Barbara Mikulski

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, today, I will vote against cloture on the Product Liability Reform Act conference report. I believe the Senate should have a careful and thorough debate on the consequences of this conference report. We should not close the courthouse door to those with legitimate grievances. Nor should we close debate on an issue as serious and far- reaching as product liability reform. I particularly do not want to close debate when there is disagreement on the consequences on this conference report. Mr. President, I voted for the Senate's version of the product liability bill. I absolutely believe Congress should enact a reform measure to reduce frivolous law suits and have national uniform product liability standards. I also believe that when it comes to public health and safety, those who are responsible must be held accountable for their actions. The Senate bill achieved a balance which addressed the valid concerns of the business community while protecting the rights of citizens with legitimate cases. That's why I voted for it. I made it clear at the time that moving beyond the Senate bill was unacceptable to me. I said, ``To move beyond the Senate bill would be a mistake. The scales on this are delicately balanced. If those scales are tipped, it is unlikely I will support this bill.'' Mr. President, over the past several days, I have carefully assessed the conference report on product liability. I have weighed the arguments made by its supporters and its opponents. Always I have asked whether the conference report represents the same bill I voted for in 1995, or whether it was changed, tilting the delicate balance I talked about last spring. Let me be clear. I do believe we need reform in this area. My job as a U.S. Senator is to save jobs, to save lives, and to save communities. I do want to reduce frivolous lawsuits. I want to remove barriers which stifle innovation. I want us to be economically competitive. At the same time, public health and safety are paramount with me. I want consumers to have some assurance that the products they use are safe. And if products are defective and cause harm, consumers should know they can seek justice and redress through our courts. I do not want to shut the courthouse door to people with legitimate claims. That's why I have grave concerns about this conference report. This conference report does, indeed, tip the balance. Let me tell you why: First of all, under the conference agreement, consumer products not covered by the Senate bill will now be covered. The caps and other restrictions under the conference report apply to a wide range of consumer products and appliances, not just to those used in trade or business. Second, the conference report adds another barrier to people who are seeking punitive damages. Under its provisions, an injured person will now have to demonstrate that the wrongdoer's conduct was the proximate cause of harm instead of merely resulting in harm. This is a much more difficult standard. Third, the bill could unacceptably shift the burden of proof in cases where the alcohol and drug defense is used. Under our Senate bill, a defendant was required to prove the plaintiff was under the influence of drugs or alcohol. This conference agreement leaves this issue entirely up to the States. Finally, the conference report fails to specifically state that the 2-year statute of limitations will be suspended in cases where a court has issued a stay or injunction. The Senate bill was quite clear on this point. I fear the conference agreement's silence on this issue will result in injustice. For instance, in cases similar to the Dalkon Shield case, a court could issue a stay, and the statute of limitations could run out for people who have legitimate claims. I fear this defect in the conference report will prevent women who have suffered from defective products from seeking justice. Mr. President, I know there are disagreements on each of the points I have just outlined. I know that people interpret the conference agreement's language on these and other issues in very different ways. But, I must say that these very differences of opinion have reinforced my conclusion that I must oppose cloture and this conference agreement. When there are such deep and serious differences about the impact of this legislation, I must lean on the side of protecting consumers. I must place my obligation to protect public health and safety first. Therefore, I will oppose cloture today. And I will oppose this conference report. Mr. President, before concluding my remarks, I must acknowledge the tremendous work done by my esteemed colleague, Senator Rockefeller, on this legislation. He has fought diligently to uphold the Senate's position on product liability reform. And, I must say that he has succeeded on a number of issues. His fight has been a valiant one, and I regret that I am not able to stand by his side today. Let me just say, this year is not over yet. Many of us want genuine reform we can all support. Although I cannot support the conference agreement before us today, I hope we can go back to the drawing board. I want us to produce a bill which reflects the balance that is needed between the concerns of business and those of consumers. I would be proud to support such a bill.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. I concur with the chairman of the subcommittee on the use of CDBG funds for acquisition and relocation assistance. If Federal dollars can be saved by taking action before flooding occurs, I think we should do so.

