Barbara Mikulski

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to a great man and a great friend. Late last Wednesday, Israel Cohen, the chairman of Giant Food, passed away at 83. Mr. Cohen came to this country as a young boy and learned the grocery business in his father's store on Georgia Avenue--one of the first self-service stores of its kind in the country. From this beginning, Mr. Cohen built the Giant Food & Drug empire. In a rapidly changing retail food market, Mr. Cohen survived and prospered through innovation. He experimented with selling items under private labels to cut costs and his stores were the first in the country to use scanners at the checkout counters. Mr. Cohen was more than simply a successful businessman. He knew that the success of his business was directly related to the health and well-being of his employees. He was a man who always had time to visit with his employees, no matter how busy he may have been. He created a family atmosphere with his employees, refusing to be called Mr. Cohen, but insisting on Izzy. And he worked as hard for them as they did for him. His employees tell of waiting around after putting in a full shift to meet and shake hands with him. Mr. Cohen recognized the value and importance of every single worker at his stores, from the President of the company to the high-schooler who bags groceries on Saturday afternoons. Mr. Cohen was dedicated to providing the best service possible. Even if that meant he had to jump in behind a cash register and bag a customer's groceries himself. This is a lesson from which every American should learn.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to a great man and a great friend. Late last Wednesday, Israel Cohen, the chairman of Giant Food, passed away at 83. Izzy Cohen was more than simply a successful businessman. He was a leader. He understood the complicated relationship between labor and management as well as, if not better than, anyone I can remember. He knew that the success of his business was directly related to the health and well-being of his employees. He was a man who always had time to visit with his employees, no matter how busy he may have been. He worked as hard for them as they did for him. Mr. President, the Washington Post ran a story about Izzy on Friday, November 24. The story tells of employees waiting around after putting in a full shift to meet and shake hands with him. It tells how he created a family atmosphere with his employees, refusing to be called Mr. Cohen, but insisting on Izzy. It stresses his most fundamental philosophy: to recognize the value and importance of every single worker at his stores, from the President of the company to the high- schooler who bags groceries on Saturday afternoons. It tells of his dedication to providing the best service possible-- even if that meant he had to jump in behind a cash [[Page S 17538]] register and bag a customer's groceries himself. This is a lesson from which every American should learn. But Izzy Cohen was more than just a businessman. He was a good friend. He never hesitated to share his feelings and insights with me, to help me get a better perspective on whatever issue was foremost on my mind. There is a lesson for all of us in Izzy Cohen's life: The most successful businesses are the ones in which workers and management act as a team. He proved that when management takes care of its workers, the workers will take care of management. Mr. President, the two groups are inextricably linked. Each relies on the other to succeed. And when the workers feel that they are getting a fair shake, that the boss is looking out for them, they will do everything they can to ensure the vitality of the business. It is my hope and belief that those who take over for Izzy Cohen will continue his work. I would also like to see workers and managers all across America learn from Izzy's example so that both groups, working together, achieve the success he and his employees have realized over the past 60 years.

