Barbara Mikulski

Ms. MIKULSKI

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Ms. MIKULSKI

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

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Will the Senator yield?

Ms. MIKULSKI. Could the Senator elaborate on what the space station means to the women's health agenda? As the Senator knows, we worked on women's health on a bipartisan basis, particularly in the area of breast cancer and ovarian cancer and others. Could the Senator take a second or two to elaborate on that? And I would like to thank her for working on a bipartisan basis.

Ms. MIKULSKI. I will elaborate.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, I first would like to deal with a couple of rebuttals on issues that came up. The distinguished Senator from Arkansas talked about how Carl Sagan had opposed the space station. I would like to bring to the Senate's attention that Carl Sagan, since his book was published, has now endorsed the international space station. We now have the endorsement of the Planetary Society. He also talks about how the American Physical Society does not endorse the space station. I would like to bring out that the Institute for Electrical and Electronic Engineers does; the American Astronautical Society does; the AMA does; the American Women's Medical Association does. Now, Madam President, I was once a skeptic of the space station. I, too, wonder if we were building this huge technological endeavor to be a condo in the sky for astronauts to be able to jump to Mars. I no longer share that belief. Why? First, on the drawing books is no plan or no budget for us to take manned space flights to Mars in this century. But there is a space station that is not going to be a condo for astronauts, but it is going to be a space [[Page S 14238]] lab for American scientists and ingenuity. That is why I support it. Now, like you, Madam President, I am a hands-on, get-out-and-about type Senator. I did not want to make my mind up on the basis of memos and papers about pie-in-the-sky or space-station-in-the-sky activity. I went down to Houston. I went to where they are actually working on what the future of the space station is. I was impressed, and I came back a passionate supporter of the American space station because of its impact on saving lives, saving jobs, and making sure that we have lifesaving devices and pharmaceuticals, and once again America has jobs in the scientific area but in the blue-collar manufacturing area. I saw what are the projected activities for being able to do life science and microgravity research. Now critics could say, ``Point to one thing that the space station has done in life science.'' We cannot because the space station is not yet flying. We can point to what NASA has already done in the area of medical research and life science. The Senator from Ohio, an astronaut Senator, has said it. Who are you going to believe? Some wonky report from a critic? Or are you going to believe one of the most famous Senators in the world? I put my belief in John Glenn. I put my belief in what I saw at Houston. I put my belief in the fact that what NASA has already done is come up with a pacemaker that can be programmed outside of the body, a cold suit which has been developed to improve the quality of life of MS patients. I could go on about other activities. NASA has a clear, demonstrable record on what it has already done in life science. One can only estimate what it will mean in the future. We also have an international impact. We are not in this by ourselves. We are in it with the Europeans, the Japanese, and the Canadians. We have a treaty relationship with them to build this space station. To abrogate that responsibility puts at risk the credibility of the United States with its international partners. I believe that is a mistake. Yes, the Russians are in it. We used to compete with the Russians. Now we cooperate with the Russians to make sure that we make maximum use of our financial resources and maximum use of our scientific capability. Is this not what we dreamed about when the cold war came down? That we would put our hand out with the Russians, and in the area of civilian research that in no way weakens our national security, we could put our best minds together? Is that not one of the dreams of the cold war, that by working in space out there we can further peace and scientific advancement here? That is what America is all about. We are known for our social inventions, like our Constitution and our democratic framework, and our technological inventions. People come from around the world to do that. Now, when we build the space station, we do not do it alone. We have international partners. We have the best minds here collaborating with the best minds over there, to go into space, to come back and save those jobs, save those lives, right here in the United States of America. I am for the space station.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I say to the Senator that this is very acceptable to me because it ensures that the veterans of the State of Hawaii are given appropriate equal access to veteran medical care commensurate with the medical care provided in the 48 contiguous States so that the veterans of Hawaii are not penalized for their geography. I also want to acknowledge, with the Senator from the majority, that the VA is organizing and modernizing its delivery of care, moving from strictly and chiefly a trauma model to continuing care, emphasizing primary care, to decentralize the services. So I think we are all in agreement with this. I think this is an excellent amendment. If it meets with the concurrence of the senior Senator and the junior Senator from Hawaii, it is fine with me. I think it is excellent.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I yield 1 minute to the Senator from Minnesota.

Ms. MIKULSKI. I yield the Senator from Massachusetts 2 more minutes to conclude his remarks.

Ms. MIKULSKI. I ask unanimous consent that the call of the quorum be dispensed with.

