40 to 49 group to have either an annual or biannual mammogram. Third, it asks the National Cancer Institute to repromulgate its own guidelines urging the same. I would like to comment that this advisory panel that made this report in January is not made up of NIH scientists. This is an outside advisory group to the National Institutes of Health. Mr. President, I have the honor of representing the National Institutes of Health because it is in my State. How wonderful to be able to represent a Government organization devoted to saving lives by finding cures and causes for the diseases that threaten Americans and others around the world. The National Cancer Institute has taken specific steps to be far more sensitive and to have a budget priority looking at those gender- specific diseases, particularly breast cancer and ovarian cancer. And we are pleased also with the work that is now being done in the area of prostate cancer as well. I believe that the National Cancer Institute is on the right track. We want to be sure that they continue their scientific research, and if there is a gray area about when you should have a mammogram always go to the side of safety. Always go to the side of caution. One of the things we know is that when you are treated by a physician more information is often better information. So, Mr. President, I urge unanimous adoption of this sense-of-the- Senate resolution. Knowing no other Democrats who wish to comment on this issue, I yield the remainder of my time and look forward to the vote at 5 p.m. Ms. SNOWE addressed the Chair.

Ms. MIKULSKI. I reserve my time. Senator Specter has 10 minutes on his own time. I have no objection to his proceeding. Mr. SPECTER addressed the Chair.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, how much time is left on our side?

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the nomination of Alan Hantman to be the next Architect of the Capitol. Mr. Hantman's nomination is the culmination of a long and thorough search process conducted by the bipartisan Architect of the Capitol Search Commission. He has a distinguished record, having served as vice president for architecture, planning, and construction at the Rockefeller Center. I believe he is in an excellent position to lead the Architect of the Capitol into the 21st century. The U.S. Capitol is a unique historical institution. The new Architect will face many challenges in leading the work force of 2,100 employees. The new Architect will have to work on not only preserving the historical integrity of the Capitol, but also of managing the work force, which is comprised of dedicated and hard-working men and women many of whom I am proud to say are Maryland residents. They are being required to do more work with less help. I have had a particular interest in the Architect's employment practices and how the workers are being treated, most of whom are blue- collar, minority workers. My concern dates back many years to the tenure of George White. Many of the workers under then-Architect White came to me, as a last resort, to complain about the rampant discrimination that was prevalent within the Architect's office. For instance, one worker with 30 years of service had never received a raise until I intervened. This was a clear case of discrimination. And, there were many others. I asked the General Accounting Office in 1992 to investigate the management practices of the Architect's office. The GAO found that the Architect's office did not have a modern personnel management system in place. As a result of the GAO report, I introduced legislation to establish a professional management system, the Architect of the Capitol Human Resources Act, which was passed into law in 1994. I also called for the resignation of George White, who failed to hold the managers and superintendents within the Architect's office accountable for poor management practices. My legislation made extensive changes to the personnel system in the Architect's office. It established merit-based hiring and promotions, an equal employment opportunity program, equal pay for equal work, a training program, job evaluations, an open and fair disciplinary process, a confidential employee assistance program, and an employee personnel manual. Some of the law's requirements have been slowly implemented. I think it should be the No. 1 priority of the new Architect to fully implement and enforce the law's requirements. I believe it is important for the workers to know that their workplace will be free of discrimination. It is no more than what we require for all businesses. I hope Mr. Hantman will function not only as an Architect, but as a social architect in running the Architect of the Capitol. I have tremendous hope that we will see change in the Architect's office. It is long overdue. I want to maintain the current work force. I do not want to see the next Architect rush to privatize services. It is important that we establish an independent task force to review the impact of privatization on employees, security, and cost-savings. I am confident that Mr. Hantman Architect will be willing to listen to these concerns. I believe the confirmation of the next Architect could mark the beginning of a new and progressive era for the Architect of the Capitol and its employees. I am prepared to work closely with Mr. Hantman to ensure that the reforms suggested by the GAO report and outlined in my law will take place.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleague, Senator Paul S. Sarbanes, in sponsoring this important legislation. This bill would authorize the appointment of additional bankruptcy judges for the state of Maryland. Bankruptcy filings nationwide have dramatically increased. In my State of Maryland, over 20,000 individuals and businesses filed bankruptcy last year. Unfortunately, bankruptcy filings have hit a peak nationwide with both individuals and businesses seeking relief from financial debt. While the economic climate in Maryland is much better than in many parts of the country, the recent recession has had an impact on consumers in my State. This bill will give relief to bankruptcy judges, who hear cases in Maryland. These judges have had a growing caseload to process. This is good news for consumers, who are seeking a reorganization of their debts and creditors seeking to protect their rights. It is critical that consumers are able to have their bankruptcy petitions processed in a timely manner. For the debtor seeking to protect his home under a chapter 13 filing, this bill will help expedite the process and allow the bankruptcy judge to give full consideration to the petition. Maryland's bankruptcy judges have had to struggle to keep up with the growing docket. Because of the current heavy caseload, judges cannot schedule hearings in a timely manner. This adversely affects the debtor's reorganization and delays distributions to creditors. The District of Maryland currently has four bankruptcy judges. The Judicial Conference recommended the authorization of an additional judge. Their findings were based on the weighted caseload per judge, which is a good indicator of a judge's workload. Maryland's judges are working strenuously in the best interests of both debtors and creditors. But, their caseload requires additional assistance. Maryland needs at a minimum one more bankruptcy judge, but would prefer two more judges. Judges from other districts have helped Maryland's bankruptcy judges. However, these judges have had to struggle with their own increasing caseloads. The Judicial Conference found that Maryland's judges have a caseload per judge that is 70 percent above the national average. Clearly, the bankruptcy judges in Maryland's district are overwhelmed by the caseload. Even with the addition of another bankruptcy judge, Maryland's judges would still have a caseload that is above the national average. So, I hope we will be able to provide two additional slots. I hope my colleagues will support this legislation. It is important for consumers and creditors to process their claims. It is also important to provide equity in handling the caseload in Maryland's bankruptcy courts.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleague, Senator Paul S. Sarbanes, in sponsoring this important legislation. This bill would authorize the appointment of additional bankruptcy judges for the state of Maryland. Bankruptcy filings nationwide have dramatically increased. In my State of Maryland, over 20,000 individuals and businesses filed bankruptcy last year. Unfortunately, bankruptcy filings have hit a peak nationwide with both individuals and businesses seeking relief from financial debt. While the economic climate in Maryland is much better than in many parts of the country, the recent recession has had an impact on consumers in my State. This bill will give relief to bankruptcy judges, who hear cases in Maryland. These judges have had a growing caseload to process. This is good news for consumers, who are seeking a reorganization of their debts and creditors seeking to protect their rights. It is critical that consumers are able to have their bankruptcy petitions processed in a timely manner. For the debtor seeking to protect his home under a chapter 13 filing, this bill will help expedite the process and allow the bankruptcy judge to give full consideration to the petition. Maryland's bankruptcy judges have had to struggle to keep up with the growing docket. Because of the current heavy caseload, judges cannot schedule hearings in a timely manner. This adversely affects the debtor's reorganization and delays distributions to creditors. The District of Maryland currently has four bankruptcy judges. The Judicial Conference recommended the authorization of an additional judge. Their findings were based on the weighted caseload per judge, which is a good indicator of a judge's workload. Maryland's judges are working strenuously in the best interests of both debtors and creditors. But, their caseload requires additional assistance. Maryland needs at a minimum one more bankruptcy judge, but would prefer two more judges. Judges from other districts have helped Maryland's bankruptcy judges. However, these judges have had to struggle with their own increasing caseloads. The Judicial Conference found that Maryland's judges have a caseload per judge that is 70 percent above the national average. Clearly, the bankruptcy judges in Maryland's district are overwhelmed by the caseload. Even with the addition of another bankruptcy judge, Maryland's judges would still have a caseload that is above the national average. So, I hope we will be able to provide two additional slots. I hope my colleagues will support this legislation. It is important for consumers and creditors to process their claims. It is also important to provide equity in handling the caseload in Maryland's bankruptcy courts.