Ms. MIKULSKI. I share the concern of the Senator, about the termination of the grants to Federal agencies. Unfortunately, we lost the public relations war in defining how these Federal agency grants really work. These programs are not bloated bureaucracies, but a way for small local programs to benefit from the technical expertise of Federal agencies in designing programs to meet their own local needs. I would urge any local program currently being funded through a Federal agency to apply through the national direct grants or through their own State commissions.

Ms. MIKULSKI. I believe the chairman's interpretation of the provisions in the bill is correct.

Ms. MIKULSKI. That is correct. As a strong proponent of the Committee on Women Veterans and the Committee for Minority Veterans, I fully support their efforts and will make every effort to see that their activities are not adversely affected.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that an amendment that I have pending on National Service be withdrawn.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, I will now yield the floor but reserve the remainder of whatever time our side might have. Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by Senator Coats. The amendment would allow hospitals whose programs have not been accredited by the Accreditation Council on Graduate Medical Education [ACGME] to continue to receive Federal funds if the accreditation was denied because the program did not provide abortion training. Let me share with you three reasons why I oppose the amendment. First of all, if the amendment is adopted, the Congress will be imposing its judgment of what should be taught in OB/GYN residency programs over that of the medical professionals of the ACGME. Second, the amendment would create a bureaucratic nightmare. If Federal agencies cannot be guided by ACGME accreditations in administering Federal programs, what standards will be used? Third, under this amendment the number of physicians trained to provide abortions--a legal medical procedure--will continue to decline, jeopardizing women's health. As my colleagues know, the ACGME is a private medical accreditation body which sets the standards for over 7,400 residency programs in this country. The American Medical Association, the American Hospital Association, the American Association of Medical Colleges, the American Board of Medical Specialties, and the Council of Medical Specialty Societies are all a part of ACGME. They are the medical experts who know what should be included in a complete medical training program. Earlier this year, the experts of the ACGME unanimously agreed that ACGME's standards should be modified to require that residency programs providing training in abortion procedures. But, let me be clear. The ACGME recognized that people and institutions have strongly held beliefs on the issue of abortion. So, the ACGME ensured that these new standards do not compel any institution or person with moral or religious objections to abortion to participate in training. It respects the beliefs of individuals and of institutions. Under the ACGME policy, training programs with moral or religious objections are permitted to refer their students to other facilities to receive this training. I believe the Congress should respect the medical expertise and judgment of the ACGME. Politicians should not be setting the standards for medical residency programs. That is the job of experts. It is ironic that at a time when we see efforts to reduce the role of big government, proponents of this amendment seek to substitute the judgment of government for what should be the judgment of medical experts. If this amendment is adopted, Federal agencies will face a bureaucratic nightmare. If Federal programs cannot rely on the ACGME accreditation in making decisions on funding medical education or other programs, what standard should they use? Will the Government have to devise another Federal accreditation standard? Will the Federal Government require the States to set up new standards? It seems to me that either of these options results in more redtape for medical programs, more bureaucracy, and more government involvement in the private sector. Do we allow residence programs to receive Federal funds if they have not had to receive any accreditation at all? This option would mean residency programs have not had to meet any quality of care standard at all. Surely that is not in the best interests of patients or medical institutions. And, surely that cannot be the intent of those offering this amendment. Yet, I fear that it could well be the result. Let me make one further point, Madam President. There is a growing shortage of physicians who are trained in abortion procedures and willing to provide abortion services. This constitutes a serious risk to the health of America's women, for whom access to safe and legal abortion is disappearing. In fact, in 45 States, the number of physicians who perform abortions declined between 1982 and 1992. Currently, in 84 percent of counties in the United States, not a single physician provides abortion services. At the same time, the number of residency programs that routinely offer training in first-trimester abortions has declined from 23 percent in 1985 to only 12 percent in 1992. Abortion is legal in this country. But the constitutionally protected right to choice is endangered if there are no physicians trained in providing abortion services. It is essential that women who need abortion services have access to qualified and well-trained health care providers. That is what the ACGME standards would ensure. That is why the Congress should not undermine the ACGME standards. That is why this amendment should be defeated. department of justice local law enforcement block grants

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask it be charged to the minority side.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, are we supposed to keep talking because there are other discussions underway? Is that right?