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. 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. [[Page S 17536]] 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. 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 in support of the conference report accompanying the National Highway System bill but I do so with reservations. While I support the need to move forward with badly needed construction funds for our Nation's highways including the Woodrow Wilson Bridge, I am greatly disturbed by the weakening of highway safety laws. Our Nation's highways are absolutely vital to our infrastructure. This legislation will release approximately $100 million in badly needed highway funds for my own State of Maryland. These funds have already been factored into Maryland's highway program and need to be released in order to avoid slowdowns in construction. These funds will create construction jobs and help States meet the increasing costs of maintaining our highways. This legislation also authorizes the creation of a new interstate authority for the Woodrow Wilson Bridge and authorizes funding for ongoing maintenance of the bridge. As a major artery serving Maryland and the entire National Capital region, the maintenance and eventual replacement of the Wilson Bridge must proceed without delay. However, I fail to see the justification for weakening highway safety laws, including motorcycle helmet laws. I believe that the Government's primary responsibility is to protect public health and safety. Delegating this responsibility to the States is not consistent with the Federal Government's role in regulating interstate highways or protecting public safety. How else can we guarantee that Marylanders will be safe driving in other States? The Federal Government should maintain its role in public safety matters, not delegate it to the States. While I am disappointed with the decision to weaken safety laws, I believe that we must move forward with the construction funds that Maryland and other States need to maintain and improve our highways. A reliable and well maintained infrastructure is a vital element in our ability to sustain economic growth and job creation into the next century. So, I will vote in favor of this legislation despite my opposition to weakening highway safety laws.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, Tonight we are choosing between two paths for our country. We are defining what kind of country we want to be, and how we are going to meet the challenges of the 21st century. The bill before us offers one type of choice. This bill offers us a future where we say: No to opportunity in the United States of America. No to economic security for our seniors. No to educational opportunities for young people. No to an opportunity structure for working families. Mr. President, I reject that choice. I want a future where we give help to those who practice self help. I want a future in which senior citizens can have economic security and peace of mind in their retirement years. I want a future where young people can get an education that leads to a job and real economic opportunity. I want a future where we give a helping hand to working Americans who are doing their best to provide for their families. Let me tell you why I oppose this bill. Yes, I support a balanced budget. But to achieve that we have to put politics and partisanship aside, and work together to find what I will call the sensible center. And this bill does not allow for that. This legislation attacks economic security for senior citizens through cuts in their health care. We need to make Medicare solvent. But this bill would cut Medicare by $270 billion over the next 7 years. Only $90 billion is needed to preserve the solvency of the Medicare system. What are the rest of the cuts for? They are to pay for tax breaks for the wealthiest of Americans. I reject that. I say let us do what we need to do to make Medicare solvent. But let us put tax cuts on hold for a year. We have made so many reductions in federal programs this year. Let us take the time to evaluate the impact of those changes. Let us see where we are in 1 year. Then we can take a look at whether we can afford to provide tax cuts. And if in a year we do decide we can provide tax cuts, let's provide them for America's working families. Not for the truly wealthy. I oppose this legislation because it denies educational opportunity to young people and an opportunity structure to working families. I believe we must keep the doors of opportunity open--not slam them shut. Education is the key to a better life. The federal student loan program has opened the door of opportunity to millions of Americans. Education must be a national priority. It is with me. Unfortunately, it is not a priority in this legislation. Under this legislation, the student loan program will be cut by $5 billion. This is unacceptable to me. I oppose this legislation because it increases taxes on working families. By cutting the Earned Income Tax Credit, the bill denies help to those who practice self help. It seems to me that if we are serious about moving people from public assistance to private employment, the first step is to make work pay. The EITC makes work pay. It ensures that work is more beneficial for a family than welfare. I will not support this bills cuts in the EITC program, which amounts to tax increases for working families. Mr. President, make no mistake. We must balance the budget. But we must do it based on principles that preserve economic security for senior citizens, that provide opportunity for young people, and that ensure opportunity for working families. I cannot and will not support any legislation that abandons these principles. Therefore, I will vote against this legislation.