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 a young woman from the State of Maryland who is an honored recipient of this most prestigious and time honored award. She is Eileen Butler of Ijamsville, MD, and Girl Scout Troop 1034. She has been honored with the Girl Scouts of the U.S.A. Gold Award by Penn Laurel Girl Scout Council in York, PA. The young women given this highest achievement in Girl Scouting 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, perseverance, 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 Eileen Butler. For her Girl Scout Gold Award project, Eileen designed and set up three new exhibits for the Fountain Rock Park, a nature center. Her project addressed the need for a better understanding of the environment and the importance of working to improve the environment around you. She is one of the best and the brightest and serves as an example of character and moral strength for us all to imitate and follow.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I offer today my strong support for the confirmation of Andrew Cuomo as the new Secretary of Housing and Urban Development. I want my colleagues to know that Mr. Cuomo is a proven leader in the housing and community development field. For the past 4 years, he has served as the assistant secretary for HUD's Office of Community Planning and Development. While managing a $10 billion portfolio that has doubled over the last 4 years, he helped reduce administrative overhead by 20 percent--helping us to get more bang for the taxpayers buck. Mr. Cuomo's efforts in merging 12 bureaucratic processes into one streamlined system known as consolidated planning won him the Innovations in American Government award for 1996 from Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government. His goal of streamlining, decentralizing, and consolidating programs is one that I have advocated for years as chairman and ranking member of the VA, HUD and Independent Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee. Many of Mr. Cuomo's initiatives were based on the recommendations made by the National Academy of Public Administration in a report that I commissioned as chairman of the subcommittee. Mr. Cuomo has also overseen the implementation of the Empowerment Zone and Enterprise Community Initiative, which has combined local community planning with Federal dollars to help produce new jobs and housing in 72 cities. He also created a new economic development initiative which worked in conjunction with a loan guarantee program to provide $1.85 billion in much needed low-interest loans for cities in 1995, up from $229 million in 1993. Mr. Cuomo's work on implementing the continuum of care strategy to help the homeless has led to 14 times as many homeless people being served with only twice the funding. In addition, his emphasis on coordination of services and resources has generated 30 times more private and nonprofit dollars since 1992. His focus on real results instead of simplistic statistical compilations of program activity is one which I share and strongly commend. Mr. Cuomo's service in the field dates back to his founding in 1986 of HELP--Housing Enterprises for the Less Privileged, which grew to become the Nation's largest provider of transitional housing for the homeless. Mr. Cuomo also founded the Genesis project--which develops comprehensive approaches to linking community development with affordable housing. His experiences on the front lines of the battle against urban poverty and despair help him to make practical decisions that work in the real world. Mr. President, I look forward to working with Mr. Cuomo on making the Department of Housing and Urban Development a more effective and efficient agency. There are major issues that the Department and the Congress must address this year. We must continue to work to find solutions to the problem of the over-subsidized Section 8 assisted housing inventory. I will continue to insist that we don't create an additional burden for the taxpayers, and that we find a solution that does not lead to community destabilization. Mr. President, we must also work with Mr. Cuomo to ensure that HUD maintains proper oversight and standards for local public housing authorities. HUD must stand sentry and ensure that local public housing authorities are providing real opportunities--not hollow opportunities--and ensuring adequate housing for the poor citizens of our Nation. I want to work with Mr. Cuomo on ending what I call the zip codes of pathology that have resulted from the programs of the past. We have repealed--in our annual appropriations bills--the Federal preferences that concentrated the poorest of the poor in one area. I will work with Mr. Cuomo and my colleagues on the Banking Committee to make these repeals permanent, in addition to the repeal of such Federal requirements as one-for-one replacement, take-one-take-all, and endless leases. Mr. President, there is much work to be done at HUD. We must continue to streamline the agency, demolish the worst public housing, and deliver programs that focus on personal and community empowerment. I was pleased to see in Mr. Cuomo's testimony before the Senate Banking Committee on January 22, 1997, he noted that ``the object of our efforts must be the development of self-sufficiency, not the perpetuation of government programs.'' Indeed, the days of a bloated bureaucracy with a focus only on bricks and mortar are gone. We must combine local sweat equity and public-private partnerships with Federal dollars to help rebuild the social fabric of our deteriorating communities. I look forward to working with Mr. Cuomo to make HUD a model agency that makes a real difference in the lives of the people it serves. I will support his efforts to make HUD smarter, smaller and better. I am certain he is up to the task.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I enthusiastically support the nomination of our colleague Senator Bill Cohen to be Secretary of Defense. I salute President Clinton for reaching out beyond party lines. I salute Bill Cohen for being ready to join the Democratic Administration. They both know that when it comes to the national defense of our country--we have no party interest--just national interest. Senator Cohen has shown that he cares deeply about the national interest--and that means a lot more to him than party politics. He has proven this time and time again, not just on national security issues but when he worked on behalf of senior citizens, when he sought to reach a consensus on health care reform, when he supported affirmative action and when he fought for lobbying reform. His is a voice of independence, integrity, and moderation. As a member of the Armed Services Committee, he was one of the Senate's most articulate voices for a strong and efficient national defense. He cares deeply about the men and women of our Armed Forces. He has long fought to make sure that while we downsize our military--we do not downgrade our military. Mr. President, I believe Senator Cohen is the ideal person to lead our Armed Forces into the new century. I am proud to support his nomination, and I look forward to working with him to ensure that we maintain the best equipped, best trained, and most ethical military in the world.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Breast Cancer Patient Protection Act. I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this legislation. This bill is about ensuring that women receive equitable treatment in our Nation's health care system. It puts the care of grandmothers, mothers, and daughters with breast cancer before the financial interests of insurance companies. One of every eight women in America will develop breast cancer. These women will undergo breast cancer treatments such as mastectomies or lymph node removal. Insurance companies know they can cut costs and increase profits if they give skimpy care to these women. Some insurance plans send women home just hours after breast cancer surgery with patients groggy from anesthesia, in pain and with drainage tubes still in place. Other plans require outpatient mastectomies. The American College of Surgeons and the American Medical Association say that most patients are not ready to be sent home a few hours after surgery. It is just not good medicine. I believe these doctors, who want to do the right thing and give the right care, should not be discouraged or penalized for not following the insurance company's guidelines. This legislation ensures that women with breast cancer receive the medical attention they need and deserve. The bill ensures that health plans which provide medical and surgical benefits for the treatment of breast cancer provide a minimum length of stay of 48 hours for patients undergoing mastectomies and 24 hours for those undergoing lymph node removals. Under this bill, patients and their physicians--not insurance companies--can determine if a shorter period of hospital stay is appropriate. So, I salute the authors of this bill, but I also salute the women, the doctors, and the medical facilities that organized to challenge these unfair practices. I want to see managed care, not mandated care. And I don't want to see doctors managed. There is a fundamental distinction. We have to start getting our priorities straight and end the needless pain and neglect of women with breast cancer. This bill is a step in the right direction.