Barbara Mikulski

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, the idea of safety is absolutely crucial, that we need adequate staff, but we need to have those standards so that if anyone is too sick to say how they are being cared for, we know that we are preventing their abuse, we know that they are receiving the right medication, we know that they are being adequately cared for.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, my father was in a nursing home for 3 years. He had Alzheimer's. We could go and visit him and make sure he was OK. But one of the things we need to know is when people are in a nursing home, they are often too sick to care for themselves or they are too sick to say how they are being cared for. If we do not have Federal standards around safety and staffing to be sure that our--

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the fiscal responsibility amendment. Mr. President, we should not cut taxes until we balance the budget. This reconciliation legislation cuts taxes before the budget is balanced. This is like eating dessert before dinner. I support a balanced Federal budget and I have voted for significant deficit reduction over the past 2 years. But reducing the deficit cannot be accomplished if we are simultaneously cutting taxes for the wealthiest of Americans. This is fiscally irresponsible. This highlights the Republican's real priority in this reconciliation bill--cutting taxes for the wealthiest Americans. Balancing the budget must be based on principles that uphold basic values. Protecting our seniors, providing opportunities for our young people, and protecting the ladders of opportunity for working families are my guiding principles. This reconciliation legislation violates those principles by gutting Medicare and Medicaid, cutting student loans and repealing the earned income tax credit [EITC]. The fact is Mr. President, the Republican tax cut would add nearly $300 billion to the national debt by 2002. All but the last few billion of the tax cut is borrowed money, under the Republicans own deficit reduction timetable. This reconciliation bill is fiscally irresponsible--and don't think otherwise. Requiring the budget to be balanced before we cut taxes is the responsible, fair and principled action to take. That's what this amendment ensures. This amendment also ensures that future tax cuts will be targeted to low and moderate-income working American families, not the wealthiest Americans. That is why I support this amendment and urge my colleagues to support it. Mr. President, the tax cuts proposed by the Republicans are fiscally disastrous. I urge my colleagues to vote for fairness and common sense and vote for this amendment.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I must oppose the reconciliation bill we consider today because it impacts on parents, students, and families in ways they cannot afford; that is why I support and cosponsor Senator Kennedy's amendment to strike the student loan provisions in this bill that impose higher college costs on students and working families. Mr. President, the Labor Committee's proposal to save $10.85 billion through changes in the Federal Student Loan Program is simply unacceptable. It strikes a blow at the Federal Government's role in providing an opportunity structure for our Nation's youth. It threatens the future economic opportunity for young people who are today's students and tomorrow's work force, and it rejects help to those who practice self-help. The Labor Committee's reconciliation proposal is another strike at this Nation's opportunity structure. The Republicans want to levy on new tax on colleges and universities. The Republicans want colleges to pay a .85 percent tax on their total student loan volume. That is outrageous. It does not make a difference whether that tax is .85 percent or 2 percent as originally proposed by committee Republicans. A tax is a tax. Colleges and universities will still have to pay a new tax to the Federal Government every year. Mr. President, colleges and universities all across my State of Maryland are adamantly opposed to this new tax. This new tax means that the University of Maryland in College Park will have to pay approximately $255,000 in taxes on its student loan volume each year. The University of Maryland in Baltimore will have to pay approximately $180,000. Private independent colleges will be especially hard hit. These colleges do not get substantial State financial support. This results in higher student loan volume. So, Loyola College in Baltimore will have to pay approximately $95,000 to the Federal Government. It means that Johns Hopkins University will have to pay about $204,000 and Western Maryland College will pay about $25,000 in taxes on student loans each year. Where will colleges get this money? They may be forced to pass on this new tax burden to students in the form of increased tuition, reduction in scholarships, or elimination of student services or programs. College tuition has already skyrocketed. Our undergraduate students borrow the maximum of $17,125 a year just to be able to afford a college education, to have access to increased opportunities and to achieve the American dream. But this reconciliation bill will leave some students out in the cold. This is unacceptable. It is not only a tax on colleges, but a tax on opportunity. Students in this country are told every day--do well, work hard, get a good education and you will be rewarded. But this kind of tax sends the wrong message to students trying to get ahead and trying to get ready for the future. Mr. President, the Congress passed the Higher Education Act amendments in 1992 to bring help to those who practice self help. It was meant to be Federal help to middle class families who are drowning in debt and trying to send their children to college. Yet, imposing a new tax is not only a hit on colleges and students, but also a hit on parents trying to help pay for their child's college education. This reconciliation bill increases the interest rate that parents will pay on loans and increases the overall cap on that interest. Mr. President, promises made must be promises kept. By cutting student loans, we are cutting the promises we made to students, to parents and to colleges. I believe in rewarding the good guys in our society who work hard and play by the rules. That means giving help to middle-class families where moms and dads struggle--maybe even working two jobs--to pay tuition to send their son or daughter to college. Mr. President, these families are paying loans on top of loans. We cannot turn our backs on them now. Our students need our support through Federal financial aid programs or through innovative initiatives like national service. But, we are doing away with those opportunities too. National service gives students an alternate way to afford college, and at the same time, national service helps meet some of our community's most critical needs. As an appropriator, I know firsthand how hard it is for the Government to come up with a balanced check book. But education must be our No. 1 priority. It is with me. It is for parents and students who balance their own check book every day and every semester. It should be a priority for this Congress. Mr. President, college is no longer a luxury. It is a necessity just to stay competitive in the job market. It is a dream come true for parents of first generation college students to see their children walk across the stage. I believe we should give people the chance to pursue their dream through earned opportunities. To rob them of this opportunity is robbing America of its future. I hope every member of the Senate will support Senator Kennedy's amendment to strike the student loan provisions from this bill. It is an important investment to this Nation's students and it is important to America's economic future.