Ms. MIKULSKI. But there is no opposition.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, how much time does either side have?

Ms. MIKULSKI. I yield the Senator from New Jersey 5 minutes.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, I rise to support this bipartisan agreement to restore funds for the important environmental programs, including funding for National Service. I want to thank my colleagues, Senator Bond and Senator Lautenberg, and their staffs as well as my own for all of their hard work in developing this agreement. This is a compromise agreement. It provides an additional $487 million for the core EPA programs. These programs are fully offset in this bill to keep EPA fully staffed so that enough people are there to get the job done to ensure clean rivers and drinking water and to clean up hazardous waste sites. The environment is a priority of the American people, and I think it is the priority of this Congress. There was more that we wanted to do. There was more that I certainly wanted to do in this bill, particularly in the area of the environmental programs. But they were not included in this amendment because we could not arrive at sufficient offsets. One of the key programs that is not in this area, with great reluctance, is the cleanup of Boston Harbor; also, the cleanup of the Chesapeake Bay, which is in my own State. The programs that were included there that would have been important are also not included in this amendment. We have consistently in the past supported the funding for Boston Harbor, and, as the chairman and ranking member of the VA-HUD know, I am committed to the cleanup of Boston Harbor and will continue to work to solve this problem. In this legislation, Senator Bond and I have found efforts to find additional funds for EPA. Again, I thank him for his efforts to move the process forward to provide real money--not funny money--to deal with real environmental concerns. This additional $487 million is an investment in that. I also want to say thank you for the ability to provide additional money for National Service, which brings National Service to a total of $4.5 million. This amount will fund 23,000 participants in the program. It restores funding for the Points of Light Foundation, and as part of the amendment, like the EPA funding, that is part of a bipartisan effort. My colleague, Senator Grassley, has worked with us on helping resolve many of our concerns. I want to thank Senator Grassley for working with our former colleague, Senator Wofford, to address the very valid concerns and criticisms for National Service. I look forward to working with Senators Grassley and Bond to ensure that these valid concerns are addressed. This amendment would ensure taxpayers get a dollar's worth of effort for a dollar's worth of taxes and address valid concerns about the program. I believe this is the absolute minimum level this Congress should provide for National Service. Even more should be done, but I recognize this may be the best we can do with the money available. This amendment will increase funds for innovation and assistance by $15 million to support demonstration programs involving national nonprofit and volunteer organizations and other agencies and provide another $2 million of the Points of Light Foundation for a total of $5.5 million. This amendment also addresses valid concerns about the program's efficiency and accountability. It eliminates grants to Federal agencies, makes improvements in the Corporation's grant review process, and requires a study of the Corporation by the National Association of Public Administrators. Let me assure my colleagues I have a full offset for my amendment in the FHA Multifamily Property Disposition program. Let me tell you why I think it is so important to provide these funds and why we must continue to support National Service. National Service meets compelling needs in our society. It provides opportunity for young people; it helps meet the needs of communities; and it cultivates the habits of the heart. National Service provides opportunity by giving young people access to higher education and training. For many Americans, their first mortgage is their student debt. After graduation, many of them owe $15,000, $30,000, or even more. Through National Service, young people can work off some of their student debt. Second, National Service meets compelling needs in America's communities. Young people serve their communities. For example in education, young people tutor children and teach adults basic reading skills. They help protect public safety. For example, in my own state of Maryland, in Montgomery County, AmeriCorps volunteers operate a Community Policing program, where volunteers help control crime by running community education seminars and outreach projects. In other communities, they patrol vacant buildings and teach conflict resolution skills. They help meet compelling human needs by distributing food to sick people and poor families. They help address environmental concerns like restoring neighborhood parks, and helping communities recover from floods and disasters. After recent floods in Pennsylvania, AmeriCorps teams assisted the Red Cross to help 10,000 families devastated by that disaster. Third, National Service teaches the habits of the heart. It is not a social program. It is a social invention designed to create the ethic of service in today's young people. It provides an opportunity structure so young Americans can receive a reduction in their student debt or a voucher for further education in exchange for full-time community service. National Service is a movement toward community building, it is about neighbor helping neighbor, and it is about helping people who help themselves. National Service fosters the spirit of community in Americans, it brings people together and teaches a new generation that by working together it is possible to create a better world. I urge my colleagues to take another step toward community building and encouraging habits of the heart by voting to increase the funds to National Service.