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. I thank the Chair. Today, indeed, is a historic day. We gather on the Senate floor to be presented both to ourselves and the American people the nomination of Dr. Madeleine Albright to be Secretary of State--Madeleine Albright, the very first woman to be nominated Secretary of State; Madeleine Albright, the very first refugee to be nominated Secretary of State. What a wonderful, historic opportunity we have to confirm her nomination and to make history as well as to help carry out President Bill Clinton's foreign policy, to make the world a better and safer place. I know Dr. Albright well. We have been friends and colleagues for many years, and I am so enthusiastic about her nomination because of her skills, her experience, her character, her values. She is a woman of honor, integrity and extraordinary patriotism. As President Clinton was making his decision, I called him. I called him to urge that he consider Dr. Albright. I said there are three important reasons why I felt Madeleine Albright is the best person to serve as Secretary of State in this new millennium. First, she is a woman of great competence in the area of foreign policy and demonstrated skills in that area as our Ambassador to the United Nations. Second, her remarkable personal history is the story of America. And third, she has a great and unusual ability to communicate our foreign policy to the American people and to the world. First, she would bring great competency and experience to the post. Foreign policy is her life's work and her life's passion. In addition to her dazzling intellectual ability and scholarship, Ambassador Albright has diplomatic skills and the understanding of what this new world order is all about. She has a proven record. As our Ambassador to the United Nations, she showed brains and backbone asserting U.S. policy. We do not need to question whether she can deal with China, different cultures or with dictators. She has already done it. She is respected by our allies and by our foes. She has proven that she is firm, fair, and tenacious. For the past 4 years, she has defended our values and interests at the United Nations, and she has done more to bring fiscal responsibility to the United Nations. She stood up to dictators and stood by our friends. As Secretary of State, Ambassador Albright will do something else. She will bring a story of America to people from the old world order as well as the new and emerging one. I discussed with President Clinton her personal story, that she is the daughter of the last Ambassador from a free Czechoslovakia until the end of the cold war. While her father was in this country, Czechoslovakia fell to a dictatorship. He defected so that he could serve Czechoslovakia by being a good American and by being a spokesman in this area. She comes from a history and tradition where patriots are willing to make sacrifices. She knows what it means to lose a home to dictatorship and therefore she reaches out to others who experience the same pain. She will understand those who labor tirelessly in exile to reclaim their freedom, and will support them. And, as new immigrants, Madeleine Albright and her family used America's great opportunity structure so they could rebuild their lives, based on opportunity, merit, and hard work. Where else in the world could a refugee rise to become the highest ranking woman in our history? She has also been involved in the social movements of our time, whether the civil rights movement or the women's movement, or those social movements that help create a democracy. The world is not just transformed by treaty and law, but cultural and social transformations often occur through democratic social movements, institutionalized in a positive way. And Albright will do that. As a child whose family fled from Europe as the Iron Curtain was raised and slammed down on the people of Central Europe, she stood up. She knows what this is all about. As a member of an immigrant family making a start in a new country, she will work to ensure that our foreign aid is used to foster opportunity around the world. Mr. President, the third reason Ambassador Albright will be an extraordinary Secretary of State is she has an unusual talent for communication. She has already demonstrated her capacity to articulate the President's policy and agenda, not only to the world, but also to the American people. She will enable people to understand our American policies. This is essential to mobilize support for these policies, both at home and abroad. Even if our policies are not supported, they should be understood and respected. No one does a better job of explaining American foreign policy to the American people than Madeleine Albright. Most people are understandably concerned about their jobs, their children, their security. It is a lot to ask them to focus on Bosnia, Haiti, Chechnya, human rights, China. And after paying billions of dollars to win the cold war, many Americans wonder why we must continue that burden of leadership. We cannot solve every problem in the world and we should not try. But we must act where we can make a difference, where American values and interests are at stake. With Dr. Madeleine Albright as Secretary of State, we will continue to have a foreign policy that reflects our values, that serves our interests, in consultation with Congress, and with mobilized American support. Mr. President, let me conclude by saying this. There is an added bonus to Dr. Madeleine Albright's nomination. The Senate is about to confirm this highest ranking woman in American history. As the first woman elected by my own party to serve in her own right, and as the senior woman in the Senate, I must say this is truly a historic occasion. This is a moment for all of us to take pride in, in the opportunity and fairness of our country. Mr. President, the American people will not have to worry about Madeleine Albright's service. When she was nominated, she said this to her daughters, ``When you were little girls I often used to worry where you were and what you are doing. Now you will wonder where your mother is and what she is doing.'' But, you know, the American people will not have to worry. Whether it is in Cyprus, Singapore, China, she will be defending American values and interests. She will be one of the best Secretaries of State we have ever had. Mr. President, that concludes my remarks. I would like to extend my appreciation to the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee for the way he conducted the hearing and the nomination process, with the fairness and civility and the expeditious way he does it. I, and I know Dr. Albright and her entire family who support her, appreciate the courtesy and expeditious nature in which the distinguished Senator from North Carolina has dealt with this. I yield the floor.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I am honored to join the Senate Minority Leader in cosponsoring the Children's Health Coverage Act of 1997. This bill will help uninsured working families purchase health insurance for their children and will build on the success of last year's Kassebaum- Kennedy health care reform legislation. It makes the health of all America's children a national priority. It takes the Democratic health care agenda one more step. Our country has failed to meet the health care needs of America's children. The United States has the highest rate of uninsured children of any industrialized country. In my home State of Maryland, nearly 1 in 5 children is uninsured. That's almost 200,000 kids in Maryland alone. This is a disgrace for a country as bountiful as ours is. We say children are our priority. We need to put in the lawbooks the values we hold in our hearts. That makes good policy and good sense. These are the children of working families. Their parents may both be working 40-hour a week jobs. Jobs that put them over the poverty level but offer no benefits. This problem is pervasive. Nine out of ten children without insurance live in families with working parents. Two thirds of uninsured children live in families with incomes above the poverty line. The problem cuts across class and race. As I travel through my own State, working parents tell me how they worry about their children not having health insurance. They are afraid that they won't be able to take them to the doctor when they get really sick. With this bill, American parents won't have to fear for their children. This legislation meets the peace of mind test. I want to make sure children's health care needs are met comprehensively and equitably. This bill stands up and challenges what is wrong with our health care system. It affirms our need to develop human capital as well as economic capital. It's about getting our priorities straight and putting families first. I salute the Minority Leader for moving this important issue forward.