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the Democratic leadership amendment to restore over $125 billion to the Medicaid Program. Our Republican colleagues constantly remind us how important family values are to them. I think that's great. Families are the backbone of our society. They provide nurturing and loving environments for our children. They provide stability and safety, and foster values we need to become better people and a better society. What are family values? I'll tell you what I think they are. I think family values are honoring your mother and father. I think family values are honesty--keeping promises. Family values are care and dedication to the well-being of those you love. Family values are not breaking promises, they are not telling your mother and father that they'll have to do without medical care, and they're absolutely not about risking the safety of your parents when you can no longer provide the care they need and have to put them in a nursing home. Mr. President, there are 18 million children in the United States who depend on Medicaid. There are more than 900,000 elderly people who depend on Medicaid for their nursing home care. There are 6 million disabled Americans who depend on Medicaid. The wealthy won't be affected by these draconian cuts. It's likely that the vast majority of the 100 Senators in this room won't be affected, nor will most of the 435 Members of the House. The people who are affected are normal, regular, everyday Americans. Not big-time lobbyists; not big-money campaign contributors. The people who are affected are people like my neighbors, my mom, and the kids who go to St. Stanislaw's Catholic School right down the street from me. Mr. President, there are 6 million disabled Americans who rely on Medicaid because they cannot get private health insurance. It's not because they don't want it. It's not because they can't afford it. It's because no private insurance company will cover them. Without Medicaid, where will they go? I believe that I am my brother's keeper. We have a responsibility to our fellow women and men. Make no mistake about it. Mr. President, Medicaid is a program that benefits a broad spectrum of Americans. One in five children in America--18 million kids--receive their health coverage through Medicaid. One in five. Healthy children are the first step to a strong America. The next generation must be healthy in body and mind in order to make the large contribution to our society that we're all trying to prepare them for. These kids don't understand Medicaid. They don't understand the process, and, quite frankly, they probably don't care. But their parents do. Their parents worry themselves sick about whether or not we're going to take away their ability to get medical care for their kids. I worry myself sick about that too. But there's a difference. I have a vote on this floor, and I have the bully pulpit. And I want them to know that I'm on their side. I'm fighting for them. I want the parents of the 18 million children on Medicaid to know that I stand ready to help them help themselves. I'm glad this legislation does not repeal the Spousal Impoverishment Act. I authored this act in 1988. And I'm here to tell you I'm standing sentry to make sure this critical protection is maintained. My dad died of Alzheimer's disease. My mom, my sisters and I made use of a long-term care continuum in Maryland. We took Dad to a geriatric evaluation center at Johns Hopkins to be sure we knew what was wrong with him and how to keep him at home with us longer. We used adult day care to stretch out his ability to stay with us and to help with respite care for my mother--a heart bypass survivor. But we reached a point when we knew we couldn't give him the level of care that he needed. And we had to bring him to a nursing home. I visited my dad all the time at his home. It wasn't a Cadillac, Gucci-style nursing home. Dad would have hated that. It was a real nursing home with real patients who had real families. Over time I got to know those families. I listened to their stories-- to their trials and their tribulations. I heard stories about how you had to spend down your life savings to $3,000 before you could qualify for help. Families had to go into bankruptcy while they were trying to practice family responsibility. My dad wasn't the kind of guy who wanted a fancy tombstone. He wanted to make sure that what he left behind would help others. I made a promise that I'd try to change the cruel rules of Government that penalize families who have saved all their lives. I'm so proud that with the help of great men like Lloyd Bentsen, George Mitchell, Ted Kennedy, and the members of the Finance Committee, we changed that law so that now you can keep your home, you can keep assets up to $15,000, and the spouse at home can have an income of up to $1,000 a month. So, I'm glad that this won't be repealed, and I want to make sure it never, ever is. I want all Senators to know that in this regard, we've done well by the American people. Unfortunately, I cannot say the same for the rest of the bill. In this legislation we are repealing nursing home safety standards! That is horrific. As I just said, my father was in a Chevy Cavalier nursing home--not a Cadillac nursing home. But we all knew that he would be fed, he would be taken care of, he would receive his medication, we wouldn't have to worry about restraints, we wouldn't have to worry about abuse. We knew that because of the standards, dad would be safe. In 1983 Congress commissioned a study by the Institute of Medicine at the National Academy of Sciences. This study revealed shocking deficiencies in nursing home care. In 27 States, at least one-third of facilities had care so poor that it jeopardized health and safety. Some nursing home residents have been treated in conditions which are worse than prisons. Worse than prisons! In 1987 Senator Pryor led the charge to enact the standards which now protect nursing home residents. He's still leading that charge, and I thank him for that. Now we want to repeal those standards? Not this Senator. I will not, under any circumstance, allow anyone in this body to put the lives of men like my father at risk. Saying ``yes'' to this amendment says yes to keeping promises, it tells our seniors, our children and the disabled that we care about their well-being. That we will help them if they've played by the rules and if they're making the effort to help themselves. And that we will not let those few nursing home profiteers put them at risk in the name of turning a buck. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to speak out against the Republican proposal to raise taxes on working families and in support of the Democratic amendment. The Republican tax plan raises taxes on families making $30,000 while give a big fat tax cut to people with $5 million estates. We talk a lot about getting people off welfare. But I believe if we are serious about moving people from welfare to work, then work must pay them enough to pay the bills. When mom or dad works 40 hours a week they should be able to pay the bills. They should be rewarded for working hard. The earned income tax credit does that, it rewards hard work by families. It allows these struggling families to have hope for a better future. Yes, we talk a lot about welfare reform. We talk a lot about family values. But look what we do. I believe what we explicitly state as our values we should implicitly reflect in our public policy. What is our public policy? This Senate is already on record against even debating an increase in the minimum wage. And now this Senate is about to approve cutting a tax credit that helps these very same working men and women who depend on the minimum wage. What are we saying to these families? We are saying even as you struggle and work hard, we are going to raise your taxes. And why? Is it because we want to balance the budget? That is what the Republicans say, but that is not the truth. The only reason we are raising taxes on working families and slashing Medicare is so that the Republicans can pass a big tax cut for people making $100,000 or $200,000 a year. Mr. President. In order to fund a capital gains tax cut for the wealthy, the plan before us would cut the earned income tax credit by $42 billion and call it reform. It would increase the tax deductions for capital gains by $33 billion and call it fair. The earned income tax credit is designed to reward work. For every dollar a low income worker earns at a job, he or she receives a tax credit. The