Ms. MIKULSKI. I ask for 1 minute on behalf of the opponents.

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.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendments pending before the Senate be laid aside.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I have an amendment that I would like to send to the desk in behalf of myself, Senator Kennedy, Senator Rockefeller, Senator Daschle, and Senator Breaux.

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

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. As you know, we have been moving along very well on this bill, and what we will endeavor to do, and I thought we had, is to see if Senators Rockefeller and Baucus will offer their amendments tonight because they are on the Finance Committee. That would, I think, take us through a substantial part of the evening.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I just want to echo the comments made by the chairman. We really need to know what amendments wish to be offered on the bill. We know of seven. We also need to know who would be available tomorrow morning to offer their amendments to the measure; people who are going to offer the amendments from the Finance Committee and the Labor Committee. So, please. If you have amendments, let us know. Be prepared to debate them. We are ready to listen, and to move the bill. I yield the floor. Mrs. HUTCHISON addressed the Chair.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise this year in support of America's space program and in opposition to the Bumpers amendment which would strike funding for the space station. I have said this before and I will say it again: This amendment is a choice between the future and the past. What kind of nation will we be in the 21st century? Will we be the one that uses technology to help people with their day-to-day lives and keep people employed in the field of manufacturing, or are we going to let America's best days be behind it? Will we use American ingenuity and know-how through the unique environment of space to tackle our understanding of disease or development of new technologies that can be used at home on the planet Earth? These are the questions that are at the heart of why America needs a space station and why we should, once again, defeat the Bumpers amendment. Some will argue that science carried out on the space station can be accomplished more effectively on the planet Earth. This simply is not true. The science proposed for the station cannot be accomplished on Earth at any major price. Space station science requires sustained access to very low levels of gravitational force. It is technologically impossible to create a low-gravity environment for this type of research without going into orbit. Some might say, ``Well, if that's so, why not do this type of science on the space shuttle if you need to go into orbit?'' I bring this point to their attention: The shuttle can stay in orbit only for 2 weeks. We do not limit cancer researchers to 2 weeks in the lab to find a cure for that devastating disease. Why should we limit space science to only 2 weeks up in the air? Much of the proposed research will take months, if not years, to complete. Another argument we hear every year is cost. Sure, the space station costs money. So does anything else worthwhile. We have heard that the GAO estimated that the station would cost $94 billion to fund over a period of years. This number is misleading. When tabulating the total cost, the Government Accounting Office included a large portion of NASA's human space flight budget in its analysis. The fact is that $51 billion of the $94 billion is for shuttle missions that were going to fly regardless of the fate of the space station. The real cost of the station, which includes final development and construction and 10 years of operation is $26.2 billion. The remaining /balance of the erroneous $94 billion estimate is life science and microgravity research--life science and microgravity research--and that is the heart and soul of what is to be done on the space station-- microgravity research and life science research. We heard a few minutes ago a distinguished Senator and a former astronaut talk with eloquence in detail about the brilliant, needed research that is going on in the life science area and that it could only be done in space. I will not repeat the many examples there, but I can tell you as a woman who fought to establish the Office of Women's Health at NIH, who joined with my colleagues to make sure we had funding for breast cancer and ovarian cancer research, it is important to me that we continue this work. And it was through my efforts working with then Dr. Bernadine Healy at the National Institutes of Health and Dr. Dan Goldin that we forged this unique partnership between space and NIH to deal with key life science issues and to coordinate all of that research. This is what the U.S. Government is all about: Saving lives, saving jobs, saving communities and that is what the space station is all about. We go out there so that we can save lives, jobs in communities right here on the planet Earth. What is the cost to America if we do not continue the space station? Well, the Federal Government has already invested $14.5 billion. If we do not fund the space station, 15,000 highly skilled engineering and production contract jobs, along with about a thousand civil service jobs, will be lost; the jobs of 35,000 contract workers and 5,000 civil servants who work on the shuttle will be at risk. Long duration microgravity research in cell and developmental biology, human physiology, biotech, fluid physics--and if you think it is hard to say fluid physics, you ought to be out there trying to do it--fluid physics, combustion science, material science, benchmark physics, as well as the development of new pharmaceuticals and understanding of Earth-based diseases. We would lose that. We would also lose our credibility with our international partners if we shut down the space station. Russia, Japan, Europe, and Canada have already invested more than $9 billion. Finally, the U.S. competitiveness could be maintained by continuing the long-term cutting edge high-risk R&D research that is integral to the