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, Stanislav Rembski is one of America's greatest artists. On October 8, 1996 he celebrates his 100th birthday. I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating Mr. Rembski on this special occasion, and in thanking him for creating so many national treasures. As a Polish-American Senator from Baltimore, I am very proud of Stanislav Rembski. He was born in Sochaczew, Poland in 1896. He immigrated to the United States in 1923. Since 1940, he has lived and worked in Baltimore. He taught himself to draw--and he teaches us all how to enjoy and appreciate art through his writings and lectures. Stanislav Rembski is one of America's premier portrait painters. He has painted over 1,000 commissions--including well-known portraits of President Woodrow Wilson and President Franklin Roosevelt. He has painted five of Maryland's first ladies and these paintings hang in Government House in Annapolis. Stanislav Rembski is known for capturing the spirit and personality of his subjects. That is why so many of his portraits are used in history books--they tell us more about the subject than any photograph ever could. I encourage everyone to see this for themselves. A retrospective of his work is now on display in the Enoch Pratt Library in Baltimore. Mr. President, Stanislav Rembski honors his Polish heritage and his adopted American homeland. His paintings are a gift that will grace our museums and public buildings forever.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I will vote for the Omnibus Appropriations bill today. I will vote for this bill because the funding levels it provides will help to meet the day to day needs of working Americans and their families. This bill addresses Democratic priorities. Democrats are working for health security, paycheck security, personal security and national security. The American people have made clear that these Democratic priorities are theirs as well. So I am pleased that this bill provides support for programs in each of these areas. Let me speak first about health security. I am pleased that health programs will receive increased funding so that scientists and researchers can continue to search for the cure for diseases like cancer, Alzheimer's and Parkinson's disease. Funding for the National Institutes of Health is increased. Funding for breast cancer research, AIDS and childhood immunization all receive needed funds to continue critical life saving work. This funding is particularly important for Maryland, both in terms of the number of jobs generated by the NIH and the impact of the research. Institutions such as Johns Hopkins and the University of Maryland fund critical research programs through the NIH. Keeping the funding at needed levels for the NIH will truly save lives and save jobs in Maryland. Democrats also value economic security, and know that support for education is a key part of the opportunity structure that will create jobs now and in the future. I strongly support the education spending levels in this bill. The bill increases education spending over Fiscal year 1996 levels for key programs, including Goals 2000, Safe and Drug Free Schools, Title I, the Pell Grant program, and the TRIO Program. For my State of Maryland, this means additional funds for cash- strapped local school districts. Maryland will receive nearly $7 million for Goals 2000 reforms. These funds will enable local school districts to implement curriculum reform efforts to raise academic standards. I am pleased that funding for safe and drug free schools has increased. Maryland will receive over $7 million to help combat crime and drugs in schools. Title I is an important program to help disadvantaged students learn basic reading and math skills. Maryland will receive $91 million for title I funding. Pell Grant funding has increased to $2,700 for low-income college students. This means more funds will be available for thousands of Maryland college students. The funding levels for the TRIO program have increased. TRIO provides college opportunities like Upward Bound to minority students. TRIO provides thousands of minority students in Maryland with access to higher education. In addition to increased education funding levels, the omnibus spending bill increases funding for the Department of Labor's job training program and dislocated worker assistance program. I strongly support these initiatives, because thousands of Maryland residents will continue to receive job training assistance and help with job search and relocation assistance. Programs that help to provide personal security are also well funded by this legislation. These programs help ensure that our communities will be safer and our children will be better protected from drugs and crime. Perhaps most significant is that funding for the COPS program is preserved. This program has been one of the great successes in fighting crime. Thanks to this program, over 900 new police officers are patrolling the streets in Maryland's cities and towns. I am a strong supporter of this program because it is making a real difference-- protecting our communities by putting more cops on the beat. This bill also includes more money to fund the Violence Against Women Act, and funds to fight juvenile crime and keep our kids away from drugs through drug prevention programs. This bill also addresses important national security concerns. It funds the President's antiterrorism initiatives. It is a sad day that we must face the reality that terrorism has come to our communities. We must ensure that we do not experience another Oklahoma City. The best way to fight terrorism is to prevent it. This legislation takes concrete steps to prevent terrorism by upgrading the security of our public buildings, increasing our intelligence capability, and expanding the number of criminal investigators to fight and prevent terrorism. So key Democratic priorities are well-funded in this legislation. People will be safer in their homes and their communities, critical health research will be supported, and education and training so vital to a promising economic future will be provided. These are mainstream American values, and I am pleased to see that these values are implicit in this legislation. In addition to providing appropriations for the agencies and Departments of the Federal Government for which individual appropriations were not approved, this bill also contains a major authorizing program. I refer to the illegal immigration bill. I am pleased that the negotiations on this portion of the bill have produced a measure which is tough on those who violate our immigrations laws, but which is not punitive to those who have entered this country legally. The illegal immigration legislation will strengthen our efforts to prevent undocumented immigrants from entering our country and obtaining employment. It will increase border patrols, create a voluntary pilot program for employment verification, and require additional INS investigators . I had strong reservations about the conference report on this bill because of provisions which would have denied Federal assistance to legal immigrants. After all, legal immigrants have played by the rules, they pay taxes just like any U.S. citizen, and they contribute to the economy. I am pleased that the concerns I had have been addressed in this final compromise measure. Under this compromise, we now focus on putting a halt to illegal immigration, which was our goal when we passed the Senate version of the bill. It is especially important that the so-called Gallegly amendment was dropped. Many of us were strongly opposed to this provision which would have denied a public education to illegal immigrant children. Children should not be punished for the errors of their parents. I am very disappointed that we were not able to include the Senate- passed provisions for those seeking political asylum. The United States has always reached out to those fleeing persecution. The Leahy amendment which the Senate approved would have made sure that people seeking asylum were treated fairly. It would have given them the time they needed to present their case, and ensured that no Immigration official could send them back to their country without a fair hearing. It is disappointing that this good provision was not included in the measure. I hope we will be able to take care of this problem in the next Congress. This omnibus appropriations bill represents the triumph of mainstream values. It rejects extremism. It addresses the concerns of America's families. The funding it provides for programs important to personal security, to national security, to economic security, and to health security ensure that we keep the promises we have made to help our working families and senior citizens. So I will vote to support this bill, and hope my colleagues will join me.