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise to support Senator Exxon's Point of Order that the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments [CLIA] repealed in this budget reconciliation bill violates the Byrd Rule. The Senate Parliamentarian has ruled that repealing CLIA violates the Byrd Rule because it produces changes or outlays that are merely incidental to the nonbudgetary components of the provision. That is a violation of the Byrd Rule. Let me explain briefly to my colleagues what CLIA is, and why it is so important to me and to millions of Americans. CLIA `88 set for the first time uniform quality standards for all clinical labs. I am proud that this law, which I authored, was passed with broad bipartisan support. CLIA was passed in 1988 and implemented in 1992 to address serious and life-threatening conditions in clinical labs. To now even suggest we turn back the clock to pre-1988 will have devastating results. Do we really want to: Turn back to a time when tests were misread and diseases misdiagnosed. Turn back to the bad old days of misdiagnosis of the HIV/AIDS virus. When doctors were using inferior methods of reading slides. When people with the virus went undetected because the virus was mutating and was recognized by physicians. Or turn back to a time when the lab technicians were overworked and undersupervised. When slides were taken home. When dirty labs were tolerated. When lab technicians had little or no formal training, resulting in many diseases going undetected. My colleagues, CLIA works, CLIA saves lives. Reconciliation is not the place to make such changes. I urge you to sustain this point of order.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, as you know, I am a Senator from Maryland, but I am a Senator not only from Maryland but I am a Senator for Maryland. I represent a State that is the host agency to some of the most important Federal agencies in the United States of America: The National Institutes of Health, Goddard, the Federal Drug Administration, Andrews Air Force Base, the home of the President's own; the U.S. Naval Academy. I come to the Senate floor today to tell you I am absolutely opposed to the continuation of this Government shutdown. It is terrible for Federal employees, it is unfair to the taxpayers of the United States, it has a tremendous negative impact on the State of Maryland, and I believe it compromises America's public health and safety, and I think it threatens our American global reputation. Today is the second day of the Federal Government shutdown. No end is in sight. We are in gridlock, we are in deadlock, and I think that that is a disgrace. Now what is this fight all about? Presidential politics? Yes, but this is a fight also about America's future, about our priorities, about our values, what kind of Nation we are going to be, how do we preserve the economic security for senior citizens and provide economic opportunity for young people? That is what the national debate should be all about, but we should not have to shut down the Federal Government to have a conversation about America's future. That is why I absolutely support the effort of Senator Tom Daschle, a Democrat, to call for a continuing resolution for at least 5 days to 5 weeks, a cooling-off period where there are no gimmicks, there are no riders, no blackmail, where the leadership of this Nation, Republican and Democrat, can sit down and negotiate really in not what is in a political party's interest, but what is in the national interest. We must seek the sensible center. We must find an answer to balancing the budget and balancing our priorities at the same time. That is what we should be doing, but we should not be making pawns of Federal employees. Right now, 800,000 Federal employees were told that they were not essential and sent home. How demeaning. How demeaning to those scientists at NIH. How disgraceful to say that to the people at FDA who are trying to move pharmaceutical products to the marketplace that are safe and effective. How demeaning to the caseworkers who take the calls from senior citizens applying for Social Security, and how disgraceful it is to those who work for the Veterans Administration, who may be veterans themselves--when the veterans call to apply for their disability, they are going to get voice mail. I have said to the Federal employees, ``I think you are essential. I want you on the job and I want you working hard for the people of the United States.'' And to the taxpayers listening, I hope you call this an outrage. Get on the phone and tell us to pass a continuing resolution to put those Federal employees back to work. Your Government, American people, should be working as hard for you as you work for your money. I think to close down the Government is an absolute insult to the taxpayers of the United States. We have people on furlough, we have jobs that need to be done, and we are playing politics, we are playing this kind of Mickey Mouse politics. We have to get out of the Disney World of Washington and stop acting like the Federal budget is some aspect that we can play politics with. Mr. President, I hope that this afternoon we give Senator Daschle the chance to offer a continuing resolution, where the Federal Government could be in operation for the next 3 days to the next 5 weeks. Let us reason together. Let us discuss these issues. Let us talk about the timeframe for balancing the budget. Let us include our national priorities--economic security for the old, opportunity for the young-- and let us reach out and not be on this side of the aisle or that side of the aisle. Let us go to that sensible center and put our national interests first, put our Federal employees back to work. Let us give the taxpayers a dollar's worth of Government service for a dollar's worth of their taxes. Then we can hold our heads up high and be proud that we are U.S. Senators. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 5 minutes as in morning business.