size of the credit ranges from 7 cents to 36 cents per dollar, based on your family size. This credit is gradually phased-out as income rises so that there is always an incentive to earn more and work more. In short, the EITC helps to offset the heavy burden that taxes can place on a family that counts every single penny. It is tied only to income that is earned on a job. It provides a tax break to those who need it most, low-wage earners. But all of this is being changed by this reconciliation bill. Single workers will be cut off. Families with one or two kids will have their credit reduced and their taxes increased. And what does this mean? To the people of my State of Maryland it means tougher times. These cuts in the EITC mean that over 270,000 Maryland taxpayers will pay more while those at the top pay less. These cuts in the EITC mean that by 2002, people of my State will pay an average of $345 more in taxes. It means that 120,000 Maryland families with two kids will have their tax bill go up by $474 a year. Lets talk about what this tax increase means to real people. For Rhonda Clark, a 26-year-old mother from Baltimore, it means that even though she has worked hard to get off welfare and to raise her two young kids, even though she has played by the rules, life is about to get harder. For Rhonda, this tax increase means she will have less money to pay for child care for her two young kids. Inflation will go up, but Rhonda's tax credit will be reduced in 1996 by $367. The EITC has a long history of bi-partisan support. But that is about to change too. This tax credit has been endorsed and expanded by Presidents and Congresses of both parties. President Ronald Reagan called it, ``The best antipoverty, the best profamily, the best job creation measure to come out of Congress.'' This credit rewards work. It is a bonus for the good guys because it is based on hard work. We should be praising it today. Not attacking it. Not cutting off workers, cutting off families, and cutting off hope. Let us reflect in our public policy what we have stated as our values. Let us keep faith with working families by supporting the earned income tax credit.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of a Democratic leadership amendment that will be offered to save Medicare. I support it because it will save lives and save American seniors from bankruptcy. The Republican budget reconciliation before us would cut Medicare by $270 billion. And it does so for one reason: to pay for tax breaks for the wealthy. In contrast, the Democratic amendment would eliminate all but $89 billion of this Medicare cut. This would guarantee enough savings to keep Medicare solvent, but we would eliminate the provisions which the Republicans have proposed as a new tax cut on senior citizens. We want to eliminate the Republican plan to double Medicare premiums. We want to eliminate the Republican plan to double the out-of-pocket deductibles for seniors. We want to eliminate the Republican plan to force seniors who want to keep their own doctor to pay for higher charges for Medicare care. We believe that the American senior citizens should get to pick their own doctor and be able to have health care that they can afford and not have these increased premiums and deductibles. And we can do it by focusing on solvency and efficiency. Mr. President, this amendment is not about partisan politics; it is about the men and women that I call the GI Joe generation. These are the men and women like my uncles and my father, ordinary men, who during World War II were called to do extraordinary things. They fought over there so we could be free here. Those are the women in my community we call affectionately Rosie the Riveter, women who worked at Martin Marietta, in shipyards helping to keep the homefront going while our men were overseas. Those are our senior citizens of today, the men and women of the World War II generation. They helped save Western civilization. So now it is up to us to save their Medicare. It is the very least we can do, that on the brink of a new century we give our honor and our respect to those who saved us during this last century. Mr. President, in 1965, a great Democratic President knew that one illness could devastate a family, and they organized to be able to pass Medicare. That stands today. We have to keep the ``care'' in Medicare. The Republican plan will mean less access to health care, fewer doctor visits, less necessary tests and less of a focus on prevention. This is not what we should be doing. Yes, we all want to balance the budget, but I believe we can save Medicare and focus on solvency. Let us go after that waste, let us go after that fraud, let us be more efficient, but let us also remember the GI generation. They fought to save us, and the very least we can do now is to fight to save their health care. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I yield myself 3 minutes.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, I rise as a cosponsor of the Israel Embassy Relocation Act. I thank the sponsors of this legislation for amending it to give Israel more flexibility on when construction on our new Embassy will begin. Jerusalem is and always will be the capital of Israel. For thousands of years the Jewish people prayed, ``next year in Jerusalem.'' This prayer helped to sustain Jews even through the darkest days of the diaspora. Even after Israeli independence, the holy sites of Jerusalem were closed to Christians and Jews. The Jewish quarter of the old city was destroyed. But since Jerusalem was unified in 1967, Jerusalem is open to all religions for the first time in its history. I have visited Israel with Jews who were there for the first time. When we visited the Western Wall, I saw what it meant for them to touch the stones that their ancestors could only dream of. I saw that Jerusalem is not just a city or a capital. It is the religious and historic homeland of the Jewish people. Why is Israel the only nation with which we have diplomatic relations that is not allowed to chose its own capital? The sight for the U.S. Embassy is in west Jerusalem, which has been part of Israel since its independence. We should have moved our Embassy long ago. So over the years, I have supported every effort of Congress to call upon the executive branch to move our Embassy to Jerusalem. And each successive administration has ignored us. But now, as Israel takes courageous steps toward peace, we are raising this issue again. And what should have been a clear statement on Jerusalem has become a political debate. When this legislation was first introduced, I had some concerns about the requirement that construction on the new Embassy must begin in 1996. I did not cosponsor it because I believe that we would be imposing our own deadlines on the peace process. This new bill removes the arbitrary dates that fit United States elections rather than the will of the Israeli people. This issue is too important to politicize. Madam President, this year we celebrate the 3,000 anniversary of Jerusalem. Let us mark this great event by reaffirming that Jerusalem is and always will be the capital of the State of Israel.