Barbara Mikulski

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.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the Gregg- Reid amendment to eliminate the sugar title in this bill. As a Senator from a State which is home to a major sugar refinery-- the Domino refinery in Baltimore which provides over 600 jobs--I will not support a bill which threatens their future existence. This bill is a bad deal for Domino and other refineries. It threatens the livelihoods of thousands of American working families--at refineries not only in Baltimore, but also in New York, in California and elsewhere. Too often, the sugar program squeezes refineries between artificially high raw cane sugar prices and low supply. The sugar program in this bill will worsen the problem. Almost half of American sugar cane refineries have gone out of business. Those refineries still in operation have faced temporary closures again and again. These disruptions create economic hardships for workers and disrupts production schedules. To give our refineries some relief, I offered an amendment called the Emergency Sugar Refiner Relief Act which requires the Secretary of Agriculture to increase imports of raw cane sugar if the price of raw cane sugar exceeds 120 percent of the loan rate. My amendment would have prevented refineries from future closings due to artificially high raw cane prices. Unfortunately, my amendment could not be accepted today but I will keep fighting for it at every opportunity. It is outrageous that our sugar program has to pit growers against refiners. There is no reason why our refiners have to be left out of the sugar program, threatening the future of this industry. Mr. President, I will not support legislation that threatens the jobs and livelihoods of hundreds of workers in Baltimore. The sugar program contained in this bill is simply bad policy and there is no excuse for it. I will continue to fight for the workers at Domino and the rest of the refining industry. For this reason, I strongly support the Gregg amendment.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to an extraordinary and brilliant woman--former Congresswoman Barbara Jordan. I was deeply saddened by Ms. Jordan's death. She was very special to me, and to this country. She enriched and moved this Nation unlike any other American. Barbara Jordan was in a class all by herself. I was fortunate enough to serve with her in U.S. House of Representatives. She taught me a lot about what it means to be a tough advocate for the American people. Nothing stopped Congresswoman Jordan from forging ahead--not race, not gender, and not her illness. She lived her life as a teacher never giving in to the victim mentality. Not Congresswoman Jordan. That was not her style. She had an immense impact on this Nation, and yet, Barbara Jordan served as a Congresswoman for only 6 years. But during that time, she used her rich, booming and elegant voice, to leave a powerful impact on this Nation. She believed, as I do, in letting your voice be heard. She spoke forcefully about important national issues, and she had commitment and conviction like none other. She had a special kind of commitment--the kind that's hard to find. She never wasted a breath on nonsense, but always spoke the truth so eloquently. She was a true pioneer for what's right and for tackling what's wrong in America. She was the Nation's conscience during Watergate and helped restore America's faith in the Constitution. That is why students lined up for hours at the LBJ School of Public Affairs just to register for her class. Now, that was a line worth standing in. These students understood that it was a treat to be taught by this woman of many firsts. The first African-American, and first woman, elected to the Texas Senate. The first southern black elected to Congress since the Reconstruction, and the only woman in her law school class in Boston University. Barbara Jordan inspired us because she was a visionary who firmly believed in this Nation's potential. Our country is different today because of her and the strength, integrity and sensibility that she symbolized. Barbara Jordan was a great American. She was proud to be black, proud to be a woman, proud to be a Texan, and proud to be an American. I know she will live in our hearts and minds forever.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, today I will vote for the continuing resolution that will prevent another Government shutdown. I do so because I do not believe our country can withstand another Government shutdown. I am budget weary. My home State of Maryland is budget weary. I have 260,000 Federal employees in my State. They are budget weary. And the Nation is budget weary. Running our Government by shutdown and 30-day funding measures is wasteful and irresponsible. It's harmful to our country--harmful to our international standing, harmful to our credit rating, and harmful to the future of our country. Mr. President, the State of Maryland is home to some of the flagship agencies of the Federal Government. It is home to the National Institutes of Health, where dedicated researchers are fighting to discover a cure for Alzheimer's disease, to Parkinson's disease, to cancer, and other devastating ailments. We are the home to the Food and Drug Administration, to the National Institute of Science and Technology, and to Goddard which is piloting the Mission to Planet Earth. During the last shutdown, I spent time throughout my State talking to Federal Employees about how the shutdown was affecting them. I talked to the dedicated doctors, nurses, and lab technicians at our excellent Veterans' Administration Hospital in Baltimore. They were on the job, tending to our veterans health care needs, but they weren't getting paid. I met with agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. They were working to protect our safety, to fight the war on drugs and crime--but they weren't getting paid. I spoke with the good people at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center-- where they are scanning the universe for the secrets to life here on Earth. But their work was imperiled because essential contractors were not getting paid. After having met with these essential and valuable Federal employees, I am more determined than ever that we can never have another Government shutdown. So, Mr. President, I will vote for this continuing resolution today. But I must say that I have profound problems with many of the terms and conditions of this bill. The need to avoid a third shutdown cannot ignore the very real harm that will result from the terms of this CR. First of all, I am very disappointed that we are not providing the same furlough protection for Federal employees that we did in previous continuing resolutions. This CR will allow agencies to furlough employees for 1 workday per pay period. This could amount to a 10 percent pay cut for Federal employees in Maryland and across the Nation. I don't see how we can expect to maintain an effective and dedicated work force when Federal employees are under constant attack. These assaults must stop. I am also deeply distressed by the inadequate funding for education that this measure contains. For this reason, I supported Senator Kennedy's amendment to protect education programs. I know all too well that schools in my State of Maryland could use any additional Federal funding because times are hard right now for the public school in my State. Without the Kennedy amendment, Maryland's college students will not know if they can afford to go back to college next semester, services for Maryland's disadvantaged youngsters in elementary school would end, and teachers would be laid off. As an appropriator, I know first-hand how difficult it is to allocate and balance limited Federal dollars. But if the current funding levels are extended over the next year, it would cut education by $3.1 billion--the largest education cut in history. That's why I supported the Kennedy amendment. I'm disappointed it could not be approved today. Furthermore, the cuts to agency budgets will have very negative consequences. Cuts in the Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] truly threaten public health and safety. This continuing resolution will cut the EPA by $1 billion. That's a 25-percent reduction in enforcing environmental and public health standards for air pollution, pesticides, and clean water. It's a 45- percent cut in funds needed to protect community drinking water. It's a 30-percent cut in funds going directly to States to build wastewater and sewage treatment plants, and a 25-percent cut in Superfund hazardous waste cleanup. The American people want clean drinking water. The American people want hazardous and contaminated waste sites cleaned. But