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I will vote to sustain the President's veto of H.R. 1833, the late term abortion ban bill. I do so recognizing the gravity of the issue. I do so for a very basic reason. I believe that women, in consultation with their physicians, must make decisions on what is medically necessary in reproductive matters. It must be a medical decision not a political decision. At the very core of this vote is a very basic question. Who decides? Who decides whether a difficult pregnancy threatens a woman's life? Who decides whether a woman's physical health will be seriously harmed if a pregnancy is continued? Who decides what is medically necessary for a particular woman in her unique circumstances? Who decides? The answer must be that doctors decide. Doctors, not politicians, must make these decisions. The women themselves must decide. But politicians should not be making these medical decisions. If this bill is enacted, Congress will be shackling physicians. As one witness on this bill testified, Congress will be ``legislating malpractice.'' Doctors will be faced with an impossible choice. They can deny to their patients a procedure that they believe to be medically necessary. Or they will face criminal prosecution. We should not make criminals out of doctors acting in the best interests of their patients. There are some significant misunderstandings about what this bill provides. Let me speak about two of them. First of all, this bill does not provide a true exception for cases where the woman's life is endangered. It is not like the Hyde amendment, with which most of us are familiar. The Hyde amendment, which deals with Federal funding of abortion, provides an exception where the life of the woman would be threatened if the fetus were carried to term. That is not what this bill does. This bill provides an exception only when a woman's life is threatened by a physical disorder, illness or injury and no other medical procedure would suffice to save the woman's life. In other words, where there is a pre-existing condition which the pregnancy would aggravate. It does not provide a life exception when it is the very pregnancy itself that threatens the woman's life. Let me name a few of those conditions. If carrying the fetus to term would result in a ruptured cervix, severe hemorrhaging, or the release of toxins from the dead fetus, the life exception in this bill would not apply. But even in the case of a preexisting condition, the life exception only applies if no other medical procedure would suffice. This would require a physician to use an alternative procedure, so long as the woman would survive. Even though a safer procedure--the procedure this bill seeks to ban--might be the better medical decision. Let me talk about a second misunderstanding about this bill. This bill provides no exception for cases where the woman's health would be seriously impaired by carrying the fetus to term. A health amendment was offered during our debate. It provided an exception in cases where the physician acts to avert serious, adverse health consequences to the woman. That amendment was rejected. And that is a shame. Many of us who oppose this bill would have supported it if there were a true life and health exception. President Clinton would have signed such a bill. We would not be here today debating this if this health exception had been adopted. It is too bad that some decided they would rather have a political issue than a signable bill. Why is this health exception so important? Because there are cases where women will suffer serious, long-term, dire consequences to their health if the procedure banned by this bill is not available to them. Women with diabetes or other kidney related diseases could see their condition escalated by being denied the procedure that is medically necessary in their case. Women could suffer debilitating impairments of their reproductive systems, or the loss of their future fertility. These are not minor medical considerations. These are not whims. These are cases where a woman's future physical well-being is seriously threatened. Where her life could be shortened because a serious medical condition like diabetes has been aggravated. The lack of a health exception in this bill for these women is unacceptable to me. Mr. President, let me speak for a moment about the larger issue of abortion. Let me say plainly that I am appalled that there are some 1.5 million abortions every year. This troubles me. It should trouble every Member of this body. We have to do a better job in preventing unplanned pregnancies. We can do better in educating young people and in teaching them about the importance of abstinence. We need to do more to give them a sense of hope for their futures, and an understanding of how a teenage pregnancy robs them of that future. So yes, we should be appalled that there are over a million abortions every year. And each of us has an obligation to address that. But let me get back to my original point and my original question. Who decides? Women, in consultation with their physicians, must make the decisions on reproductive matters. Physicians must be free to determine what is medically necessary. And politicians should not prevent them from acting in the best interests of their patients. So I will vote to uphold the President's veto of this legislation.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the National Institutes of Health Revitalization Act. I support this bill for three reasons. It puts new emphasis on research into Parkinson's disease, a terribly debilitating and costly disease. It provides new incentives for physicians to do clinical research. It streamlines the NIH and makes it easier for NIH to do its job. I want to thank Senator Kassebaum and her staff for their hard work on this bill. NIH is a national treasure. I'm proud that it's located in Maryland. I'm proud of its dedicated employees. Let's give them the tools they need to perform their jobs effectively and efficiently. Let's give hope to the American people that cures to dreaded diseases and conditions are on the horizon. This bill honors our dear colleague, former Congressman Morris K. Udall. Mo was forced to retire from the House because of the disabling effects of Parkinson's disease. It includes language that has wide bipartisan support in both Chambers. The bill establishes up to 10 Morris K. Udall Centers for Research on Parkinson's Disease. It also provides awards to outstanding scientists and clinicians who bring innovative ideas to bear on Parkinson's research. Great advances in brain research in the last few years create the potential for major treatments of this disease, possibly in this decade--the decade of the brain. Expanded focus on Parkinson's disease will bring hope to the 50,000 Americans diagnosed with this debilitating illness each year. And it will cut down on the estimated $25 billion a year in health-related costs and lost productivity due to Parkinson's. The number of physician's entering careers in research is dwindling. This trend concerns me. Physicians who practice in academic medical centers face more pressure to bring in clinical revenue. They have less time to conduct research. I don't like the discouraging picture this paints for young investigators. Fewer and fewer physicians enter careers in biomedical research. They simply can't afford it. And as a nation, we can't afford it. We must provide incentives to our young people to enter careers in biomedical research. Clinical research leads to interventions and cures for diseases. It improves the quality of life for many people. Obstacles to clinical research slow progress in medicine. Patients are kept waiting longer for the cure to their disease or condition. This bill helps turn this around. Seventy-five General Clinical Research Centers [GCRC's] are authorized by this bill. I'm proud that three of these are located at Johns Hopkins. The bill increases investment and incentives for the education and training of the next generation of clinical researchers. It establishes new awards programs for clinical investigators and also recognizes the importance of basic medical research. It helps both basic and clinical investigators pay for their training by raising the loan repayment level. The NIH has enjoyed significant support over the last few decades. But we all know that the days of unlimited Federal funding are gone. This bill recognizes that resources are dwindling. It reduces administrative excess. It repeals duplicative advisory boards and committees. Instead, it frees up money from these unecessary endeavors for important research. Finally, this bill reauthorizes institutes carrying out important work in so many areas that affect our lives--cancer, heart, and aging research to name just a few. Let's not miss this important opportunity to pass this bill today. I urge my colleagues to vote for it.