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to express my deep concerns about the brinkmanship that has brought us to a government shutdown. I think it is absolutely crucial that we keep our faith with Federal employees. Using them as pawns in a political game by sending them home without pay is the ultimate breach of the Government's faith with these hard working people. This is the crowning achievement in the Republicans' relentless string of attacks on Federal employees. The motto of these attacks has been promises made, promises broken. Well, Mr. President, my motto is that promises made should be promises kept. That is why Senator Sarbanes and I have introduced legislation to protect Federal employee pay and benefits during a government shutdown. Our legislation will ensure that Federal employees in Maryland and across the Nation will be able to make their mortgage payments, put food on the table, and provide for their families. A shutdown of the Federal Government, no matter how short, would disrupt the lives of thousands of Federal employees and their families. In my state of Maryland alone, there are more than 280,000 Federal employees. Sending them home would cost Maryland millions of dollars per day. And let us take a close look at who we are talking about sending home. We are talking about some of the most dedicated and hardest working people in out Nation. Federal employees have devoted their careers and lives to public service, and they help make America a better and safer place. They are the people that keep our Social Security system up and running; do the essential research on disease at the National Institutes of Health; and help ensure public health and safety. They are the people that keep Maryland and America on time with public transportation. Whenever the subject of deficit reduction comes up, the first people to take a hit are Federal employees. Over the last several years they have been the target of unending attacks. Downsizing, RIF's, diet COLA's, and the threat of furloughs have damaged morale at nearly every Federal agency. At the same time, employees have been asked to do more with less. I am proud to say that they have accepted this challenge with extraordinary dedication. It is easy to see the results. Just look at the excellent work that is being done at any Federal agency in Maryland. The crucial advancements in science at Goddard Space Flight Center and the incredible research on disease at the National Institutes of Health are two examples. I do not want to go back to these dedicated Federal employees and tell them ``While you people at Goddard do the research that will bring us into the 21st century, and while you people at NIH launch your assault on deadly diseases, we are going to launch our own assault on your jobs, your pensions and your benefits.'' These assaults must stop. We cannot continue to denigrate and downgrade Federal employees and at the same time expect government to work better. We cannot shut down the Government and then expect the same high level of dedication from Federal employees that we have now. Our Federal employees have a contract with their Government. I urge my colleagues to work to ensure that this contract is honored and Federal jobs and benefits are not put in jeopardy.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Is the Senator's statement long?

Ms. MIKULSKI. Why do we not stick to the tradition of alternating. If I might respond to the Senator from California, I think the most important thing in a debate like this is for us to maintain civility and the traditions of the Senate. I will be happy to wait my turn. I thank the Senator for her concern.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the pending business before the U.S. Senate. Let me say at the outset, I believe that good people can differ on the matter of abortion. I believe this is an issue so profound that it requires the utmost thoughtfulness and the utmost dignity, even as we debate this. I would also like to state what pro-choice means. We often use the phrase pro-choice or pro-life. We pro-choice people happen to think we, too, are pro-life. We are not anti-life. For us, the question is not what is decided; the question is who decides. For the pro-choice community, we believe that decisions related to abortion should not be made on the floor of the U.S. Congress but should be left in the doctor's consultation room. So our position, when we say pro-choice, is that we believe it is a decision not to be made by Congress, not to be made by a conference committee, not to be determined through a Presidential veto, but should be determined between a physician and the patient. That is why we say we are pro-choice. There are any number of circumstances why an abortion is either medically necessary or medically appropriate. There is no way the U.S. Congress can look at these issues or even anticipate what a variety of these medical circumstances are. Within this great institution, there is only one physician, and I know there are no nurses. Some have strong scientific background, but we are not capable of that. These are decisions that need to be made on a case-by-case basis, based on the medical circumstances and the religious convictions of the individual families that are involved, not the collective wisdom or lack of it by the U.S. Congress. This is why, when we say we are pro-choice, I say we are not anti- life. We are for appropriate decisions to be made based on what is medically appropriate and what is the individual [[Page S 16748]] family circumstances and their own religious convictions. So that is a general statement. But on this bill, I would like to say, too, that this bill requires very careful study. It is far reaching. It strikes, too, at that very core of the doctor-patient relationship that I have just commented upon. I bring to everyone's attention, there have been no hearings on this bill in the U.S. Senate. Yes, there was a hearing in the House. But this is the U.S. Senate. If a House hearing counted, we would not hold hearings on anything. We would have not held hearings on the tax bill, we would not hold hearings on the budget, we would not hold hearings on welfare reform. We, the U.S. Senate, must act as our own body, and I believe it is up to the Senate to conduct its own hearing on this most sensitive, most difficult issue. The ban that is being proposed would have an effect far beyond the issue of abortion. For the first time, the Congress would be directly regulating what medical procedures a doctor can and cannot provide. It is a tremendous intrusion into medical