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I am pleased to support the Workforce Development Act. It confronts one of the most important issues affecting this Nation today--that is to make sure that America's work force is job ready for the 21st century. Mr. President, I like this bill because it creates a one-stop delivery system for employment services. It recognizes the needs of dislocated workers; and it helps to streamline the job training process for everyone, including welfare recipients, by consolidating existing job training programs. First, I like one-stop shopping, and I like streamlining the process. With this bill, States will be required to create one-stop career centers offering access to anyone who needs it. One-stop career centers mean more centralized services all in one place. They make the job training system more efficient and more effective. Anyone who wants to can go to one location for job placement, job assistance, and job referral. One-stop centers link workers to the full range of services they will need, and I think that is great. My State of Maryland is ahead of the game in creating one-stop centers. Maryland's one stop center in Columbia, MD is up and running and helping to make job training services easier and more efficient for all Maryland workers. It is an idea that I wholeheartedly support. Second, Mr. President, I especially like the amendments to this bill that protect dislocated workers. Senator Dodd has worked very hard to include a provision that creates a rapid response emergency fund for people affected by base closing, plant closing, and natural disasters. In Maryland, we have seen tremendous job loss, plant closures, and company downsizing. According to the Baltimore Sun, Maryland could lose 20,000 to 50,000 Federal jobs in the next 5 years. That is a lot of jobs, a lot of people, and lot of families that will receive a big financial blow. The Dodd amendment is very important to Maryland families who have lost income due to base closing--like Fort Richie, White Oak, David Taylor in Annapolis, and the Army Publications Distribution Center in Middle River. These workers are men and women who have mortgages to pay, homes to heat, and other bills to pay in order to keep their families going. They need to know that their concerns were heard. Further, Mr. President, Senator Breaux and Senator Daschle have also offered an amendment to create vouchers for dislocated workers. The amendment further improves the bill by maximizing dislocated workers ability to chose what job training best fits their needs. They can make their own judgments and determine their own future. I support the Dodd and Breaux amendments on behalf of all the Marylanders who have lost their jobs or who stand to lose their jobs today, tomorrow and in the future. I am also pleased that we will continue our commitment to workers who have lost their jobs through changes in the international market. I am talking about the importance of keeping our promises. Promises we made to protect workers from the possible effects of NAFTA and GATT. I am pleased that this bill will not repeal the Target Adjustment Act, and instead preserves our responsibility to help dislocated workers. That is why I support Senator Moynihan's amendment to take the Trade Adjustment Act out of this bill. Third, Mr. President, the Senate recently considered welfare reform legislation. Welfare reform and the job training bill we consider today must work hand-in-hand. If we want to be successful in keeping people off welfare, we must have in place a system that will allow people to change careers and change skills when the economy and technology forces them to. I think that good job training programs are important to making welfare reform efforts successful. Welfare reform is about helping people get into jobs and stay jobs through job training and part-time work. This bill does that. The one-stop centers created in this bill will allow welfare recipients to get the help they need to be job ready. They will get job counseling, skills assessment and other services all in one place. I believe that everyone can be well prepared, self sufficient and successful. Finally, Mr. President, a lot of progress was made to improve this bill since the Labor Committee markup. I support the changes and the amendments improving the job training programs so that they operate more efficiently. But, I am pleased that this bill does not repeal title V of the Older Americans Act, the Senior Employment Program. When the Labor Committee considered this bill, I had very serious concerns about how it would impact on our seniors. I offered an amendment in committee to take the Senior Employment Program out of the block grant because it provides an important service to seniors in this country. And although my amendment lost in committee, the Senior Employment Program has been removed from the bill we consider today. The Senior Employment Program provides over 100,000 seniors an opportunity for employment, community service, and self-reliance. Throughout this Nation, the Senior Employment Program is essential to providing important community services. Libraries are kept open in Baltimore so children can read. Ailing older people and children receive care through child and adult day care. Seniors and homebound persons in Catonsville and Hagerstown receive nutritious meals at senior centers and through Meals-on-Wheels. Mr. President, this program is based on the principles of personal responsibility, lifelong learning, and service to community. It is too important to seniors to be considered as part of this bill, and it should rightfully be considered as part of the Older American's Act reauthorization. I would like to thank the Labor Committee chair, Senator Kassebaum, for [[Page S 14985]] her willingness to work with me to remove the Senior Employment Program from this block grant. Mr. President, I am all for the idea of one-stop shopping, streamlining and simplifying the job training process, providing assistance for job readiness, and promoting some state flexibility. I am supporting this bill because I believe that job training and education are vital to creating a productive work force. I commend Senator Kassebaum and Senator Kennedy for their work on this bill and I look forward to its passage.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, today I may introducing legislation to dramatically reform the sugar program run by the Department of Agriculture. My bill, the Sugar Competitiveness Act, is designed to restore competitiveness to the sugar industry by reducing Government intervention in the marketplace. Since the present sugar policy was enacted in 1981 we have seen 10 of the sugar refining industry's 22 refineries close. Another refinery is scheduled to close permanently in the near future. The industry has lost over 40 percent of its capacity, not to mention the thousands of blue-collar jobs that go with it. My own hometown of Baltimore is home to a sugar refining plant. Generations of workers have walked through the gates of Domino sugar every morning to give an honest day's work for an honest day's pay. My bill is designed to save those jobs and preserve the future of the sugar refining industry. Today, refiners are being forced to operate under an absurd situation in which the Department of Agriculture is forcing up the price of their raw material--raw cane sugar--to a level higher than the price of refined beet sugar. The USDA creates this artificial shortage by tightly restricting imports. As a result of this Government-inflicted shortage of raw sugar, it has become impossible for refiners to compete. All refiners have been losing money for months. Recently, refiners have been forced to pay 24 to 25 cents per pound for raw sugar, while their competitors, the beet sugar processors, have been selling refined sugar at those levels. It is impossible for refiners to cover these increased raw sugar costs in the refined sugar market. But, there is more at stake here than the survival of the refining industry and its labor. Refiners provide over 50 percent of the sugar marketed in the United States. They play an important and unique role in ensuring that food processors and consumers have an uninterrupted supply of sugar under all circumstances. When there is a domestic crop shortage, caused by a freeze or drought, as there often is, food processors depend upon the refiners to fill the void by importing more sugar. Any further loss of refining capacity will seriously endanger the Nation's sugar supply, to the detriment of consumers and food processors throughout the country. The first thing my bill would do is eliminate USDA marketing allotments. These allotments limit the amount of sugar that domestic surgarcane and sugar beet processors can sell. The second thing the bill does is to reduce the raw sugar cane loan rate from 18 cents to 12 cents per pound in stages, 2 cents per year for 3 years. Currently the USDA offers loans at a floor of 18 cents per pound for raw cane sugar, which is nearly double the world price of sugar. These loans set minimum prices that sugar processors must pay to producers, which drive up the cost of sugar for consumers. Third, my bill regulates sugar imports to ensure that the market for