these deep cuts would make it impossible for EPA to protect the environment and public health and safety and it would cause staff cuts at EPA. I am also opposed to the way HUD is treated in this process. This Nation cannot run its housing programs by continuing resolution. HUD cannot effectively enter into contracts to provide basic housing services. Community development and emergency housing services have been unable to spend any funds to meet the very real needs of the people. The uncertainty of program funds and guidelines make it difficult for HUD to proceed in an intelligent fashion. In addition to concerns over the education, the environment, and the housing provisions, I strongly oppose the provisions in this bill that deal with international family planning. By delaying and reducing our contribution to international family planning, we are denying healh care to the world's poorest women. Those who support this provision 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 they are 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 this irrational and cruel provision--and we will continue the fight to enable the world's poorest women to control and improve their lives. There are other examples of how running a government by CR makes no sense and hurts the employees of those agencies. But the bottom line remains that we cannot afford another shutdown. Despite the onerous provisions contained in this continuing resolution, shutting down the Government would be worse. This is why I will vote for this bill, but I do so with great anguish.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to a dedicated Senate employee who, on February 1, 1996, will celebrate her 25th year of service to Maryland's Senators. Linda D. Williams started her career with my distinguished predecessor and friend, Senator Charles McC. Mathias in 1971. She served his office with distinction and enthusiasm for 15 years. While working for Senator Mathias, she helped bring his office into the high technology era of computers. When I came to the Senate in 1987, I asked Linda to be my systems administrator, and she has not missed a beat. Gone are the days of carbon copies and in are the days of high-speed computers, sophisticated software, and the Internet. I have relied on Linda Williams to guide me through this maze of technology, so that I might use it to better serve the people of Maryland. I can say with a great deal of pride and happiness that Linda has helped me make the most of these opportunities. Even more important, she has helped the people of Maryland in the process. With her help, I was one of the first Senators to have a world wide web page. Now, my staff and I navigate the NET with abandon, and my constituents navigate their way to my office online. This exciting technology will help open our democracy to more and more people. I was lucky to have Linda Williams here to see the process through. Mr. President, I have a great deal of respect for people who have a sense of duty, for people who want to help themselves. I admire people who take on a task, make it their own, and see it through to the end. Many of these successful people live and work in Maryland. They are teaching in our schools, nursing our veterans, exploring space, and finding the cures for disease. I'm proud that one of these people is in my own office. I salute Linda Williams for her dedication, and I look forward to her next 25 years serving Maryland's Senators.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. The Senator from Virginia also talked about phone calls. I have hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of phone calls coming into my office. We have even had to bring in, in some very emotional and highly charged situations, a suicide intervention team because of the desperation that we are facing. Not everybody is a high-paid Federal employee. One of my constituents, one of the nurses, got a paycheck yesterday for 7 cents-- 7 cents--after all the deductions were taken out. Another cannot pay her car insurance, and she is not getting paid, and she needs to drive her car to work. I have another Federal employee who is deaf, cannot pay her rent, and they are not accepting the fact that she is furloughed. These are real stories about real people. And why are they not getting paid? They are not getting paid because some refuse to pass a continuing resolution until we pass a balanced budget. Sure, we want to pass a balanced budget, but we also need not destroy civil service. And while the civil servants are on the job, the Federal contractors are also losing their wages. Who are they? They are people like the cafeteria workers at NASA who work at the minimum wage. They work for a contractor. They are never going to get caught up. They are the small businesspeople who, again, are Federal contractors and are not being paid. There are people like the small business lady who has a small photography shop outside of the Baltimore passport office. Because there are no passports, nothing is happening. She still has to pay her rent. She has lost 75 percent of her business. Mr. President, this cannot go on. This is why I am pleased that the Republican leader passed a no-frills, get-back-to-work continuing resolution. Today I hope that the House of Representatives passes this bill. I am appalled that the House of Representatives is stalling and is hinting that they will not pass this. We must end this financial nightmare for nearly a million Federal employees and contractors. They want to be back to work. For those who are working, they want to be paid. Let them have the pay that they have earned. If this does not work, I will come back and offer a CR myself. We need to stop playing games with people's lives and get down to business. It is time to stop holding Federal employees hostage. Mr. President, in conclusion, I have a great deal of respect for the Senate, and I do not want to engage in any histrionics on the floor. But yesterday the Social Security workers, those who want to answer those hotlines, those that want to deal with the million-person backlog, gave me a lock. They gave me a lock, and they gave me some chains. What did they do as a symbolic thing? They wanted to lock us in and chain the door until we get the Government back to work. They want us to go back to work, balancing the budget of the United States. So, Mr. President, I hope today that the House of Representatives passes this continuing resolution and that the leadership can come to a resolution on this budget crisis. I thank the Chair, and I yield back such time as I might have. Mr. GREGG addressed the Chair.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I, too, am pleased that the Senate passed a continued funding resolution which puts the Federal Government back to work and puts money into pay stubs for all Federal employees. I commend the Republican leader for doing that, and I am proud of the fact that the Democratic leader has also been offering those continuing resolutions. I am relieved that we have finally taken positive action to put an end to this national disgrace and the shameful way we have treated our Federal employees. I thank everyone who worked on this continuing resolution that has passed, but I am here to say that we need more than a continuing resolution. We also need to repair the damage that has been done. Mr. President, I represent a shutdown State, as does the Senator from Virginia. What does a shutdown State mean? Of the hundreds of thousands of Federal employees that are furloughed, many of them are in the State of Maryland. I represent flagship agencies. What are those flagship agencies? One is the National Institutes of Health, 13,000 people working around the clock to find the cure and containment of disease and they are furloughed. I represent the national space agency at Goddard, the Social Security agency, the responsibility of which is to respond to the needs of the elderly in terms of getting out their Social Security benefits; the health care finance agency, the National Institute of Standards. I could go on and on. I can tell you as I have been out meeting with them, visiting with them, talking with them, they know they are out of work, they are out of money, and they are out of patience. For those workers who have been declared essential, what the American taxpayer should know is that although someone has been declared essential does not mean they are getting paid. What are examples of the essential employees? Those are FBI agents, the DEA agents, the drug enforcement agents. This morning I met with the FBI team in the Baltimore area. They are on the job. The drug dealers are getting paid. Burglars are getting theirs, the bank robbers. But the very people we rely upon to track down the criminals