practices. I know tomorrow morning, the Senator from Pennsylvania, Senator Specter, will be offering a motion to send the bill back to the committee for a hearing, with a time certain for reporting it back. I will support the motion, and I want everyone to understand that the motion to recommit for a hearing is not dodge ball, where we, by referring it back, we avoid the vote. It is to be sure that when we do vote, we will have heard from all who have an interest in this legislation. Under this legislation, I want to bring out that Congress could make criminals out of doctors who perform a procedure which, in their expert opinion, is medically necessary to save a woman's life or to prevent serious adverse risk to her health. Supporters of the legislation like to point out that the bill contains a so-called affirmative defense which allows for procedures performed to save a woman's life. But what does that mean? If you read the bill carefully, you see that this is not a life exception. It means that after a doctor has suffered the humiliation of arrest, being handcuffed, forced to hire an attorney, and posted bond and a trial is underway, the doctor can testify that he or she believed the procedure was the only method that would have saved the woman's life. This completely shifts the burden of proof to the doctor after an arrest has been made. We criminalize this. The doctor has to prove that the procedure was the only procedure that could have saved the woman's life. What is more, there is no such affirmative defense for cases where the woman and her doctor have decided the procedure is necessary to preserve the woman's health and future fertility. The bill before us is a tremendous assault on Roe versus Wade. Under Roe, the Supreme Court has consistently upheld the constitutional right of women to seek an abortion, and has rejected as unconstitutional those laws that do not allow for late-term abortions necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother. The Court has repeatedly affirmed the right of the physician to make that decision, along with the woman, as to what is in the best interest. The Court has rejected laws that would require the physician to put the health of the fetus before the health of the woman. In decision after decision, the Court has affirmed that the woman's health must remain the doctor's paramount concern. This bill would overturn that premise. So this bill is carefully crafted to directly attack the underpinnings of Roe versus Wade, and the bill's sponsors, particularly in the House, have already served notice that their intention is to completely outlaw abortion, one procedure at a time. Mr. President, I believe this bill is radical and far reaching. This bill has not been the subject of a single day of hearings in the Senate. We have not heard from one witness, especially the medical community. No committee has deliberated on the language of the bill and understands the full consequences of this. This is simply unacceptable. The abortion issue is a sensitive and controversial one. Emotions run high whenever we debate this issue. That is why it is so crucial that, before we vote on this bill, it should be subject to the careful study that committee hearings and deliberation would provide. I would support a limit on the time being referred to the committee, a 30- to 40-day limit. We could vote before this Congress adjourns for the holiday recess. For myself, I would like to hear the testimony from the proponents of the bill about why they believe Members of Congress are better able than physicians to decide what medical procedures are appropriate for women facing the tragedy of a late-term abortion. I think the Senate should hear from women who face the painful decision of terminating a wanted pregnancy, and whose doctors have selected this method. I think the Senate should hear from the physicians who perform this procedure so that we can understand why it is sometimes necessary, and what would happen to these women if this procedure were banned. I want to hear from the American College of ob-gyn's. They are the experts in this field. The Senate should hear their testimony about what they think about this bill. I have been informed that they think it is misguided. Let them present the testimony. Let us have a discussion with that. There are 13,000 physicians of the American Medical Woman's Association who oppose this bill. We should hear why. Is it the procedure, or is it the Federal intrusion? We hear so much about the Federal intrusion into people's lives. This is the most profound of Federal intrusions. But again, let us hear from the doctors. Let us hear from the doctors about this issue. This issue is too complex, and its implications too profound to let it come to the floor for debate without due consideration through the committee process. Regardless of any Senator's views on abortion, I believe that every Senator should support the motion that will be offered by the Senator from Pennsylvania to send the bill to the committee. This is not an undue delay. It is a responsible thing to do. The Senate is known as the world's greatest deliberative body. On something so sensitive, and so complex, I do believe that we should hear from the American medical community who can give us guiding advice on this, and also for those women who face this issue, many of whom will tell us their story, and others who have faced this issue and chose another path. I believe the Senate should be open-minded, listen to advice, and then in a rational and deliberative way which is characteristic of both this body and I believe those in the House who even differ on the abortion--that our decisions be based on a rational set of information going through the traditional committee process in which there can be the questioning back and forth of the witnesses. So, Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support the motion that will be offered by the Senator from Pennsylvania tomorrow and urge, if that does not pass, the defeat of this amendment. Mr. President, I thank you for your attention. I yield the floor. Mr. SMITH addressed the Chair.