raw cane sugar does not exceed the loan rate or the world market price, whichever is higher. Because the sugar program is designed as a no-net- cost subsidy, and the loans are non-recourse, the USDA keeps the market price for sugar processors much higher than necessary. The fourth effect this legislation would have is to provide for 3- month CCC loans, and convert those loans from a non-recourse to a recourse basis. Under the current loan structure, sugar processors must put up sugar as collateral for loans. At the end of the present 9-month loan, the processor must decide to do one of two things, pay back the loan with interest or forfeit the sugar they put up as collateral. Processors can choose to simply hold on to the Government's money and forfeit the sugar collateral if it is more profitable. If the processor forfeits, the disposition of the collateral sugar would fall to USDA. In order to avoid that possibility USDA maintains the market price much higher than the loan rate. Why should the taxpayer subsidize non-recourse loans to corporations? My bill would correct the situation to the benefit of consumers by changing the loan structure to a recourse loan, which requires that processors repay the loan instead of simply forfeiting the sugar to USDA. Finally, the proposed legislation increases the sugar marketing assessment, and extends it to imported sugar. The sugar marketing assessment is a fee paid by domestic processors to the CCC. Currently foreign processors who are allowed to sell limited amounts of sugar in the United States do not have to pay this. This bill levels the playing field between foreign and domestic processors. Mr. President, America is at the crossroads. Over the past decade we [[Page S 14900]] have seen manufacturing jobs disappear in city after city. We have seen good paying jobs move out of our urban areas if not out of the country. Cities are being decimated by the flight of the middle class. Plants are closing and the jobs that honest, hard-working Americans rely on to feed their kids and put food on the table are disappearing. I've decided that I'm not just going to stand by and watch. This Congress owes it to working men and women to do all we can to preserve those jobs, to level the playing field and to allow those that have made America a world economic leader to continue that job. When we talk about the current sugar program we're talking about a bad Federal policy that tears at the backbone of American manufacturing. I think this bill moves the sugar program toward a more competitive base and will have dramatic impacts on lowering the price of sugar to consumers by letting market conditions dictate sugar prices instead of the U.S. Government.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I was saddened to learn that Senator Nunn will retire from the Senate at the end of his fourth term, and I rise to salute him for his great contributions to the Senate, to the citizens of Georgia, and to the United States. I know that many of my colleagues have already spoken eloquently about Senator Nunn and his accomplishments. But I wanted to express my gratitude for what Senator Nunn has meant to me, to our national security, and to the creation of an opportunity structure for the young people of this country. For me, Senator Nunn serves as a model for commitment and patriotism. Senator Nunn has worked to ensure that while we downsize our military, we do not downgrade our military. He realizes that national security is too important to become politicized. He believes that a strong defense is not a Republican position or a Democratic position--it is a necessity for the world's only superpower. This commitment has yielded tangible results. Both as chairman and as ranking member of the Armed Services Committee, Senator Nunn has worked to improve the quality and morale of our troops, and to ensure that we continue to have the best trained, best equipped military in the world. And finally Mr. President, while we have all focused on Senator Nunn's contribution to our national security, he has also made a great contribution to creating an opportunity structure for our Nation's youth. He is one of the early pioneers of national service. Long before it became a hot political issue, he understood how national service could create an ethic of service in our country. He fought to enable young people to make an investment through their own sweat equity in themselves and their communities. I know that he will continue this fight after he leaves the Senate. Mr. President, we will miss Senator Nunn in the Senate. But I know that he will continue his contributions to improving the lives of Americans and to improve America's standing in the world.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, today I may introducing legislation to dramatically reform the sugar program run by the Department of Agriculture. My bill, the Sugar Competitiveness Act, is designed to restore competitiveness to the sugar industry by reducing Government intervention in the marketplace. Since the present sugar policy was enacted in 1981 we have seen 10 of the sugar refining industry's 22 refineries close. Another refinery is scheduled to close permanently in the near future. The industry has lost over 40 percent of its capacity, not to mention the thousands of blue-collar jobs that go with it. My own hometown of Baltimore is home to a sugar refining plant. Generations of workers have walked through the gates of Domino sugar every morning to give an honest day's work for an honest day's pay. My bill is designed to save those jobs and preserve the future of the sugar refining industry. Today, refiners are being forced to operate under an absurd situation in which the Department of Agriculture is forcing up the price of their raw material--raw cane sugar--to a level higher than the price of refined beet sugar. The USDA creates this artificial shortage by tightly restricting imports. As a result of this Government-inflicted shortage of raw sugar, it has become impossible for refiners to compete. All refiners have been losing money for months. Recently, refiners have been forced to pay 24 to 25 cents per pound for raw sugar, while their competitors, the beet sugar processors, have been selling refined sugar at those levels. It is impossible for refiners to cover these increased raw sugar costs in the refined sugar market. But, there is more at stake here than the survival of the refining industry and its labor. Refiners provide over 50 percent of the sugar marketed in the United States. They play an important and unique role in ensuring that food processors and consumers have an uninterrupted supply of sugar under all circumstances. When there is a domestic crop shortage, caused by a freeze or drought, as there often is, food processors depend upon the refiners to fill the void by importing more sugar. Any further loss of refining capacity will seriously endanger the Nation's sugar supply, to the detriment of consumers and food processors throughout the country. The first thing my bill would do is eliminate USDA marketing allotments. These allotments limit the amount of sugar that domestic surgarcane and sugar beet processors can sell. The second thing the bill does is to reduce the raw sugar cane loan rate from 18 cents to 12 cents per pound in stages, 2 cents per year for 3 years. Currently the USDA offers loans at a floor of 18 cents per pound for raw cane sugar, which is nearly double the world price of sugar. These loans set minimum prices that sugar processors must pay to producers, which drive up the cost of sugar for consumers. Third, my bill regulates sugar imports to ensure that the market for raw cane sugar does not exceed the loan rate or the world market price, whichever is higher. Because the sugar program is designed as a no-net- cost subsidy, and the loans are non-recourse, the USDA keeps the market price for sugar processors much higher than necessary. The fourth effect this legislation would have is to provide for 3- month CCC loans, and convert those loans from a non-recourse to a recourse basis. Under the current loan structure, sugar processors must put up sugar as collateral for loans. At the end of the present 9-month loan, the