in the United States of America are not getting paid. They are there. They are working. They have every right to be paid. I was at the VA hospital in Baltimore this morning, speaking to the nurses, the physical therapists, the physicians, the support team. They are there making sure that every veteran is cared for. They are giving their time and their life's blood, but those doctors, those nurses, are not being paid. Mr. President, that is a national disgrace. When you talk to constituents as I have, they say to me: Why is it that we can have peace talks for Bosnia and get it done? Why is it that we can have Mideast peace talks and get it done? But why is it we cannot have budget peace talks and get it done? I do not know. Maybe we have to take the entire Republican and Democratic leadership including the President and all of us and go down the Wye River and try to get this settled. We need to be very serious about this. Yesterday, when I was at the Social Security Administration, I spoke with the workers there. They want to work, they want to earn their pay, and they want to pay their bills. And you know what. They are absolutely worried. They are worried about how they can meet their responsibilities while they are trying to answer the phone calls and do the other work that Social Security requires. This morning, when I met with those FBI agents and met with the nurses at the Social Security, I heard incredible talk, stories. At the VA hospital, I talked with a nurse who has come into the job without fail to save the lives of veterans and they themselves have no money for their mortgage. They have no money for their car payment. They have no money for their child care. They worked Christmas Day. They worked New Year's Day. Many of them worked the night shift and therefore are paid a premium for that. They are also prohibited from getting any type of second job because they are essential employees. How can we turn our backs on these men and women? They have given me letters that they want to go into the Congressional Record talking about how they continue to work and continue to care for the sick and care for the dying and they want to know who is going to care for them. I have a letter from one Federal employee who talks about how, while they have no pay, they are raising money for those who are also out of money. I have another letter from a nurse who has dedicated her life to the sick. I ask unanimous consent that these letters be printed in the Record, because I want everyone to know the consequences of this.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I oppose this conference report. We should reject this bill. We should return to the bargaining table to negotiate real welfare reform which moves people from welfare to work and provides a safety net for kids. Nearly 3 months ago, I joined 34 of my Democratic colleagues in reaching across the aisle to pass a bipartisan welfare reform bill by a vote of 87-12. We did so because our deliberations had produced a bill that began to move the welfare reform debate away from the harsh rhetoric of the House bill. I had hoped that our initial success at compromise in the Senate could lead to true compromise with the House. Regrettably, it did not. During Senate action last September, Senate Republicans and Democrats worked together to find common ground and the sensible center. In contrast, the House-Senate welfare conference was shaped by Republican back room deals. Democrats were shut out. This Conference Report is punitive. It's tough on kids, and it does not give people the tools they need to get and keep a job. This bill moves us in the wrong direction. First, this bill is part of the Republican assault on needy families. This bill cuts $82 billion from child care, food stamps, child nutrition, child protection, welfare and other programs over 7 years-- drastically more than the Senate welfare reform bill. These cuts are draconian. They are coupled with other budget cuts critical to working families, such as the earned income tax credit. The EITC helps keep working families out of poverty. The Republicans welfare plan says go to work. The Republican budget says, once you get to work, we're going to make you pay more in taxes. Second, the conference report snatches away the safety net for kids. It weakens the Senate effort to provide child care to working families by cutting $1.2 billion. These drastic cuts mean that parents will have to choose between taking care of their kids and going to work. Today, 34 percent of women on welfare say they are not working because they cannot find or afford child care. Children will go hungry under this conference report. It jeopardizes the nutrition and health of millions of children, working families, and the elderly. It cuts food stamps and school lunches. And, if there is a recession, there is no guarantee those in need can get either. At least 14 million kids will suffer from this cut. Third, neglected and abandoned children, and children in foster and adoptive care, will suffer further under this conference report. It slashes protective services to these kids by 23 percent or $4.6 billion over the next 7 years. The bill also cuts funding to investigate reports of abuse and neglect, to train potential foster and adoptive parents, to help place children in foster and adoptive homes and to monitor State child protection programs. These cuts come at a time when resources can't meet current needs to protect children from abuse and neglect. Fourth, the conference agreement is punitive to disabled children. We all agree Supplemental Security Income needs to be reformed. But, this goes too far. It too narrowly defines who qualifies. So, only the most severely disabled children will get SSI, stranding many disabled kids and their families. Fifth, the conference report allows States to cut back on their financial commitment to poor families. It weakens the State maintenance of effort provisions the Senate fought so hard for. Under this bill States could cut their contributions to poor families by 25 percent each year. The net effect--less child care, fewer tools to help get people to work, and more children falling into poverty. And sixth, the bill fails to recognize that when there is an economic downturn, people lose their jobs and need a helping hand. There is not an adequate contingency fund for use during times of natural disasters, changes in child poverty, and population shifts. This bill fails to move people from welfare to work. And it is a bill that will force more than a million additional children into poverty. The welfare package of the President's 7-year balanced budget plan is a good place to start. It takes a significant page from the Work First proposal that Senators Daschle, Breaux, and I wrote earlier this year. It requires welfare recipients to go to work by providing them with the tools to get a job and keep it. It cuts $49 billion in welfare programs, but does so responsibly--not in the reckless and punitive fashion of this conference report. The best social program in America is a job. Unfortunately, the Republicans welfare bill now before the Senate is a con job when it comes to Americans' desire to get welfare recipients back to work. Vote no on this conference report.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, this is the toughest year I have ever faced as a member of the Appropriations Committee. I would like to thank Senator Bond and his staff, who worked very hard, under difficult conditions, to bring this bill to the floor. I also want to thank my own staff for the hard work that they put in and their effort to try to create a VA-HUD appropriations bill that would pass the Senate and be approved by the President. However, I believe that this bill will be vetoed, and I believe that the bill will be vetoed not because of the hard work of the chairman, not because of our attempt to strategize on an effective allocation of funds, but this year was so tough simply because of the modest allocation we received, and that was due to the issues related to the budget. The amount that this subcommittee was allowed to devote to so many important priorities is indeed skimpy. Under these conditions I believe Senator Bond has done a commendable job. I chaired this committee for 6 years and brought six bills to the floor. I know how much work it is, and, again, I am going to thank him for his cooperative effort. He tried very hard to bring about change. I believe this bill reflects this change. I believe that this bill begins to reform HUD. It puts into action the recommendations of the National Academy of Public Administration to reform the structure of HUD and consolidate its maze of programs so we get a dollar's worth of services for the poor and homeownership