space station development. Japan, Europe, and Canada regard our agreement to pursue the space station as a treaty. To break this violates treaty-level negotiations. Finally, one of the benefits of the end of the cold war is that rather than [[Page S 14198]] competing with the Russians in space, duplicating projects in science, we actually are working together to be best at what we each need in space station activity. Mr. President, we could argue these points all night, but I will not put my friends and colleagues through that. This bill is going to take long enough to debate. When we vote on the Bumpers amendment, I am going to ask every Senator to think long and hard about what this amendment means. This vote is not about money or cutting spending. Sure, we all want to cut spending. But this is about investing in the future, it is about our kids and the kind of world we will live in and the kind of jobs we have. It is about the American spirit of new frontiers, the human exploration. The American character has always been about progress, moving ahead, using science and technology to advance an American agenda, but a global one also. That is what I want to support. I want to see a bright new future with opportunities beyond our comprehension. I want to open doors that lead to new technologies and new challenges and new markets. This amendment leaves us standing in front of these new doors too paralyzed by fear with a green eyeshade clouding our vision of the future. So I hope my colleagues will join me in voting ``yes'' for the future and ``no'' on the Bumpers amendment. I yield the floor. Mr. BOND addressed the Chair.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I wish to thank the chairman of the VA- HUD Subcommittee for his very cordial remarks to me. I must say I feel the same about him. I think we have worked very hard on this bill. I thank both him and his staff for what we have been able to do. We worked hard under very difficult conditions to get this bill to the floor. Mr. President, this is the toughest year that I have ever faced as a member of the Appropriations Committee. What made this year so tough? Our allocation, both the allocation to the full committee and then the allocation to this particular subcommittee. The allocation, as the President knows, is the sum total that we have to fund over 25 different Federal agencies, 7 of which are Cabinet level. Quite frankly, Mr. President, the VA-HUD Subcommittee's fiscal year 1996 allocation is, indeed, skimpy. It is $5 billion below the Budget Committee's assumption in budget authority and $500 million below the assumption in outlays. What does that mean? It means that the bill before the Senate appropriates a total of $61 billion in discretionary budget authority which is, yes, $1.3 billion above the House, but almost $9 billion below President Clinton's fiscal year 1996 request and last year's funding level. Our allocation gave us little to work with in dealing with a bill that came from the House of Representatives. Under these conditions, Senator Bond has done a commendable job. I chaired this committee for 6 years. I brought six bills to the floor, so I know how much work it actually takes to do this. I want to thank Senator Bond for working so hard to maintain our cooperative working relationship. I am particularly grateful to Senator Bond's efforts to continue many of the initiatives for reform developed by this subcommittee over the past several years. His efforts are clear. He has clearly left footprints in the sand in trying to move a reform agenda both in the areas of HUD and EPA. I want to thank him for this. For example, this bill in reforming HUD puts into action the recommendations of the National Academy of Public Administration to reform the structure of HUD and consolidate its maze of programs. When I chaired the committee, I saw that HUD had over 200 programs, some a line item, a lot of them not really getting a dollar's worth of services for home ownership for the poor, as it was, for a dollar's worth of taxes. I know how it goes in Washington. If you propose any idea to change anything, somebody is going to come up with 12 ideas on why you will keep it. That is why I turned to an independent group called the National Association of Public Administrators to really scrub down both HUD and EPA so that we would know from a management standpoint what we needed to do to get our hands on both of those agencies to make sure that we are getting a dollar's worth of service for a dollar's worth of taxes. I believe in this legislation this bill does streamline EPA. It follows the [[Page S 14181]] NAPA recommendations to streamline EPA's management and it gets started on a strategy to put EPA's resources where they are needed most. We want EPA to be a risk-based agency in which they focus on risk to human health and the environment as their highest priorities. Now, NAPA studied the need to reform both HUD and EPA. The studies were commissioned by this subcommittee more than 2 years ago in an effort to give the agencies what I call a navigational chart. Navigational charts are strategic plans to help the agencies do what they are most needed to do and in the most efficient way. This is where we have embarked upon reform, and I believe we have embarked upon it in HUD and EPA. There are other things about this bill that I like, one of which is in the area of the space program, the fact that Mission to Planet Earth funding is almost fully restored. A House bill cut much of this crucial space science program and the House language to close NASA space centers has been removed from this bill. This is very important to helping NASA as it goes through budget cuts yet needs to keep America's space program flying high. Because of the initiatives and framework put forth by Senator Bond, I believe we will be able to sustain what was badly being devastated. Second, another area that is very much appreciated is that veterans medical research is fully funded at the President's request of $257 million. VA medical research is absolutely crucial, not only to America's veterans, but it provides hands-on specific clinical research associated with patient care, and much of what comes out of VA medical