Ms. MIKULSKI. I appreciate that, but I also note there is another Senator here. I have a very short statement. But I know the Senator has been waiting for some time, as well.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise to honor the life and legacy of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin--a great soldier, statesman, and peacemaker. I saw the Prime Minister just 10 days ago--at a joyous occasion. It was a ceremony in the U.S. Capitol to celebrate the 3,000th anniversary of Jerusalem. It is the city where he was born, where he led the Israeli Army to its greatest victory--and, sadly--where he is now buried. The life of Prime Minister Rabin matched the life of Israel. He was the first native-born Israeli Prime Minister. He wanted to be a farmer--but he spent most of his life as a soldier. He fought in Israel's war of independence in 1948. In the six day war, he was the general who unified Jerusalem. He was a decorated war hero who helped build the Israeli Army into one of the best in the world. It had to be. For most of its history, Israel was surrounded by enemies who sought nothing less than Israel's destruction. Only a soldier who knew war as he did could ask his country to take risks for peace. Israelis trusted and respected Yitzhak Rabin--and enabled him to reach out to those who Israelis had only met across a battlefield. Prime Minister Rabin's courage and perseverance led to the historic handshakes on the White House lawn between Israel and its former enemies. When he died, the dream of peace was not yet achieved-- but it was in sight. I send my deepest sympathy to Prime Minister Rabin's family and to the people of Israel. We in the United States know all too well what they are feeling. The assassination of a leader shakes the nation's sense of confidence and security. The pain is all the greater when the murderer is one of their own. But while Yitzhak Rabin's death is a tragedy--his life was a triumph. His legacy is Israel--a country that is strong, free, and confident enough to take risks for peace. I will honor his life and legacy by continuing to stand by Israel as it builds a just and lasting peace with its neighbors.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise to support the Leahy-Kassebaum amendment on family planning. The House has taken an extreme position on international family planning. If their position prevails, the world's poorest women will pay the price. I urge my colleagues to stick with the Senate position. The Senate bill prohibits funds from being used to perform abortions-- or to do anything in China. But it does this while continuing to provide family planning services and maternal and children's health care to the poorest people in the world. The House position is extreme because it would gut our international family planning programs. It would prohibit organizations that use their own funds for abortion services from receiving any U.S. funds. It would prohibit these organizations from offering any information on abortion--even factual information about mortality related to unsafe abortion. The House amendment would also limit U.S. participation in UNFPA--which has the infrastructure, the expertise, and the personnel to be the most effective program for providing family planning services around the world. The effects of this House position on women's health would be disastrous. 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. Many of these women are very young; they are, in fact, still children themselves. When children have children, they often lose their chance to obtain schooling, a good job, and ultimately, self-sufficiency. If the House position prevails, women will not be able to fully participate in development and democratization. In this bill, we seek to maintain our modest role in providing family planning to the world's poorest women. To this end, we should be clear about what is in the bill--and what is not. This bill does not contain money for abortions or abortion lobbying. Federal funds cannot be used to fund abortions and this bill retains this prohibition. In fact, opponents of this amendment include Senators who strongly oppose abortion. They know that effective family planning actually reduces the number of abortions performed. And this bill does not contain money for China. No United States funds may currently be spent in China and the bill retains this policy as well. This bill maintains current law. It continues to provide modest funding for the United Nations Population Fund [UNFPA]. Without this assistance, the influence of the United States in the UNFPA is cut off. We would have no say on how and where international family planning services are delivered. This bill continues to provide funds to the most efficient and effective private and nongovernmental organization. It is these organizations who know best how to make a little funding go a long way. Mr. President, I wish we could do more to ensure that all women have access to family planning. The Leahy-Kassebaum amendment--which reaffirms the bill passed by the Senate-- ensures that we continue to do something to help the world's poorest women to control and improve their lives. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, the purpose is to instruct conferees to reject the provisions in the House bill to repeal the Clinical Lab Improvement Amendments of 1988. Before 1988, clinical labs lacked uniform standards. Dirty labs were tolerated. Tests were misread. Diseases were misdiagnosed. Staff was inadequately trained and overworked. People died of sloppy work. What does the House bill do? It repeals CLIA '88 for all physicians' labs except when the labs conduct Pap smears. I urge conferees to stick with the Senate position and to reject the House repeal of CLIA '88. Let me tell my colleagues what CLIA is. And why it is so important. CLIA '88 set for the first time uniform quality standards for all clinical labs. I am proud that this law, which I authored, was passed with broad bipartisan support. CLIA was passed in 1988 and implemented in 1992 to address serious and life-threatening conditions in clinical labs. To now even suggest we turn back the clock to pre-1988 will have devastating results. Do we really want to: Turn back to a time when tests were misread and diseases misdiagnosed. Turn back to the bad old days of misdiagnosis of the HIV/AIDS virus, when doctors were using inferior methods of reading slides; when people with the virus went undetected because the virus was mutating and was unrecognized by physicians. Or turn back to a time when the lab technicians were overworked and undersupervised, when slides were taken home, when dirty labs were tolerated, when lab technicians had little or no formal training, resulting in many diseases going undetected. My colleagues, CLIA works. It works because CLIA saves lives. Prior to CLIA, women were dying after having pap smears misread 2 or 3 years in a row. Prior to CLIA, complex tests for heart disease, conducted improperly, put patients at risk of serious impairment or death. As we know, medical conditions like heart disease not detected early, not only are more expensive to treat but result in certain disability or death. Today, the stakes are high for quality lab tests and diagnosis. The need for quality testing for HIV and AIDS and the impact this has on our communities is without question. We are talking here about a matter of life and death. CLIA ensures quality testing and quality laboratories. For the first time, all labs that perform similar tests must meet similar standards, whether located in a hospital, a doctor's office or other site. Americans must be assured that all labs are of the highest quality and performance standards. CLIA saves tax dollars by curbing fraud and abuse. An unexpected benefit of the CLIA law has been to weed out the most unscrupulous of labs that run scams and take advantage of the most vulnerable members of our society. Today, CLIA is threatened. Why? The House Reconciliation bill repeals CLIA for all physician labs except when the lab conducts pap smears. No hearings, no review of the Inspector General's report on the impact of CLIA, no opportunity for the public to respond. The House even recognized the importance of CLIA by carving out one exemption--for labs that conduct pap smears. My question is this: Does the Senate really want to tell somebody facing the prospect of heart attack or diabetes, that we do not care that your tests are performed adequately? That we only care if quality standards are met for one particular test and not the entire battery of other life-saving tests being conducted? I do not think so. Quality standards in labs are critical to saving lives. Uniformity is the key. Safe and effective standards are the goals of CLIA--no matter where the lab is located--in a hospital, doctor's office or other health setting. My colleagues, the Senate position is right. The Senate wisely left CLIA alone. Changes in CLIA should not be done in the context of Reconciliation, but should be done with careful and deliberate consideration in the Labor and Human Resources Committee. CLIA is so important. We should not act hastily. To do otherwise, puts lives in danger, puts families at risk. I am not willing to take that chance, are you? My motion is simple. Stick with the Senate position. Leave CLIA alone. I urge support for the Mikulski motion.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I send a motion to the desk on behalf of myself, Senator Kassebaum, Senator Snowe, Senator Boxer, Senator Feinstein, Senator Murray, and Senator Moseley-Braun and ask for its immediate consideration.