instead of dollars going to a bureaucracy. This bill also streamlines the EPA. It follows the National Academy of Public Administration's recommendations to streamline EPA management and get started on a strategy to put EPA's resources where they are most needed, to be based on the risk to human health and safety. There are other things about this bill that I like. First is Mission to Planet Earth. The funding cut was limited to only $75 million. Ordinarily I would say, ``Wow, cutting $75 million,'' but given the fact that we faced a $300 million cut, I believe we preserved the Mission to Planet Earth. The House bill cut much of the crucial space science programs, and the House language was to close NASA space flight centers, and those things have been removed from the conference report. Second, veterans medical research is fully funded at the President's request of $257 million, and a provision to deny benefits to vets who become mentally incapacitated has been removed. Third, this bill will help those who want to help themselves. It contains a moving-to-work demonstration project for public housing residents, and rent ceilings and income disregards to help support the working poor. Fourth, Federal housing preferences were moved, which I believe led to the ZIP codes of pathology in public housing. And I am pleased they, too, have been removed. Lastly, the conference report removes House language to prevent HUD from enforcing fair housing laws on property insurance red lining. But, Mr. President, unfortunately, serious problems remain in this bill. If these problems are not worked out, the President will veto this bill. The first problem is that this bill contains no funding to continue national service. National service creates an opportunity structure in which young people can earn credit for higher education while serving their communities. It gives help to those who practice self-help and gives low- and middle-income young people access to the American dream. National service makes voluntarism a fact of life and rekindles the habits of the heart. It fosters the spirit of neighbor helping neighbor that has made our country great. The second concern that I have is in the area of veterans medical care. The bill reduces veterans medical care by $400 million below the President's request. With the cuts in Medicare and Medicaid that loom on the horizon, many vets will turn to the VA for medical care but will be turned away because there is not enough money. This, I know, the President cannot support. Our Nation's veterans did not hesitate to risk their lives for our freedom. There should be no hesitation to fund their health care. When they went to war, we told them we would provide health care. I believe promises made should be promises kept. The third serious problem is EPA funding. EPA must be funded to protect health and environment. This bill funds EPA $1.5 billion below the President's request, and it will hinder the EPA's ability to do its job in enforcement and in Superfund legislation. Finally, this bill will transfer HUD's authority to enforce fair housing to the Department of Justice. On this side of the aisle we are opposed to this. Removing this authority from HUD is a step backward in time, and the transfer to Justice will hollow out fair housing enforcement efforts. This flies in the face of civil rights progress we have made over the last 25 years. It is for these reasons that I oppose this bill. I know my colleagues on this side of the aisle will oppose it. It is regrettable that a budget agreement could not be arrived at so that Senator Bond and I, with the new allocation, could have moved forward to avoid a veto. I know that Senator Bond, and I must say Chairman Jerry Lewis on the House side, have worked very hard and been open to further negotiations with the White House to avoid a veto. I thank them for that. I want to again thank Senator Bond for his willingness to listen to our concerns. I think a better allocation would produce a better bill. I regret that we are heading for a veto. With these remarks, though, we could talk long into the night. I now yield the floor. Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair. Mr. BOND addressed the Chair.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I have nothing to add to all that has been said. My opening statement summarized everything. I yield back such time that I might have. Our side of the aisle is ready to vote.

Ms. MIKULSKI. I yield an additional 3 minutes.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, the Senate is not in order.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, earlier this week we had a debate on what it means to support the flag. Now we are voting to stand behind that flag--and that means voting to support our troops. No American ever wants to send our troops into harms way. Certainly no one wants to do this days before Christmas. All over this country, and as our troops are doing abroad, families are planning for the happiest time of the year. They are visiting family, trimming trees, and singing Christmas carols. But instead, as for our troops in Germany, they are planning to spend a year away from loved ones. And they are preparing for the risks that are part of any military mission. After consultation with the President, the Vice President, the Vice President, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and our ambassador to the United Nations. And after prayerful reflection--I am voting to do just that. Why? Because after 4 bloody years, the people of Bosnia have decided to give peace a chance. Only NATO can enforce this peace. But without the United States, NATO cannot and will not enforce the peace. The fighting will continue. The savagery could continue. Mass murders and rapes could continue, and ethnic cleansing will continue unless NATO and the United States involvement takes place. Older people and children will continue to be pushed from their homes, but lights will go out once again in Sarajevo, and the lights will go out for any peace, or any possibility of peace. But even as I say this, I want to speak directly, if I can, to the troops and to their families. I want them to know that I would not support this vote unless there was a specific, focused, and limited mission. Over and over again at every meeting I have spoken out for the fact that there must be clear criteria for going in and clear criteria for getting out. Those are the questions that I asked the President and the Vice President--not what will send our troops there, but what will bring them back home. They gave me these following answers, and I shared this with the military, with our troops, and I share this with the families all over the United States of America who are watching what I think is a debate of great stability. What we have been told--and I believe--is that the U.S. military, first of all, will only go if all sides agree to abide by the peace agreement. No peace agreement, no troops. No peace agreement, no troops. When our troops go, it is to create the climate for the Bosnians, all parties in Bosnia will take hold and make peace among themselves. We are to create the framework and the climate. If that dissolves, we are going to pull out. Our troops will have these criteria for leaving as soon as the following things are accomplished: The cessation of hostilities; creation of a zone of separation; and the return by the Bosnians of the Serbian-Croatian troops and weapons to their home bases. You, our men and women of the military, will be there to enforce the peace, not to rebuild Bosnia. But while you are enforcing the peace, the international community will provide humanitarian aid, resettle refugees, oversee elections, and also that there needs to be a military balance created between the Bosnians and the Serbs. I would not vote to send those troops unless I was assured that they had received excellent training, the best equipment in the world, the best technology to find landmines and the right to use every means possible to defend themselves, and also that they would serve under an American commander. To our troops, I want to say, you will not be alone. Over 25 nations will participate. They will be sharing the burden also of the risk as well as the financial one. Our oldest NATO allies, England and France, as well as new democracies like Poland, will be there-- the countries that you helped liberate by winning the cold war. The Congress must back you. I believe that Congress will back you. And I know as always the American people will support you. I would not vote to send you if your mission was not essential and honorable. Your mission is essential because without you, there will not be peace or stability in Europe. Without you, NATO, the world's strongest