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I am happy to join my distinguished colleague, the Senator from Missouri, to offer for Senate consideration the fiscal year 1997 conference report for the VA-HUD and independent agencies appropriations bill. With $84.7 billion in spending--$20.3 billion in mandatory spending and $64.3 in discretionary budget authority, this is one of the largest and most diverse appropriations measures we must consider. I am particularly pleased by our ability to achieve compromise on many complicated issues as we worked out this agreement with our colleagues in the House. This bill funds a tremendous diversity of agencies and programs. It is a challenge every year to develop a passable, signable bill that addresses a variety of concerns from all Members of Congress and the American people. By accepting our differences on many of the issues that plagued the VA-HUD and independent agencies appropriations bill last year, and prohibiting environmental riders, we have avoided being included in an omnibus continuing resolution, and Mr. President, to the credit of all involved, we have a signable bill. Mr. President, I would like to second the urging of Chairman Bond that we move forward with this bill immediately. We need to avoid potential delays in processing of veterans disability compensation and pension checks as well as Federal flood insurance policies. Both matters are addressed in supplemental legislation included in the fiscal year 1997 VA-HUD appropriations bill. Mr. President, as you know, this bill contains funding for a diverse group of Federal agencies and programs. Yet it also contains three important health care provisions first proposed by the Senate and agreed to by the conference. I am a proud cosponsor of a measure introduced by Senator Daschle to extend benefits to children of Vietnam veterans exposed to agent orange who have spina bifida. This will provide needed support for our veterans' children and their families. I would note to Senator's Daschle's credit, that this provision passed overwhelmingly in the Senate, as did the motion to accept it in the House. Second, our bill includes Senator Bradley's newborns health provision, which prevents ``drive-through'' baby deliveries. Because of this bill, developed with Senator Frist, insurance companies will no longer be able to force mothers out of the hospital in less than 48 hours after delivery. This is an important measure impacting every American family. Third, Senators Wellstone and Domenici's mental health provision prevents discrimination against people with mental illness. When this bill passes, insurance companies that provide coverage for mental health will have to offer the same lifetime cap as they do for other illnesses. We have heard here on the Senate floor stories from Senators about families devastated by insurance discrimination. Mr. President, the three provisions provide real answers to real problems faced by the American public. They are important components of the health care initiatives that this administration has worked so hard to carry out. As you can see, this bill is about more than just agencies and programs and budget authority: it is about real people. The bill provides $39.2 billion for the Department of Veterans Affairs, including $17.3 billion for veterans health care, and $20.4 billion for veterans benefits. It ensures that promises made are promises kept to our Nation's veterans. The bill provides HUD with $19.5 billion, including full funding, at $4.6 billion, for community development block grants. This money is used to provide real economic opportunities for people trying to help themselves--in places like Baltimore, Houston, and Charleston, SC. It funds the President's request for housing for people with AID's, providing desperately needed housing for people living with AID's. The bill continues a significant FHA multifamily housing mark-to- market demonstration program. While taking on such an ambitious authorization effort for reforming the assisted housing program may be beyond the call of duty for the Appropriations Committee, this provision is the necessary first step toward reducing the excessive debt of the assisted housing inventory while avoiding putting families out on the street. This bill creates opportunities for the poor--but not hollow opportunities. Instead it reaffirms proper oversight of our Nation's housing programs, while avoiding new and expanded liabilities for the taxpayer. In addition, the bill continues to streamline the management of the Environmental Protection Agency and encourages EPA to prioritize, focusing its resources on those problems that pose the highest risk to human health and the environment. The EPA is provided $6.7 billion, which is $185 million more than last year. The money will be used to ensure that people across this Nation breathe clean air and drink clean water. Unfortunately, due to limited resources, the bill does not provide the President's full request for environmental programs. In particular, I am concerned about reductions in programs like Boston Harbor, Montreal Protocol, Climate Change, and the Environmental Technologies Initiative. But we did the best we could with the resources we had available. The bill restores the fiscal year 1996 $1 billion recision from the FEMA disaster relief fund and makes the funds available immediately. This will help families and communities devastated by hurricanes, floods, and other disasters. This is real help for real people, from North Carolina to Maryland to California. I am particularly pleased that this bill maintains funding for the Corporation for Community and National Service at $402.5 million. National service creates an opportunity structure--community service in exchange for a college education. It encourages volunteerism and rekindles habits of the heart. It fosters the spirit of neighbor helping neighbor that made our country great. National service is about real people offering real help to real communities. This bill also provides additional funding for the consumer agencies, including $42.5 million for the Consumer Product Safety Commission and $2.3 million for the Consumer Information Center. This is $200,000 more than the President's request. Mr. President, I am concerned that funding for NASA is $100 million below the President's request. I am concerned that space programs are taking a beating. Reductions in our space budget and our uncertainty about NASA outyear numbers jeopardize ongoing commitments, as well as our ability to fund new and innovative space science programs. Together with the administration, I plan to discuss the future of our space programs at a national space summit, to be held in December. I urge my colleagues to join the discussions that will take a critical look at how to maintain our preeminent space program, despite huge cutbacks in the overall budget. Fortunately Mission to Planet Earth was spared the cut it took in the original House bill. Mission to Planet Earth data will be used to help prepare our communities to deal with natural disasters, such as the recent Hurricane Fran which negatively affected thousands of people's lives. Mission to Planet Earth will also give our fishermen better tools to sustain their livelihood and help our farmers decide what and when to plant their crops. This bill also helps NASA employees and their families. It provides NASA employees buyout authority. We expect the buyout