Ms. MIKULSKI. I thank the leader.

Ms. MIKULSKI. I thank the leader for his consideration. What, then, would he advise me to do? Just wait patiently, as is my temperament?

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. I will be happy to wait.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I thought it--recognizing the Senator's right, certainly, to object--I thought it had been cleared that I could offer my amendment and that it had been cleared with the Republican leadership. So I am happy to wait and let another amendment go by. I think we need to clarify this situation.

Ms. MIKULSKI. No. I thought it was agreed that no one would object to this coming up, I say to the Senator. I am surprised the Senator objected.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Baucus amendment to strike the provision in the Energy Committee's reconciliation instructions which opens the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling activity. The Arctic Wildlife Refuge is one of this Nation's last great wilderness areas. I have often said that we must forge an environmental ethic in our society--that we must preserve America's natural treasures for generations to come. We are the stewards of this land. We are the ones responsible for ensuring that some part of our planet remains for our children. Protecting our wilderness yields benefits in ways that we do not always see. Scientists will tell you that a vast amount of the medicines that we take for granted today were first discovered in nature. The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is unique among America's diverse climate. The secrets this unspoiled land holds may well provide us with benefits beyond what any of us can imagine now. Some would have us believe that this is just an economic issue. I would disagree based on the hundreds of letters and phone calls I have received from Marylanders who are concerned about opening this land to drilling. I have heard from the native people, both in the United States and Canada, whose culture and livelihoods depend on the caribou that breed within the confines of the refuge. Opening this precious land to oil drilling will wipe these timeless cultures out. Mr. President, I, for one, am not willing to do that. I am not willing to destroy the lives of thousands of native villagers just so that the oil industry can turn a larger profit next year than it did this year. I urge my colleagues to support removing this dangerous provision from this bill and vote for the Baucus amendment.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Thank you, Mr. President. I rise in strong support of the Democratic leadership amendment, the Graham motion. My Republican colleagues constantly remind us of how important family values are. And I think family values are fantastic, especially the one that says, ``Honor thy father and thy mother.'' I think it is not only a good commandment to live by, I think it is a good public policy to implement. I believe when we say, ``Honor thy father and thy mother,'' we should have this in our Medicare Program and in our Medicaid Program. A substantial part of the Medicaid Program goes to services to the elderly who are in nursing homes. We have watched this program grow. And it is an important safety net to the American middle-class families. We must preserve Medicaid to be a safety net for the people who have no other resources for long-term care and also for those who are disabled, disabled Americans who rely on Medicaid because they cannot get private health insurance. My dear father died of Alzheimer's. I could not reverse the tide of him dying one brain cell at a time, but I vowed I would devote my life to fighting for a long-term care policy. That is what the Spousal Impoverishment Act was, a protection, and what we passed in 1988. I am glad that we do not repeal spousal impoverishment. And I hope it does not erode. I regret that we are now going to cancel out the protections of nursing home grants that looked out for people who were in nursing homes, who were too sick to be able to protect themselves, the laws that prevent restraints and the laws that prevent abuse, that mandates standards, so that when people who have Alzheimer's or Parkinson's or other dementia diseases where we need long-term care, even though we cannot change the course of the disease, we can ensure that they are in a safe, secure environment. We can be sure of a lot of things if we pass the Graham motion.