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, I rise in strong support of the amendment offered by Senator Boxer. This amendment will ensure that the District of Columbia can make its own decisions on whether to use locally raised revenues for abortion services. I oppose the provision included in the bill as reported from the committee. Under the committee's bill, neither Federal nor locally raised funds could be used for abortion. Frankly, I oppose any restrictions on funding for abortion services. But the language in the committee bill is particularly onerous. Madam President, let me offer three reasons why the committee's language is objectionable, and why the Boxer amendment must be approved: First, the language in the bill is an assault on the local prerogatives of the District of Columbia. Second, it threatens the health of poor women. Third, it is part of a wide ranging attack on women's reproductive rights. Let me explain. First of all, the committee's provision is an unwarranted intrusion on the District's sovereignty. It restricts the ability of the District to use its own, locally raised revenues for access to abortion. No other jurisdiction is told how to use its own revenues. Every State can make its own decision on using its own funds to provide access to abortion for poor women. Seventeen States, including the State of Maryland, provide Medicaid funding for abortion under all or most circumstances. That is their right. Thirty-three States have chosen not to use their funds for abortion. I may not agree with them on this point, but it is their right to make that decision. The District should be given the same autonomy as the States to create its own policy about matters of public health. The Boxer amendment will assure that the District has that right. Madam President, the provision currently in the bill tramples on the rights of women who live in the District, especially those who are poor and most vulnerable. For poor women who cannot afford basic health care without Government assistance, this denies access to abortion services. Poor women should have the same choices to terminate a pregnancy that other women have. Finally, Madam President, the provision in the bill as it now stands is part of a disturbing series of assaults on women's reproductive rights. Throughout the fiscal year 1996 appropriations process, we have seen one attack after another on women's constitutionally protected right to choose. I strongly oppose these efforts to chip away at women's rights. I urge my colleagues to vote for the Boxer amendment. I would prefer to strike the entire provision, so that there would be no restrictions on either the Federal funds or locally raised revenue. But I recognize that is not possible given the current composition of this body. So while it may be that we cannot strike the restriction on Federal funds, surely at a minimum we must protect the right of the District of Columbia to use locally raised revenues as it sees fit. Not to do so violates the District's right to determine its own affairs. It is unfair to poor women who reside in the District. And, it is one more effort to undermine reproductive rights. I urge support of the Boxer amendment. pride

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I strongly oppose the McConnell amendment. It is another attempt to deny health care to the world's poorest women. The McConnell amendment seeks to maintain a provision of the foreign operations bill that would decimate America's effort to improve health care for the world's poorest women. A recent report by the Alan Guttmacher Institute estimates that these cuts will mean that 7 million couples in developing countries would no longer have access to contraceptives. There would be almost 2 million unplanned births. And there could be up to 1.6 million additional abortions. Those who support the McConnell amendment claim to want to reduce the number of abortions. But the effect of this provision will be 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. U.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 or are not using family planning because they are poor, uneducated or lack access to 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. The majority of the Senate opposes the irrational and cruel effort to end U.S. assistance for international family planning. I commend Senator Hatfield for his principled stand on this issue. We will continue the fight to enable the world's poorest women to control and improve their lives.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, this is an amendment on national service, which we will not debate at this time. I wish to just file it while we are continuing our conversation with the subcommittee chairman, so I, therefore, ask unanimous consent the amendment be temporarily laid aside, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to lay aside the pending amendment so I may offer an amendment, which I send to the desk.