military alliance, would be destroyed. Without you, I am concerned the war in Europe might spread to Macedonia and Albania. It could bring Greece and Turkey into this situation. Your mission is honorable because you are crucial to stopping the bloodshed in Bosnia. The people of Bosnia have endured misery, suffering, and brutality; 250,000 people died in this war. Families and communities, cities have been ravaged. Children were killed as they played. Old people were killed as they shopped for food. Hospitals were attacked as they tried to care for the wounded. War crimes that remind us of the Second World War were committed. We are asking you not to do this for some abstraction like NATO or Bosnia. Actually, we are asking you to do this for the people of Bosnia, for families that are just like yours, for children just like yours, for a child that I met named Zlata, a 9-year-old girl who keeps a diary and speaks to the world. They call her the Anne Frank of Sarajevo. Because of you, she will have a far better fate than Anne Frank endured. She is a child who tried to tell the world the suffering the war has caused and a child we hope we keep in our mind as we go forth in this mission. So to you, the American troops, while you train for war, you will be there to enforce the peace. The American people greatly appreciate you and are grateful for your heroic sacrifice. We thank you for taking the risk so that others could have the opportunity to give peace a chance. We thank you for being there when you are needed. I say to you as we vote on this, may the grace of God be with you and protect you as you go forward to protect us. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. CRAIG addressed the Chair.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I support and cosponsor the McConnell amendment to ban flag burning. I oppose the burning of our U.S. flag. I oppose it today just as I always have. Mr. President, I feel very strongly about this issue. I have voted for legislation to prohibit flag burning, and I have voted against amending the U.S. Constitution. But, more than any other time in the past, I have grappled with today's vote to amend the Constitution to stop flag burning. This time the debate is different. I truly believe that our Nation is in a crisis. Our country is in a war for America's future. It's that's being waged against our people, against our symbols and against our culture. And I want to help stop it. I firmly believe that we need a national debate on how to rekindle patriotism, values, and civic duty. And if there is a way to do that, then I am all for it. It's important to me, and it's important to the future of our Nation. Mr. President, I do not--and never have--intended or wished to inhibit America's freedom of speech. In fact, the first amendment--and others--got me where I am today. I feel so strongly about this issue that I seriously considered supporting an amendment to the Constitution. But, my colleague from Kentucky has offered an alternative to amending the Constitution that would protect the flag and protect the Constitution. I will support that alternative approach today. Senator McConnell's proposal does not amend the Constitution, but it will get the job done by punishing those people who help wage war against the symbol of this country and everything it stands for. I know that we have gone down this road before by passing statutory language to ban flag burning only to have the Supreme Court overturn it. But, the McConnell amendment should pass constitutional challenge. If there is a way to deal with and punish those who desecrate our U.S. flag without amending the Constitution, I am all for it. That is why I support the McConnell amendment. The McConnell amendment says you cannot get away with abusing the flag of the United States. It means that you can't get away with using the flag to incite violence. The McConnell amendment says you can't use this Nation's symbol of freedom and turn it into a symbol of disrespect. The McConnell amendment stands for the same things I do. It protects the principles embodied in our Constitution--as well as our U.S. flag.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I am deeply concerned about the desecration of the U.S. flag because of what it says about our culture, our values and our patriotism. But I must vote against this amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Mr. President, I absolutely do not support the desecration of our flag. In 1989, I voted for legislation to prohibit flag desecration. And I regret that law was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. I not only support the flag. I support what the flag stands for. Our flag stands for our Constitution. The meaning of our flag is embodied in our Constitution--especially the first amendment. Today, I continue to oppose the desecration of our flag, and I call on Americans to rekindle their patriotism, their values, and their civic duty. I ask with all the passion and patriotism in me, that those who speak about constitutional rights, who talk about their freedom of speech, who talk about their freedom of expression--that they exercise community responsibility. By community responsibility, I mean that each person take the right you have to speak, to march, and to organize, but remember when we desecrate symbols, we desecrate each other. I do not wish to inhibit freedom of expression. But I want us to live in a culture that calls people to their highest and best mode of behavior. But we are not doing that in our society today. We cannot build a society for the 21st century that advocates permissiveness without responsibility. For every right there is a responsibility. For every opportunity, there is an obligation. I am very frustrated about what is going on in our country. I believe there is a war being waged--against our people, against our symbols, and against our culture. When I go into the neighborhoods, moms and dads tell me that the toughest job in this country today is being a parent, providing for their families and teaching their children the values of our society. Love your neighbor; love your country; be a good kid; honor your father and your mother; respect each other. These moms and dads feel that no one is looking out for them. The very values they teach in the home are being eclipsed and eroded by the culture that surrounds us. And some children do not even get that much attention. We should--and need to--have a national debate on these issues. But we cannot change the culture by changing the Constitution. We change the culture by living the Constitution--by speaking out responsibly and by organizing. I support amendments to expand the Constitution, not constrict it. Mr. President, I am a U.S. Senator because of amendments to the Constitution--amendments that allowed me to organize and to speak-- amendments like the 1st amendment and the 19th amendment. The first amendment allowed me to speak up and speak out in protest to save a Baltimore community whose homes were about to be leveled for a 16-lane highway. We organized. We protested. We exercised free speech. I challenged the thinking of city hall and all the road planners. The community liked what I was saying. I spoke for them and their frustrations, and they encouraged me to run for political office. That experience took me into neighborhoods where they said no woman could win. But, I did. And the 19th amendment--which gave women the right to vote--helped me get here. And I made history. That happened because of amendments to the Constitution. So, I know the power of the Constitution. And I know the power of amending it. But all the past amendments have expanded democracy and expanded opportunity. This amendment we consider today would constrict the very freedoms that have allowed me to be here. Mr. President, I am thankful to the people of Maryland who sent me here, and America's veterans should know today I am voting for what they fought for and all the people who work every day to make our country great. Yes, I believe we can and should have a law to end the desecration of our flag. Yes, we need more community responsibility, more patriotism, more civic participation, values, and virtue. I hope to cast my vote today to continually use the Constitution to expand democracy and not to constrict it. Now is not the time to change the course. Now is not the time to tamper with laws, precedents and principles that have kept us in good stead for two centuries. Mr. President, I take amending the Constitution very seriously, and I will not vote today to change it.