authority to reduce the impact of downsizing on people's lives. Furthermore, the bill protects the jobs for the eastern shore of Maryland at Wallops Island. Mr. President, this bill is about more than just programs and budget authority. This bill streamlines the Federal Government, yet it protects jobs. This bill provides important health benefits for mothers and babies, new benefits for veterans, and housing for low-income families. It maintains our global scientific leadership, and prioritizes our environmental programs. It protects our drinking water and teaches our children the art of community service. From children born with spina bifida to the Nobel laureates who help prevent birth defects, this bill provides real help for real people. Mr. President. The diversity or programs funded by this bill reflect the diversity of this country. I urge my colleagues in the Senate to support this conference report. Finally, I would like to thank Senator Bond, Congressman Lewis and Congressman Stokes for all the hard work they've done to get this bill to conference and to keep this bill from ending up in a continuing resolution. I would personally like to thank my appropriations staff, Sally Chadbourne, Catherine Corson, David Bowers, and Liz Blevins, as well as the majority staff, Stephen Kohashi, Carrie Apostolou, and Lashawnda Leftwich. I would also like to thank the members of my personal office staff and those on Senator Bond's staff who worked so hard to help us get through this conference.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, I rise as a proud cosponsor of the Maritime Security Act. I urge my colleagues to give their support to this important bill. This bill is critical for America's future. This bill is about our national security. A strong, vibrant merchant marine is absolutely critical to our national defense and our economic security. We need to ask ourselves one simple question, do we want to have a American shipping industry in the 21st century? The answer is an unequivocal yes. Time and time again, we have seen the critical role our merchant marine has played. In World War II, it was our merchant marine--our ``heroes in dungarees'' who braved Nazi U-boats in the Atlantic and Japanese submarines in the Pacific in order to save Western civilization at a cost of over 6,000 merchant mariners who lost their life. The casualty rate for merchant mariners in World War II was second only to the Marine Corps. In Korea, and Vietnam, our merchant marine kept the supply lines open for our fighting forces and never let them down. In Desert Storm, almost 80 percent of the cargo was transported on American ships with American crews. Our merchant marine became the ``steel bridge'' to our men and women in Saudi Arabia. General Schwarzkopf talked about how important the merchant marine was in sustaining our troops with needed supplies. And had we gone into an escalated ground war our merchant marine would have been even more important. In Bosnia, United States mariners were used to activate the Ready Reserve ships to aid peacekeeping efforts. Mr. President, history has taught us one thing, we cannot rely on foreign countries with foreign crews to transport our military cargo in time of war. This is why the Defense Department strongly supports this bill. But this legislation is more than keeping merchant marine viable in times of crisis it is about keeping our shipyards open, and ensuring that there will always be American ships moving American cargo across our oceans. We cannot allow America's economy to be held hostage to the whims of foreign shipping companies or in some cases, foreign governments. In addition, our merchant marine fleet must compete with ships that fly ``flags of convenience.'' Two-thirds of all merchant ships fly under flags of convenience. Without the Maritime Security Program, American ships will be unable to compete against foreign ships that are heavily subsidized or state- owned. In addition, ``flag of convenience'' ships do not have to comply with American environmental or safety standards giving foreign ships another advantage. Our merchant marine provides good jobs at good wages and we have a responsibility to keep the American flag flying over the oceans of the world. That's why we need the Maritime Security Act--to give our merchant marine a fighting chance in today's shipping climate. Finally, Madam President, this bill makes sense for the American taxpayer. Compared to the present maritime program, the Maritime Security Act will cut costs by more than 50 percent. If this bill is not adopted, taxpayers could pay even more if the Defense Department was forced to build its own military sealift fleet. Madam President, when the world makes a 911 call to America, we must be ready. We must have a merchant marine ready to defend our national security and our economic security. I urge my colleagues to give their strong support to this legislation.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise in very strong support of the committee amendment and in opposition to the Nickles amendment. As a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee and a member of the Subcommittee on Treasury and Postal Services, we made very clear in the committee the dominant view in the committee is that we wanted the women of the United States of America to be able to have abortions where medically appropriate in their health insurance legislation. This bill was reported by the Senate Appropriations Committee, and it would enable Federal employees whose health insurance is provided under the Federal Employees Health Benefits plan to receive coverage for abortion services, subject to all the traditional laws of the land. The Nickles amendment would reinstate the language from the House bill which prohibits coverage for abortion except in the case of life endangerment, rape, or incest. It would continue a ban which has prevented Federal employees from receiving the health care service which is widely, if not totally, available for private sector employees. We think limiting it to life of the mother, rape, or incest is medically dangerous. We believe the decision should be made by the mother, with the consulting physician, using whatever is her religious conviction to be able to proceed with something that is deemed by the physician as medically appropriate. We leave that decision to be made not on the floor of the Congress but in a doctor's office. The 104th Congress has been a tough one to support a woman's right to choose in that most private of matters not to have a child. Bill after bill after bill after bill, we have faced votes on women's reproductive rights. In the 104th Congress, between the House and the Senate, this Congress has voted 51 times on this issue. The 104th Congress has been unprecedented in its assault also on Federal employees--their pay, their benefits and their livelihoods. What we have with this amendment is a vote on abortion and also on the basic benefit package for Federal employees. I represent over 280,000 Federal employees in the State of Maryland, the Social Security Administration that makes sure the checks go out on time, the National Institutes of Health that right now are doing research to ensure the saving of lives. We want the very people who are able to do research on fertility and reproduction to be able to have access to what is medically necessary in terms of the relationship of abortion. Federal employees have faced assault after assault in these last 2 years. They face tremendous employment insecurity, downsizing, and so on. I view this amendment as yet another assault on these public servants. It goes directly after the benefits of Federal employees. Health insurance is part of the compensation package to which they are entitled. The cost of insurance coverage is shared by the Federal Government and by the employee. I know that the proponents of continuing the ban on abortion coverage for Federal employees say they are only trying to prevent taxpayer funding of abortion, but that is not what this debate is about. This is about prohibiting the compensation package of Federal employees from being used for a legal and sometimes vital medical service. Health insurance is part of the Federal employee's pay. The decisions related to health care should be made between the patient and the physician. If we were to extend the logic of those who favor the ban, we might next prohibit Federal employees from using their own paychecks to pay for an abortion. No one is seriously suggesting that Federal employees ought not to have the right to do what they want with their own money. We should not be also placing unfair restrictions on the type of health insurance that Federal employees can purchase under their own Federal Employees Health Benefits plan. Over 1.2 million women of reproductive age depend on the FEHB for their medical care. We know that access to reproductive health services is essential to women's health. We know that restrictions that make it more difficult for women to obtain early abortions where medically appropriate increase the likelihood that women will put their health at risk by being forced to continue a high-risk pregnancy. If we continue to ban the abortion services and leave only these very narrow exemptions, these 1.2 million women of reproductive health age who depend on FEHB will not have access to abortion even when their health is seriously threatened. We are going to be replacing the informed judgment of medical practitioners with that of politicians. Let me conclude by reiterating that decisions on abortion should be made by the woman in close consultation with her physician. Only a woman and her physician can weigh her unique circumstances and make the decision as to what is medically necessary and medically appropriate. It is wrong for Congress to try to issue a blanket prohibition. I will vote ``no'' on Nickles and up on the committee amendment. I yield the floor.