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise to join Senator Lautenberg and other of my colleagues in offering this amendment to restore critical reductions taken in the funding for environmental programs. I compliment the Senator from New Jersey for his steadfast advocacy on the environment, and I look forward to working with him on these important issues. Mr. President, we in Maryland are budget weary. We have been battered by the budget, we have been battered by floods, and we have been battered by the shutdowns that have occurred. What has been so terrible about the shutdowns that have occurred is that they have shut down our ability to enforce America's vital, crucial environmental protection laws relating to Superfund, safe drinking water, clean water, to be able to help our people be in a safe environment and help local communities. The full committee and the subcommittee chairmen, Senators Hatfield and Bond, have taken important steps by restoring $240 million in real money to this omnibus CR. This important effort, I think, will move us beyond this weariness that we have with shutdowns. I hope that at the end of this week, we have not shut down the Federal Government, we have not shut down the Environmental Protection Agency, and we have not shut down our ability to enforce public health and safety, nor that we have shut down the funding to go to environmental contractors. But the fact remains that despite the efforts of the chairman of the Appropriations Committee and the chairman of the Subcommittee on VA and EPA, this appropriation, this CR continues to be $750 million below the 1995 level. It is the defunding of EPA. That is unacceptable to us on this side of the aisle, and it is unacceptable to the American people. The American people want clean air, clean drinking water, they want contaminated and hazardous waste sites cleaned up, and they want their local communities to have the resources to provide wastewater and clean water to these communities. The American people are absolutely opposed to efforts to weaken the environmental laws and are opposed to budget and staffing cuts that do that. There was a recent poll that showed that 46 percent of the American people want no changes in either clean or safe drinking water. When we talk about the impact on these budget cuts, this has a tremendous impact not only on local communities and on public health and public safety, but it absolutely has a direct impact on business. A recent study by the University of Maryland's Jacobs Center, which is a business evaluation center, said that businesses are concerned that cuts to regulatory agencies lead to delays in permitting, and poorly trained staff also lead to a delay in permitting, which is a delay to business. In my home State of Maryland, good environment is good business. That is why we have been such strong supporters of the Chesapeake Bay Program and the cleanup of important rivers and polluted rivers, like Back River. So the American people do not want any more cuts in EPA, and neither do I. This amendment restores $738 million and puts us at 1995 levels. It is essentially a freeze on EPA, but it does restore funds to implement those important standards. It also does something else. This amendment restores programs relating to the environmental technologies initiative. That is an initiative to spur, working with the private sector, new technologies, new products that we can manufacture in the United States and sell overseas. Mr. President, these environmental cuts have a great impact on the United States of America and its citizens, but also this has a great impact on our national reputation. The world is coming to the United States of America for our environmental expertise in Government and its form of regulation, in terms of academia, in terms of its scientific research on the environment and in terms of a private sector that has developed techniques and products in manufacturing biotechnology to clean up the environment. What we want to do in this legislation is to restore the Environmental Protection Agency to do this. To keep the funding cuts, I believe, will have a devastating effect on American citizens and will be a loss of national honor, as well as a national opportunity to go global. This national opportunity will enable us to take our environmental expertise that the world wants access to and to go around the world giving out information, ideas, science and actual products. We talk a lot in this U.S. Senate about how we need to have good jobs at good wages. I believe the frontier to do that is in the field of environment, using the expertise of EPA, working with America's academic institutions, encouraging these new technologies in the private sector. If we do that, we will not only protect our environment, but we will also be able to create jobs and be able to have an important contribution internationally. So I hope, therefore, that my colleagues will support the Lautenberg- Mikulski-Lieberman and Kerry amendment to restore these cuts to EPA. We believe we have sound offsets to be able to do it, and I believe then we can move this process forward. Again, I thank the chairman of the full committee, Senator Hatfield, and the chairman of the subcommittee, Senator Bond, for taking the first step by restoring the $240 million. We look forward now to taking the next step to put EPA at the 1995 levels. I thank the Chair and my colleagues for their attention, and I yield the floor. Mr. KERRY addressed the Chair.