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1833. I oppose it because it is a direct assault upon women's reproductive rights. But let me first thank Senator Smith for agreeing to support the motion which the Senate adopted on November 8. This motion called on the Judiciary Committee to hold a hearing on H.R. 1833, the so-called partial-birth abortion ban. As my colleagues know, the committee held that hearing on November 17. I believe the hearing process was very important. The issues raised by this bill are complex and sensitive. It is vital they be thoroughly explored before the Senate votes on this legislation. I believe both proponents and opponents of H.R. 1833 found the hearing most helpful. I think all would agree Senator Hatch conducted a fair and informative hearing. We heard from medical professionals, legal and constitutional experts, and from the women themselves who courageously shared their compelling and heartrending stories. After reviewing all of the testimony, I am more convinced than ever that Congress should not pass the bill before us. I heard nothing to change my mind, and much to reinforce my deep concerns. Let me tell you why I oppose this bill. First, it intrudes on the doctor/patient relationship, by criminalizing a specific medical procedure. Second, it is poorly drafted. The bill's vague language will have a chilling effect on physicians who provide abortions. Third, it provides no exceptions for cases involving threats to the life and health of the woman. Fourth, most significantly, it is a direct assault on Roe versus Wade. In my view, the bill is part of a concerted effort to ban all abortions. I oppose this bill because it is a dangerous and unwarranted intrusion on the doctor/patient relationship. It has an impact far beyond the issue of abortion. For the first time, Congress would be deciding what medical procedures a doctor can and cannot provide. This bill substitutes political reasoning for medical judgment. Congress, not medical experts, would pass judgment on a medical procedure. H.R. 1833 makes criminals of doctors, doing their best to serve the patient's needs, who perform the procedure banned by the bill. It makes criminals of doctors even when in their expert opinion, the procedure is medically necessary to save a woman's life or prevent serious, adverse consequences to her health. At the November 17 hearing, medical experts had very different views on what the procedure involves, on what the medical alternatives would be, and on what is best to safeguard a woman's life and health. If they cannot agree on this medical issue, how can we expect to legislate in this area? This is reason enough why Congress should not intervene in decisions on medical procedure. I oppose this bill because it provides no true exception for the life and health needs of the woman. At the hearing, very compelling testimony was offered by women who have faced the difficult decision to have a late term abortion to save their lives or their health. These were women who eagerly awaited the birth of their child. Then a medical emergency occurred--one that threatened their lives or posed serious consequences to their health. Congress should not tell these women, and others who face this most tragic and personal of decisions, that they cannot have the medical procedure their physician recommends to save their life, or their health, or their ability to have a child in the future. Congress should not tell them that it knows better than their doctor what medical care they should be provided. Senator Smith has offered an amendment to provide an exception for cases where the woman's life is at risk. I have some concerns about this amendment. I fear it may not cover all situations where the life of the woman is threatened by continuing her pregnancy. And I am concerned that, under his amendment, the burden of proof will still be placed upon the physician. However, I will support his amendment. If it will save even a few women who need a late term abortion to save their lives, I cannot oppose it. But I believe it is absolutely essential that we pass the amendment offered by Senator Boxer. Her amendment provides clear, direct language. It will enable physicians to use their expert medical judgment to act to preserve the life of the woman or to avert serious, adverse consequences to her health. Senator Boxer's amendment makes it clear that when a woman must choose abortion late in pregnancy, she must have access to the safest possible procedure. And, physicians, not Senators, should make that decision. The Boxer amendment lets doctors be doctors. It trusts them to do what is right for their patients. It ensures that women's lives and health are not put at risk. I strongly urge my colleagues to vote for this essential amendment. I oppose this bill because it is poorly drafted. It is filled with vague, nonmedical terminology. Much of the Judiciary Committee hearing was spent debating what the bill meant. Witnesses and committee members alike could not agree on such basic questions as: How is the procedure in question actually performed? What procedure is the bill describing at all? What does partial birth mean? If Congress passes H.R. 1833, and it is signed into law, I guarantee you will open the door to endless litigation in an effort to sort out what the bill does and does not do. The bill's vagueness creates a further problem, whether intentionally or not is unclear. This lack of clarity would have a chilling effect on abortion providers, who are trying to make the best decision for their patients. Physicians who are trying to do their duty to protect life or health, now will have to guess whether their decision might violate Federal law. How many doctors will continue to perform this type of late term abortion, or any abortions at all, if faced with possible criminal or civil liability. There is already a tremendous shortage of abortion providers. The bill will make this shortage even greater. And, of course, that is part of the plan--to scare doctors from the field. Doctors who provide abortion services already face death threats, firebombings, and harassment at work and home. Now they will have to look over their shoulder in fear of arrest. Who will be willing to provide abortion services in that climate? And who will pay the price? Women will pay the price, women trying to exercise their right to a legal medical procedure. Finally, Mr. President, I oppose this bill because it is a direct assault on Roe versus Wade. In Roe and all its subsequent rulings, the Supreme Court has consistently upheld the right of doctors to perform late term abortions to protect life or health. The Court has allowed States to ban post-viability abortions, but only when an exception for life or health is provided. The Court has maintained that a doctor's first duty is to the woman. Her [[Page S 18190]] life and health must be the doctor's paramount concern. The doctor cannot trade off her life for the life of the fetus. So, this bill, by ignoring the Court's requirement of a life and health exception is a direct challenge to Roe. And not the last challenge. Proponents of this bill have made clear they want to ban all abortions, one procedure at a time, one woman at a time. If they succeed in passing this bill, what procedure will they target next? Which women will next be denied their right to choose? If we allow this bill to pass, even with the amendments which I hope will be adopted, Congress will have struck a major blow against reproductive rights. Mr. President, the basic question is not what is decided, but who decides. And the answer is, women and their doctors should decide, not politicians. Women must have the right to make their own decisions on reproductive matters, in consultation with their physicians. That is what it means to be pro-choice, and that is why I will oppose this bill.