processor must decide to do one of two things, pay back the loan with interest or forfeit the sugar they put up as collateral. Processors can choose to simply hold on to the Government's money and forfeit the sugar collateral if it is more profitable. If the processor forfeits, the disposition of the collateral sugar would fall to USDA. In order to avoid that possibility USDA maintains the market price much higher than the loan rate. Why should the taxpayer subsidize non-recourse loans to corporations? My bill would correct the situation to the benefit of consumers by changing the loan structure to a recourse loan, which requires that processors repay the loan instead of simply forfeiting the sugar to USDA. Finally, the proposed legislation increases the sugar marketing assessment, and extends it to imported sugar. The sugar marketing assessment is a fee paid by domestic processors to the CCC. Currently foreign processors who are allowed to sell limited amounts of sugar in the United States do not have to pay this. This bill levels the playing field between foreign and domestic processors. Mr. President, America is at the crossroads. Over the past decade we [[Page S 14900]] have seen manufacturing jobs disappear in city after city. We have seen good paying jobs move out of our urban areas if not out of the country. Cities are being decimated by the flight of the middle class. Plants are closing and the jobs that honest, hard-working Americans rely on to feed their kids and put food on the table are disappearing. I've decided that I'm not just going to stand by and watch. This Congress owes it to working men and women to do all we can to preserve those jobs, to level the playing field and to allow those that have made America a world economic leader to continue that job. When we talk about the current sugar program we're talking about a bad Federal policy that tears at the backbone of American manufacturing. I think this bill moves the sugar program toward a more competitive base and will have dramatic impacts on lowering the price of sugar to consumers by letting market conditions dictate sugar prices instead of the U.S. Government.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I am pleased to support the amendment offered by the distinguished senior Senator from Pennsylvania. The amendment would strike from the bill before us the provision which prohibits Federal funds from being used for abortion services for women in Federal prison. But, let me be clear. The amendment would leave intact language in the bill which provides a conscience clause for those opposed to abortion. That language, which this amendment does not touch, ensures that no person would be required to perform, or facilitate in any way the performance of, any abortion. Let me tell you why I believe this amendment must be adopted. The provision contained in the committee-passed bill is part of a wideranging assault on women's reproductive rights. Mr. President, it is going to be a long autumn for America's women. Let us look at what has happened already. The Senate has voted to deny women who are Federal employees coverage under their health plans for abortion services. A Senate/House conference committee has voted to ban abortions for women in the military stationed overseas. The House has voted to let States deny Medicaid abortions for victims of rape and incest. The House version of the D.C. appropriations bill would tell the District of Columbia that it can not use its own, locally raised, revenues for abortions for poor women. Legislation to ban certain late term abortions, even when severe fetal abnormalities are present or the woman's life or health is at serious risk, is under consideration in both the House and Senate. And now, under the bill before us, no abortions for women in Federal prisons. Action after action, vote after vote, we have seen yet another attack on women's reproductive rights. We are facing a full scale assault on women's constitutionally protected right to choose. Those who oppose reproductive rights know better than to launch a direct attack. The public strongly supports the right to choose, and the antichoice forces know it. So, instead they chip away at the right, hoping perhaps that no one will notice that yet another group of women have lost their rights. The bill before us today picks upon a particularly vulnerable population. Women in prison. Women who are totally dependent on health care services provided by the Bureau of Prisons. Let us be honest. There is no significant Federal expense involved in providing abortions for women in Federal prisons. Only nine women have obtained abortions since earlier prohibitions were repealed in 1993. So this is of no real consequence to the Federal budget. Yet, it is a huge issue for the few women who do find themselves in this desperate circumstance. These are not women who have the resources to ever afford private medical services. So by including this provision in this bill we are voting to deny these women access to a legal medical procedure. And who are these women? Over two thirds of the women in Federal prisons are drug offenders. Many of them are in poor health, perhaps HIV-infected, or suffering from AIDS--with all the risks this entails for a developing fetus. Many are themselves victims of abuse. To add to all this, if these women are forced to carry a child to term, they face the certainty that the child will be taken from them. How can we force women facing these circumstances to bear children against their will? To deny these women the right to make their own decision on abortion--a decision carefully arrived at after consultation with a physician and appropriate counseling--is unconscionable. The provision included in this bill is bad policy. It is one more attack on women's reproductive rights. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting the amendment offered by the Senator from Pennsylvania. in opposition to back-door approach to undermining the constitutional right to an abortion

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to support the amendment to fund two strategically and economically important maritime programs; the title XI loan guarantee program and the new maritime security fleet. The title XI program provides loan guarantees for vessels built in American shipyards and for the modernization of those same yards. The maritime security program provides payments to participating vessel operators in exchange for their promising the availability of militarily useful U.S.-flag vessels and trained, loyal American crews. I believe a viable, active, private-sector U.S. maritime industry is in our national interest. We need a U.S. merchant fleet and U.S. shipyards for military purposes in times of national emergency. We need a U.S. merchant fleet to preserve our historic presence as a global economic power moving goods on the high seas. We need American men and women to build and run those ships. This amendment is the most cost-effective way to make sure that our merchant marine is there when we need it. Throughout our Nation's history, it has always made strategic sense to have a strong maritime industry. Policymakers who have come before us have had the sense to realize that we need U.S.-flag ships with American crews to supply our armed forces overseas. Let me make the significance of this vote perfectly clear: in the absence of a U.S. merchant marine, the Defense Department will have no other option but to subcontract foreign ships and seamen for practically all its sealift needs. A number of times during the Gulf war foreign-flag ships refused to sail into the war zone. That never happened with a U.S.