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise in support of the jobs export subsidy amendment. This amendment will help to end the exodus of U.S. manufacturing industry overseas by eliminating a provision in the tax law that encourages and rewards that exodus. How does the Dorgan amendment do this? It ends the tax deferral on profits of overseas U.S. companies who move plants to foreign tax havens then ship products back to the United States for sale. This amendment eliminates a tax subsidy that is unfair to America's workers, that is unfair to taxpayers, and that is unfair to domestic companies. Current law provides an incentive to move. We are actually rewarding companies for killing U.S. jobs. That makes absolutely no sense. How can this Congress say it is for working families when we reward multinational firms who move their jobs overseas? Since 1979, our country has lost 3 million good-paying manufacturing jobs. This tax break is one reason why. We can't afford to lose one more job, and that's why we need this amendment. Current law costs the American taxpayer. The Joint Economic Committee estimates this subsidy will result in $2.26 billion over 7 years in lost revenues. If we are serious about giving taxpayers a break, and in reducing our deficit, this is one tax subsidy we just can't afford. Current law actually puts companies that remain in the United States at a competitive disadvantage. We don't reward the good guys. We don't provide a tax break for them for keeping jobs here at home. Instead we make it harder for them to compete by giving an edge to those who move jobs overseas. This amendment will help create a level playing field so the ``good guys'' have a fair chance to compete. It's important to understand what this amendment does not do. It does not hinder U.S. companies that produce abroad from competing with foreign firms in foreign markets. It does not burden companies with a new tax. It simply eliminates the special tax treatment given to overseas U.S. companies. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. It's good for America's workers. It's good for the taxpayers. It's good for America's domestic companies.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I will vote for the Defense of Marriage Act. What this bill does is really quite simple. It puts in the Federal law books what has always been the definition of a marriage--the legal union between one man and one woman. The bill also allows each State to determine for itself what is considered a marriage under that State's laws, and not to be bound by the decisions made by other States. However, I would like to make some comments which I believe are important. First of all, I have been very concerned by the overheated rhetoric that has characterized the congressional and national debate on this issue. It has been divisive and much of it has been nasty and demeaning. The last thing Americans need right now is another wedge issue. The last thing Americans need is an issue that turns us against one another, and that exacerbates bigotry and hate. It is time to stop the politics of hate. It might make for an exciting sound bite or a boost in the polls here and there, but it demeans us as a people. We are a better people than that. We should recognize the politics behind this debate. It is an effort to make Members of Congress take an uncomfortable vote. It is an effort to put the President and Democrats on the spot, and at odds with a group of voters who have traditionally supported the President and the Democratic Party. I regret that. We owe it to the American people not to play politics with an issue as important as marriage. My second point is this, and let me be very clear. I am against discrimination. My support for the Defense of Marriage Act does not lessen in any way my commitment to fighting for fair treatment for gays and lesbians in the workplace. Later today we will have an opportunity to vote on legislation introduced by Senator Kennedy, the Employment Nondiscrimination Act. This bill would end job discrimination based on sexual orientation. I am proud to be a cosponsor of this legislation and will proudly vote for it today. It is long overdue. Mr. President, since I first came to the Congress I have made it a priority to fight to eliminate discrimination, whether it is discrimination on the basis of race, gender, disability or sexual orientation. Each of us deserves to be judged on the basis of our unique skills and talents and nothing else. Discrimination is wrong, plain and simple. The Employment Nondiscrimination Act would extend Federal employment protections based on race, religion, gender, national origin, disability, and age to sexual orientation. In over 40 States, discrimination in employment based on sexual orientation is legal. Hardworking individuals can be fired from their jobs simply because of their sexual orientation. And, as the law currently stands they have no legal recourse for discrimination based on sexual orientation. This amendment would extend the protections in title VII of the Civil Rights of 1964 and the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 to sexual orientation. The Employment Nondiscrimination Act exempts from its coverage small business employing fewer than 15 people, private membership clubs, religious organizations, and education institutions controlled by religious organizations, as well as the Armed Forces. Individuals should not be fired or denied a job simply based on their sexual orientation. Unfortunately, this kind of discrimination is rampant in both the public and private sectors. The extension of employment protections to sexual orientation is long overdue. This is not about providing preferential treatment for any class of citizens. In fact, the Employment Nondiscrimination Act specifically prohibits preferential treatment. The Defense of Marriage Act is about reaffirming the basic American tenet of marriage. The Employment Nondiscrimation Act is also about a basic American tenet--fairness. It is about fairness in hiring and fairness in treatment for people in their workplace. I expect the Senate today will overwhelmingly approve the Defense of Marriage Act. And I support that. I hope that we will also pass--by an equally large margin--the Employment Nondiscrimination Act.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, we also concur with the amendment. I have been informed Secretary Cisneros has agreed to the amendment. Senator Sarbanes, the ranking member of the Banking Committee does, and so do I, because what this does is prohibit HUD from suing people or groups protesting HUD activities. It was based on suits HUD brought against groups protesting group homes. HUD accused them of Fair Housing Act violations. It was a really needless and heavyhanded intrusion on citizens' rights to organize about their own neighborhoods, something I most enthusiastically support. I support the Faircloth amendment and so do the appropriate people on my side of the aisle. Therefore, we urge the adoption of this amendment.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, this side has no objection to the amendment. It does correct a problem created by HUD for the State, for the Utah Housing Finance Agency. It goes back to Senator Bennett's predecessor, Senator Garn, who was ranking on the committee. We are happy it is finally resolved, and urge adoption of the amendment.

Ms. MIKULSKI. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 5188