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to the conference report accompanying the fiscal year 1996 Commerce, Justice, State appropriations bill. I am opposed to this conference report because it takes this country in the wrong direction. The conference report undermines our efforts to fight crime by abolishing the highly successful COPS Program and replacing it with a block grant to the States. Under the COPS Program, Maryland has received funding for 440 new police officers throughout the State devoted to community policing and keeping our streets safe. This conference report would pull the rug out from under this program and jeopardize future funding for these officers. In addition, this conference report makes draconian cuts to the Commerce Department that will harm America's ability to maintain its technological edge. The conference report contains a rescission of $75 million in construction funds for the National Institute of Standards and Technology [NIST]. These funds were going to be used to construct a new advanced technology laboratory that would play a critical role in maintaining America's technological supremacy. Originally built between 25 and 40 years ago, the majority of NIST's facilities are now technically and functionally obsolete, which makes it difficult if not impossible to support the requirements of advanced research and development projects. As a result, experiments are often delayed or subject to costly rework, and scientists must often accept levels of precision and accuracy below those needed by industry. [[Page S 18177]] As the only Federal laboratory whose explicit mission is developing scientific standards and providing technical support for U.S. industry's competitiveness objectives, NIST must have a modern scientific infrastructure--the laboratories, equipment, instrumentation and support--in order to maintain a viable scientific research program and to keep our Nation on the cutting edge of science and technology as we move into the 21st century. This view was recently underscored by a group of 25 nobel laureates who called the laboratories ``a national treasure,'' which ``carry out the basic research that is essential for advanced technology.'' Under the conference report, the Commerce Department's Advanced Technology Program receives no new funding for fiscal year 1996. The ATP is another vital program for developing new technologies that lead to the creation of new jobs by supporting innovative research. I believe this bill will not further America's long-term economic interests nor the interests of my own State of Maryland. Furthermore, the cuts to law enforcement will hurt our ability to fight crime in the streets and make our neighborhoods safer. So, I will oppose the approval of this conference report.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I introduce the Older Americans Act Amendments of 1995, which is the Clinton administration's proposal for the reauthorization of this critical legislative initiative. The Older Americans Act [OAA] celebrated its 30th anniversary this year and with it, a great number of accomplishments. The Older Americans Act, enacted in 1965, was the first program to focus on the community-based services for seniors. It articulates a comprehensive set of services, designed to meet the diverse needs of older persons. Implemented at state and local levels, these programs are critical to the health and well-being of millions of senior Americans in Maryland and throughout the United States. Now, the Congress is beginning the process of reauthorizing the Older Americans Act for another 3 to 5 years. As we seek a vision for the Older Americans Act in the 21st century, I believe we must assess all aspects of the program and look to the future needs of seniors and their families. This includes examination of the core elements of the act, being more realistic to streamlining the scope of services that the act provides, and allowing service providers to focus on improving the quality of those services. In an effort to expand the debate on the reauthorization of the Older Americans Act, I am introducing today the administration's proposal. This legislation combines consolidation of programs while encouraging greater flexibility in the delivery of services to seniors. While I am not in agreement with every aspect of this proposal, I do believe that it will contribute to the debate of this very important program. I look forward to collaborating with Senator Judd Gregg, our chairman of the Subcommittee on Aging and Senator Nancy Kassebaum, our chair of the Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee, as we work together with out Senate colleagues in reauthorizing the Older Americans Act. I am dedicated to seeing that the best of the Older Americans Act remains and thrives. I ask my colleagues to join me in this important effort. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the securities litigation reform legislation that has now returned from conference. Legal reform is complex. We have to protect the interests and rights of consumers while ensuring the law does not allow frivolous lawsuits. I believe this conference report achieves that balance. I originally cosponsored the bill because I concluded there has been a problem in the area of securities law. In Maryland, my constituents have told me there is a race to the courthouse door to file a lawsuit. The victims of these practices include high-technology companies, their accountants and others. We cannot afford this race to the courthouse because it ultimately means a loss of jobs, a loss of opportunity. Money spent on liability insurance premiums and expensive litigation is money that cannot be spent on investments and jobs. While I want to end abuses in the system, I also want to keep the courthouse door open for the little guy, for the consumer. I am not interested in protecting crooks or swindlers. That is why I support this legislation. It protects both consumers and honest companies while allowing the law to go after fraud and abuse. I am pleased that, with the enactment of this legislation, we will have safe harbor rules endorsed by the Securities and Exchange Commission. I commend the conference committee for working with the SEC on this matter. These rules will allow companies to provide valuable information about their future plans. I am pleased investors will have the information they need to make important financial decisions. At the same time, this provision does not cover company projections that defraud investors. Judges will be able to make sure that a company qualifies for safe harbor protection. This debate is about the U.S. economy in the 21st century. Much of our economic future is in new and developing industries such as high technology and bio-technology. These emerging jobs are created only when companies generate capital to allow them to move into new fields. Without a balanced legal system these companies will spend too much on litigation costs, and not enough on investments to generate jobs. I am pleased that this legislation has moved forward with bipartisan support. The bill that passed the Senate received overwhelming votes from both parties. In conference it would have been easy to steer this bill toward extremism, but the conferees worked toward a bill that we can all continue to support. I especially commend the efforts of long time supporters Senator Dodd and Senator Domenici. Mr. President, I hope any future legal reforms will meet the same test of balance and moderation that this reform does.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I introduce the Older Americans Act Amendments of 1995, which is the Clinton administration's proposal for the reauthorization of this critical legislative initiative. The Older Americans Act [OAA] celebrated its 30th anniversary this year and with it, a great number of accomplishments. The Older Americans Act, enacted in 1965, was the first program to focus on the community-based services for seniors. It articulates a comprehensive set of services, designed to meet the diverse needs of older persons. Implemented at state and local levels, these programs are critical to the health and well-being of millions of senior Americans in Maryland and throughout the United States. Now, the Congress is beginning the process of reauthorizing the Older Americans Act for another 3 to 5 years. As we seek a vision for the Older Americans Act in the 21st century, I believe we must assess all aspects of the program and look to the future needs of seniors and their families. This includes examination of the core elements of the act, being more realistic to streamlining the scope of services that the act provides, and allowing service providers to focus on improving the quality of those services. In an effort to expand the debate on the reauthorization of the Older Americans Act, I am introducing today the administration's proposal. This legislation combines consolidation of programs while encouraging greater flexibility in the delivery of services to seniors. While I am not in agreement with every aspect of this proposal, I do believe that it will contribute to the debate of this very important program. I look forward to collaborating with Senator Judd Gregg, our chairman of the Subcommittee on Aging and Senator Nancy Kassebaum, our chair of the Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee, as we work together with out Senate colleagues in reauthorizing the Older Americans Act. I am dedicated to seeing that the best of the Older Americans Act remains and thrives. I ask my colleagues to join me in this important effort. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, my hometown of Baltimore has always been a great sports city. We have a tradition of excellence in baseball with the Orioles, and last summer we celebrated the magical endurance streak of Cal Ripken, Jr. I am proud to say that a new chapter in our tradition of sports excellence was written on November 19, 1995. The Baltimore Stallions defeated the Calgary Stampeders for the Canadian Football League's championship, the Grey Cup. The Grey Cup is the ultimate achievement in the CFL, and it will now reside in the United States for the first time in the 106-year history of the league. To win the Grey Cup, a team must combine tremendous athletic ability with leadership, and come together as a team. Last year the Stallions gave the fans their best effort, but came up short for the CFL championship. This year was going to be different. The Stallions came back with renewed intensity and desire. Their goal was to bring the Grey Cup to Baltimore, and they worked until their dream became a reality. The Stallions' victory gives Baltimore three championships in three professional football leagues. The Stallions join the National Football League's Colts and the U.S. Football League's Stars as Baltimore champions. I want to extend my congratulations to the owner of the Stallions, Jim Speros, and his dedicated players and coaches. They truly deserve this championship, and they have made Baltimore proud.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to make my colleagues aware of a very unfortunate situation involving Social Security disability benefits. In our law, there is a 6-month waiting period before a Social Security disability applicant can receive payments. If a person is diagnosed with a deadly disease, and is eligible to receive Social Security disability, that person must wait 6 months before the payments arrive. This waiting period often comes at a time in a person's life when treatment must begin immediately. Many of these people simply cannot afford to wait. Far too often, the results of this forced waiting period are financial devastation for families. One of my Maryland constituents, Mitchell Berman, was stricken by a terrible illness which required full-time care in a nursing home. Mr. Berman and his wife, Marjorie, were forced to sell nearly everything they owned to cover the health care costs. By the time Mr. Berman's payments began to arrive, it was too late; they had spent much of their life's savings. Mr. Berman's disease was not curable, and I am very sorry to say that he has died. To honor the memory of her husband, Marjorie Berman has started her own crusade to make lawmakers and families aware of the financial effect the waiting period can have. I salute Marjorie Berman for her courage and her steadfast devotion to her husband. Earlier this year, I encouraged the Senate Finance Committee to explore this issue. In today's political climate, I know that funding for many programs is being cut back and eligibility for some programs is being tightened. But I encourage my colleagues to take a close look at this issue and ask if the Social Security disability waiting period is serving a useful Government purpose and responding to the needs of people. I also ask my colleagues to listen to the stories of their own constituents who have been affected by this waiting period and have not been able to get the help when they need it. I think my colleagues will find that the waiting period does not serve the needs of people.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, with great sadness, I rise today to pay tribute to an extraordinary man. Henry J. Knott, Sr., died yesterday at the age of 89. For many decades, we knew him in Baltimore and throughout Maryland as a talented businessman and a philanthropist whose generosity knew no bounds. I first want to express my deepest condolences to his wife of 67 years, Marion Burk Knott, his 12 children, his 51 grandchildren, and his 55 great-grandchildren. People in positions of power and responsibility should serve as role models for our young people and give something back to their communities. I have great admiration for people who have a sense of civic responsibility, for people who try to make their community a better place to live. Mr. Knott epitomized these qualities. Throughout his career, he sought to help those less fortunate than himself get a better education and lead better lives. He donated millions of dollars to Catholic educational institutions like his alma mater, Loyola College; Mount St. Mary's College, Emmitsburg; the College of Notre Dame in Maryland; and the University of Notre Dame in Indiana. He was especially generous to the Institute of Notre Dame, a catholic high school both his daughters and I attended. His legendary generosity extended well beyond education. He provided enormous help to health and cultural institutions as well. He donated essential funds to the Baltimore Symphony Orchestra, the Johns Hopkins Oncology Center, and several Baltimore hospitals to help them establish an income fund to provide medical care for the poor. His many business activities earned him a reputation as a highly disciplined and hard-working person. But his civic and charitable activities showed us that he was also an extremely modest person who had very deep feelings for the Catholic Church, his community, and the people around him. In a 1987 Baltimore magazine article, he was asked about his prodigious philanthropy. He replied that making money was ``like catching fish. You get up early. You fill the boat up with fish. And then you give them all away before they start to rot.'' This quote says a great deal about Henry Knott. He saw his wealth as a way to make life better for others. He never lost sight of this goal. [[Page S 17673]] I mourn Henry Knott's death along with his family and the rest of Maryland. We will miss him greatly. However, I am very grateful that he was with us for 89 years, and I rejoice that he left Maryland and our Nation a better place than he found it.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise to offer my best wishes to our colleague, Senator Nancy Kassebaum. Although we will work together for one more year--and I am pleased about that--I want to take this time to express my gratitude to Senator Kassebaum for what she has meant to me, to the Labor and Human Resources Committee, and to the Foreign Relations Committee. First, to me, Senator Kassebaum is a real class act. When I came to the U.S. Senate in 1986, Senator Kassebaum was the only other woman here. Together we served for 6 years as the only two women in this institution that represents the entire Nation. We were both elected to the U.S. Senate in our own right. I have tremendous respect for Senator Kassebaum and her views on many issues. Senator Kassebaum thinks independently in her political and policy decisions. She understands the issues and is not afraid to stand up for what she believes in. While we may not agree on every issue--no one around here does--we do agree on some pretty important ones. Senator Kassebaum favors the legal right to an abortion; she has voted for gun control measures; and she has supported many measures to improve American education. She has demonstrated great courage and conviction. Second, I salute Senator Kassebaum for chairing the full Labor Committee. She is the only female chair of a U.S. Senate committee and she does the job well. I serve on the Labor Committee, and I know first-hand how effective Senator Kassebaum can be. The Labor Committee controls some of the most comprehensive and controversial issues to come before this body. I am talking about welfare reform, health, education, job training and occupational safety--just to name a few. It is not easy. But Senator Kassebaum can really rally the troops--Democrat or Republican to make sure that work gets done. When Senator Kassebaum brings a bill to the Senate floor, it is sure to pass. She has a thorough, prudent and reasoned approach to crafting legislation. She gives a great deal of thought to the issues, and she knows how to build consensus. Together we have fought for the right of women to choice in reproductive health matters. We have fought to keep America healthy, and we have fought for education for this Nation's students. Finally, as chair of the African Affairs Subcommittee, Senator Kassebaum fights for policy that represents our values and respect for human rights. Senator Kassebaum fought apartheid in South Africa. She urged President Reagan to take action against the white-minority government. When he did not, she courageously endorsed sanctions against South Africa. I want to thank Senator Kassebaum for what she has meant to foreign policy and for her commitment to Africa, to the Nation, and to the people of this country. Senator Kassebaum says ``the time has come to pursue other challenges.'' I want to wish her the best in that pursuit, and I know that she will set new standards wherever she goes.