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I strongly support the Biden amendment and am proud to be a cosponsor of this important amendment. The amendment would restore $1,788,000 to the COPS Program. This funding will allow us to keep our promise to the American people to put 100,000 new police officers on our streets. Under the Violent Crime Control Act we passed in 1994, the COPS Program was created to provide our communities with the police they need to fight crime. COPS stands for community oriented policing services. So far the COPS Program has made possible over 790 new police officers in my State of Maryland, and over 33,000 new officers nationwide. Through the use of community policing, the COPS Program puts into practice what police chiefs and other experts have been saying for years. They know that police officers fight crime and prevent crime more effectively when they are integral members of the community they serve. They know the fight against crime will be won only when the police work with citizens as full-fledged partners in the battle to take back our streets. Mr. President, the COPS Program is working. Why would we want to change a law that is working? If we start taking apart the crime control package we passed in 1994 with bipartisan support, we leave to chance what we know is working now. Let us continue to make it a priority to get more police out on the streets. By restoring the COPS Program, we are responding to a cry for help, a cry for more police officers on the street. We cannot ignore this cry for help from all of those police departments who need more police. My constituents are calling for an increase in the number of police officers in their communities. My constituents are calling for more crime prevention programs. The legislation to satisfy these calls has been passed, the programs are now established; why should we dismantle them? Mr. President, this bill, as reported by the Appropriations Committee, provides no guarantees that even one new police officer will be hired. The 1994 crime bill called for 100,000 new police on the streets of America participating in community policing. I urge my colleagues to consider this: our failure to fulfill the promise of 100,000 new police officers means less partnership between police and their communities, less work with community residents to detect and supress crime, and a missed opportunity to keep our streets safe for law-abiding citizens. If we are going to take back our streets, we must empower our communities with the police they need. The concept of community based policing is police officers and citizens forging alliances to combat crime. I strongly oppose any efforts to cut community oriented policing programs. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Biden amendment. Passage of this amendment will allow our citizens and their partners in law enforcement to continue to combat crime together by delivering more new police officers to the frontline. Thank you Mr. President. Mr. NICKLES addressed the Chair.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, once again, terrorists have targeted the heart of Israel. My prayers are with the people of Israel as they mourn the latest victims. Over 60 people have died in the terror of the last 10 days, and the peace process may die as well. We cannot understand the kind of evil and cowardice that kills children as they walk to a party; families as they walk down the street on a holiday; ordinary and innocent people on their way to work. They time their attacks to kill as many civilians as possible. They load their bombs with nails--to make sure that all injuries are serious. Their goal is to kill Jews and to strike a death knell on the peace process. Israelis are angry and afraid. Their confidence in the peace process is badly shaken--and I don't blame them. They have given up land and security in exchange for peace. Yet they still live under constant threat. We must stand by Israel as a friend and ally. I support the President's plan to provide immediate assistance to Israel. The United States will use our intelligence agencies to help them route out these terrorists. We will provide specialized explosive detection equipment and technical experts. And America will lead an international effort to better coordinate the war against terrorism. Only an international effort will track down these killers and those who bankroll them. The international community must also condemn these acts of terrorism--and ensure that no country provides a sanctuary for these killers. The Palestinian Authority can and must do more to stop Hamas. If they don't show the will to confront terrorism, the chance for peace will be lost. I hope that the peace process can continue. But friends do not tell friends what to do. As Americans, we cannot tell Israel what risks are worth taking for peace. We can only imagine what it is to live in a country that is less than 9 miles wide at its narrowest point--and still surrounded by enemies. Israel has defended itself in five wars for survival. But in this war against terrorism, all ordinary citizens are on the front lines. The international community must stand with Israel. We must ensure that the fanatics do not prevail.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, yesterday we returned for the last session of the 104th Congress to complete the Nation's business. We returned so that we could attempt to reach a bipartisan agreement on welfare reform. We returned to continue debating the future of Medicare. We returned so we could end the budget impasse. We returned so that we could face the legislative challenges before us and not let the American people down. I'm sad to say, we are not doing these important things. We are not serving the American people by working on the things that affect their day to day lives. Instead, we are debating whether to extend the Senate Committee's investigation into Whitewater indefinitely and if an additional $600,000 for the investigation should be provided. I oppose this attempt to extend the hearings indefinitely. The Senate has already spent $950,000 on 277 days of Whitewater