-flag ship. Our civilian merchant mariners have always been there for us in times of national crisis. They have been true patriots--reliable, consistent, and faithful. Without Americans manning those supply ships, we can't guarantee that the U.S. military will be able to do its job. I believe in public/private cooperation to encourage government savings. This maritime package does just that. It provides a rainy-day maritime infrastructure for U.S. defense needs while, at the same time, stimulating private sector enterprise. The sealift capability that a U.S. merchant marine provides the Defense Department costs a fraction of what it would cost if they did it ``in house''. [[Page S 14680]] It also guarantees that loyal American merchant mariners will be available to serve when needed. They won't be there if we betray the U.S. maritime industry. This amendment is smart, it's strategic, and it makes sense. Our merchant mariners and shipyard laborers when called to serve, never gave up the ship. I hope the U.S. Senate doesn't give up the ship today. Let's stand by these heroes in dungarees and adopt the pending amendment.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. If I may interject. My colleagues may recall that as chairman of the VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies Subcommittee in the 102d Congress, I supported the original establishment of the Pacific Area Office. At that time, the subcommittee set aside $500,000 in the Senate report accompanying the FY92 VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies Appropriations bill for this initiative. The subcommittee's action reflected a concern that a permanent FEMA presence was needed in the Pacific. Until the office was opened in Honolulu in 1993, the agency had no forward-based staff or facilities in these jurisdictions; instead, all disaster activities were conducted directly from FEMA's Region IX office, located in San Francisco, thousands of miles from these jurisdictions. While the creation of this office has clearly improved FEMA's ability to deal with the many disasters that occur in the Pacific, the agency still falls short of fully providing for the emergency needs of our citizens and friends in the Pacific. I think we need to consider seriously making the Pacific Area Office a full-service office, one that can provide robust mitigation, training, and emergency response services in a timely, appropriate fashion. So, I would support the Senator from Hawaii's request that we consider taking this matter up in conference.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I oppose the motion to proceed to consideration of the appropriations bill for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services and Education. I do so because I support the President's Executive order to ban the use of permanent striker replacement workers on Federal contracts. I strongly oppose the provision in this bill that prevents enforcement of the Executive order. Some say that banning of permanent striker replacements will tip the balance toward labor unions. The balance [[Page S 14450]] has already been tipped against workers. In 1970, only 1 percent of strikes involved permanent replacement workers. By 1992, employers were hiring permanent replacements in 25 percent of strikes. If Congress repeals this order, we tell workers that they are disposable. We are telling working men and women that they can be tossed out onto a scrap heap of economic indifference. Permanent replacement workers weaken the collective bargaining power of unions and that will bring down U.S. wages and living standards. Strikes using permanent replacements last seven times longer than strikes that do not use permanent replacements. Strikes involving permanent replacements are more contentious and bitter, and that means that no one wins. Replacing strikers means replacing skilled workers with unskilled workers, experienced workers with inexperienced workers. Some argue that this expands Presidential authority, I disagree. In 1992, George Bush issued an order that required all unionized Federal contractors to post notices in the workplace informing all employees that they did not have to join the union. President Bush did this even though legislation to include this notification, cosponsored by Congressmen Gingrich, Armey and DeLay, was pending in Congress and was not passed. Other Presidents have used their Presidential authority to issue Executive orders. In 1941, Franklin Roosevelt issued an Executive order banning racial discrimination by defense contractors. In 1964, Lyndon Johnson ordered an end to age discrimination by Federal contractors, and in 1969, the Nixon administration expanded this order to require affirmative action programs and goals. President Clinton's Executive order is limited and reasonable. It seeks only to level the playing field for workers in Federal contracts. The Executive order applies only to contractors who try to permanently replace workers. It seeks only to protect workers who are engaged in a legal strike; it does not apply to illegal strikes. In addition, the Secretary of Labor must conduct a case-by-case review before any contract is terminated, and any order to terminate is subject to the review and approval of the contracting agency. This action is a modest step by the President. It is not an attempt to create new Presidential authority. I support this Executive order to protect collective bargaining, unions, and U.S. wages.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Biden amendment, which restores the $75 million shortfall in funding for programs to prevent violence against women. After years of hearings, reports and statistics we learned that our society and our criminal justice system has been ignoring violence against women, often with tragic consequences for women, their children, and ultimately, for society itself. We learned that one-fifth of all aggravated assaults in the United States occurred in the home; 3 to 4 million American women a year are victims of family violence; one-third of all American women who are murdered die at the hands of a husband or boyfriend; one third of all women who go to emergency rooms in this country are there because of family violence; an estimated 700,000 American women are raped each year; children in violent homes are 1,500 times more likely to be abused or neglected; over the last 10 years, crimes against women have risen nearly three times as fast as the total crime rate; 98 percent of the victims of rape never see their attacker caught, tried or imprisoned; over half of all rape prosecutions are either dismissed before trial or result in an acquittal; and almost half of all convicted rapists can expect to serve an average of a year or less behind bars. The solution to the problem is not to treat women as victims--it is empowerment. And that is what the act does. It allows women to take charge of their lives through such things as rape prevention programs or counseling provided at federally funded battered women's shelters. The Violence Against Women Act is the first comprehensive approach to fighting all forms of violence against women. The law made a substantial commitment of Federal funds over a 6-year period to combat family violence and sexual assault. The commitment we made sends resources and support to those devoted to responding to and preventing violence against women. I urge every Senator to support this amendment. Let us not go back on our promises made to the women of this country.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. I think we need to confer with Senator Bumpers as to what his disposition is. We will do this during the debate, Mr. Leader.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. I wish to congratulate the Senator from Rhode Island who came forth with this amendment. Not only do we not object to the amendment, we enthusiastically support it.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, this legislation deals with lead sinkers. It has been worked out on both sides. Senator Harkin wished to have this amendment adopted. It has been cleared, I believe, by both sides, and I move its adoption.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I wish to rise in support of the amendment offered by the Senator from Missouri. I absolutely concur with his remarks. In our hearings in the subcommittee, we found that the issues related to market rate are quite severe. They need to be addressed. They need to be addressed with some promptness and urgency. Otherwise, we could be facing the debacle not unlike some of the issues we faced in the S&L crisis. Senator Bond of Missouri is really an expert on this issue. I believe we should follow his lead on this amendment. I support it. I am willing to accept it.