investigation, heard from more than 100 witnesses, and collected more than 45,000 pages of documents. Enough is enough. Let me tell you what I support. I support Senator Daschle's proposal to complete the task at hand by extending the hearing until April 3, 1996, with a final report due on May 10, 1996. I also support letting the Independent Counsel do his work. Three federal judges have given him the job of investigating Whitewater and all related matters. He has more than 130 staff members helping him. There is no time limit or spending cap on his investigation, so he will be able to gather facts in a systematic and unencumbered way and to investigate Whitewater thoroughly. The results of his investigation will be made public. If the Independent Counsel finds wrongdoing, he has the authority to bring any lawbreakers to justice. By permitting him to do what none of us can do and what none of us should be doing, we will get a complete rendering of the facts. That's the right thing to do. That's what I support. What I don't support is using Senate committees to play Presidential politics. The goal of this proposed extension is very clear. It's about Presidential politics. And, it's about vilifying Mrs. Clinton in the name of Presidential politics. This attack on her is unprecedented. She has voluntarily answered questions on four occasions from the Grand jury and on three occasions in interviews for the Grand jury, numerous written questions, and she has been cooperative with the committee. I know her personally. Like many others across the Nation, I have deep admiration and respect for her. Like so many other American women she has struggled to meet the demands of both a career and a family. She is dedicated to her family and she is a dedicated advocate for children. For more than 25 years she worked on behalf of children and families which she discusses in her book ``It Takes a Village''. In ``Village'', Mrs. Clinton shares with the public her passion, conviction, and insight, gleaned from her experience as a mother, daughter, advocate, attorney, and First Lady. Mrs. Clinton has truly inspired a generation of men, women and children. She has worked to raise her own family and she has worked to protect a generation of children. So I don't support extending the Senate committee's investigation into Whitewater. We should not ask taxpayers to continue subsidizing this round of Presidential politics and this attack on Mrs. Clinton. Instead, I say, let's get on with the business of this country and its citizens. The Senate committee should finish its investigation immediately, write its report, and let the American people hear what the committee has to say. I believe the Senate should get back to the job we were elected to do. Get back to meeting the day to day needs of the American people. The American public deserves our full attention.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, today, I am introducing legislation with Senator Sarbanes called the Furlough Relief Act of 1996. Our bill would help Federal employees weather the storm during Government shutdowns by allowing them access to interest free loans from their Thrift Savings Plans. About the only thing that Federal employees can rely on today is uncertainty. During the last year we have seen one attack after another aimed at Federal workers. Between assaults on earned retirement benefits, downsizing, and furloughs, these dedicated people have to be wondering what's coming next. Today we are operating much of the Government under an emergency continuing resolution. I fervently hope there will not be another shutdown, and I will be doing all I can to prevent one from happening. But there is no guarantee that Federal employees will be able to go to work and earn their paychecks after this continuing resolution expires on March 15. They could face yet another shutdown. That would mean more lost pay, more lost productivity, and more uncertainty. I am a Federal employee Senator. I believe in honest pay for hard work, and I know of no group of Americans that works harder than our Federal employees. That is why I am introducing legislation today that will help Federal employees who want to help themselves. As my colleagues know, Federal employees currently are allowed to borrow from their tax deferred Thrift Savings Plans for reasons such as furthering their education, buying a home, or undergoing a medical procedure. However, the approval process for a TSP loan can take weeks. There is also no guarantee that the loan will be approved, and if it is approved, the borrower must pay interest when paying back the loan. The Furlough Relief Act of 1996 would allow furloughed Federal employees to be automatically eligible for a TSP loan from their account during any Government shutdown. This loan would continue to be paid as long as the employee remains on furlough. It would help Federal employees make up for lost wages. When a furlough ends, the employee would be able to pay back the loan without interest. The Furlough Relief Act will cut through the redtape of the TSP loan process. It will provide a dependable source of income for Federal employees who have been denied their pay, and it will finally give a break to dedicated people who have not had many breaks in the past year. I think it's time to stop these assaults on Federal employees. We cannot continue to devalue Government workers and at the same time expect Government to work better. In my State of Maryland, there are thousands of Federal employees making Government work better and making a difference in the lives of all Americans. I salute them, and I dedicate myself to making a difference in their lives.