Ms. MIKULSKI. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Ms. MIKULSKI. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 2795 (Purpose: To provide HUD with the authority to renew expiring section 8 project-based contracts through a budget-based analysis. This will provide HUD with the tools to begin to address the high-cost of section 8 project-based assistance while Congress begins to fully address options in lieu of the renewal of section 8 project-based assistance. This amendment will help provide HUD with tools to avoid foreclosure and possible displacement of tenants)

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from New Jersey for his advocacy in the issues of environmental protection, protecting public health, safety, and having the concern particularly for the environmental problems in an urban area. Senator Lautenberg has been a longstanding advocate and a longstanding expert in this issue as a member of the authorizing committee. I also want to acknowledge Senator Bond's efforts to really support a streamlining of a lot of the regulatory process. I am pleased to be a cosponsor of Senator Lautenberg's amendment to partially restore funding to some of EPA's most important programs. This amendment adds: $431.6 million to the Superfund Program, $328 million to the Water Infrastructure State revolving funds, and $1.188 million to the Council on Environmental Quality [CEQ]. I am particularly concerned about the $431.6 million cut below the current funding for the Superfund Program. Superfund was designed to address one of our Nation's worst public health and environmental problems--hazardous waste. There are 1,300 sites that have been placed on the national priorities list, which is the listing of the most serious hazardous waste sites in the country. The health risks posed to people who live near these sites are significant. I think we owe it to our communities to ensure that these toxic dumps are cleaned up. What happens if we do not restore funding to the Superfund Program? There will be no funding for about 120 new, long-term cleanup projects, cleanup of about 160 immediate public health threats could be significantly delayed, and we risk letting polluters get off the hook because we will not be able to reach and enforce settlements for cleanups. The Lautenberg amendment will restore funding to ensure that public health is protected, polluters continue to clean up their messes, and new research continues to develop cheaper, cleaner, and faster ways to clean up toxic wastes. I also have serious concerns about the reduction of $586 million below the President's request that this bill contains for water infrastructure State revolving funds. This cut means that about 107 wastewater treatment projects will not proceed. It also means that, because State revolving fund dollars are reinvested over time, a reduction in infrastructure investments will be felt in future years. The immediate loss of $587 million will result in a cumulative loss of $2.3 billion in funding over the next 20 years. In my home State of Maryland this funding is a big deal. Mr. President, Maryland's Eastern Shore relies heavily on two things, fishing and tourism. These represent a huge chunk of the local economy. EPA's most recent water quality inventory reports that 37 percent of the Nation's shellfish beds are restricted, limited, or closed. I'm afraid that this funding level could cause water quality to continue to decline, which is no small concern for States like mine which depend heavily on rivers and coastal waters. In addition, last year 85 beaches in Maryland were closed to protect the public from swimming in unsafe waters. I do not know about the rest of my colleagues, but when I go to the beach I want to take a swim or wade in the surf. None of that can happen if we do not protect our waters. I am very concerned that this decrease in funding will have serious adverse effects on the Chesapeake Bay. The funding that Maryland gets from the State revolving fund program is critical to preventing the water pollution that runs off into the bay. All of our efforts to clean the bay, at both the State and Federal level, will be wasted if we cannot control this runoff. The bill also requires that the Safe Drinking Water Act be reauthorized by April 30, 1995. If the program is not reauthorized, all drinking water State revolving funds will be transferred to clean water State revolving funds. This means that nearly 270 projects to improve substandard drinking water systems which serve nearly 29 million Americans will not be funded if reauthorization does not occur. I hope the Senate does not forget the recent cryptosporidium outbreak in the Milwaukee, WI, water supply which caused about 400,000 people to get sick, resulting in the deaths of 100 people. Finally, I think it is important that this amendment funds the Council on Environmental Quality at the President's request. CEQ is the Federal office that is responsible for coordinating our national environmental policy. If we did not have the CEQ, the job of coordinating Federal environmental policy would be left to executive level staff inside the Office of the President. This would mean that congressional oversight would be limited. Make no mistake about it, the American people care about protecting public health and the environment. There are many issues that have been raised about the Superfund Program, many legitimate issues raised about the safe drinking water. I do not believe we should cut the budget. I believe we should streamline the regulations. Cutting the budget, in effect, deregulates or eliminates these regulations. We have come so far on cleaning up the environment. I am grateful in this bill that there is funding for the Chesapeake Bay Program, and we are seeing the bay come back to life. We have seen the work that we have done on air pollution and water pollution. In Maryland we see that good environment is good business because it does affect our seafood industry. It does affect the ability of business. Good environment means that there is a reward for businesses that do comply. There are many things I could say about this amendment but I think Senator Lautenberg said it best as he always does. He has my support for this amendment. He has my support for restoration of these cuts in the environmental programs in round two. I believe that President Clinton will veto this bill in round two. I hope with the new allocation we could overcome where we are essentially cutting America's future by cutting the environmental programs.