research goes immediately into the civilian population. It is an excellent program. I am pleased it is funded at $257 million. Third, this bill also will help those who want to help themselves. In the area of housing, it contains a moving to work demonstration for public housing residents, and Republican ceilings and income disregards to help support the working poor. In other words, in HUD we want to focus on giving help to those who practice self-help, and to have coordination with welfare reform. Now, if you work, you are actually penalized and unable to get into public housing; and also in the area of rent. I believe this reform begins to reward work which, Mr. President, is what we have to start doing in our public policy--rewarding work, promoting family stability, and particularly two-parent households. Another thing that this bill does is removes something called Federal housing preference. I believe that these preferences that look only at rewarding the pathology involved with people are creating zip codes of poverty--and zip codes of pathology. What we need in public housing is a mix among the poor--those who do not want to be poor and are working to get out of poverty and off of welfare, and also those who are now the working poor but whose incomes are so modest that a public housing subsidy actually would reward work; and I believe that is what we are going to do. I am also pleased that in the area of the National Science Foundation the committee's recommendation continues to current funding levels for the National Science Foundation which is responsible for most of the basic research funding and research grant funding provided by the Federal Government, basic research which seems to improve our understanding of the fundamental scientific principles and processes, and provides the knowledge base which enriches our society. It also continues to look at the strategic interests of the United States and how we can promote those. Moreover, the foundation is responsible also for model education and human resource development activities which seeks to stimulate improvement in science and math education. Boy, do we need it. I am glad that the funding will be there to continue to help the science foundation do that. These goals of the agency remain of critical national priority, which hopefully will be sustained despite the impending reductions in discretionary budgets. For FEMA, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, I ask unanimous consent that the figures related thereto be printed in the Record.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Helms amendment to end U.S. participation in the United Nations Population Fund, UNFPA. It will have a disastrous effect on women's health. It would weaken the most effective organization we have for delivering family planning services to the world's poorest women. And it ignores the fact the United States funds are not used for abortions and are not used in China. 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; 20 million of these women will seek unsafe abortions. Some will die, some will be disabled. Only 25 to 35 percent of women in Africa and Asia receive prenatal care. Many of these women are very young--still children themselves. When children have children, they often lose their chance of schooling, a good job, self-sufficiency. Why is the UNFPA so important? Because it has the infrastructure, the expertise, and the personnel to be the most effective program for providing family planning services around the world. It specializes--it does nothing but provide family planning and maternal and child health. And it is in 140 countries--whereas U.S. bilateral programs are only in 56 countries. At a time when foreign aid is being cut to the bone-- UNFPA makes the most use of scarce U.S. foreign aid dollars. We should be clear about what is in the bill--and what isn't. There is no money for abortions or abortion lobbying. Federal funds cannot be used to fund abortions--this bill retains this prohibition. That is why opponents of this amendment include Senators who strongly oppose abortion--because they know that effective family planning actually reduces abortions. There is no money for China in this bill. We all agree that coerced abortions and sterilization are despicable. That is why no United States funds may be spent in China now. The bill retains this policy. United States contributions to UNFPA are segregated from other UNFPA funds; none of the United States funds may be used for China; and the United States contribution would be fully refunded if any United States funds were used for China or for abortions. These provisions ensure that not one cent of United States funds can be used in China. What is in the bill? We simply maintain current law. We continue to provide modest funding for UNFPA. Without U.S. funds--there is no U.S. influence. We would have no say on how and where international family planning services are delivered. In this bill we seek to maintain our modest role in providing family planning to the world's poorest women. I wish we could do more to ensure that all women have access to family planning. But the bill passed by the committee ensures that we continue to do something to help the world's poorest women to control and improve their lives. I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose the Helms amendment.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Brown amendment. This amendment will further United States relations with Pakistan--by allowing for cooperative programs on counternarcotics and counterterror- ism--and by resolving a longstanding dispute over the delivery of military hardware. I understand the concerns of opponents of this amendment--and I share some of them. There is no more important issue in South Asia than nuclear proliferation. But I believe that this issue is hindering our efforts to build strong ties with Pakistan--and that strong relations with Pakistan are crucial to improving our security and furthering our interests in South Asia. I also believe that we need to show support for the current Government of Pakistan. Prime Minister Bhutto is a woman of great courage. She has endured arrest, imprisonment, and exile. She has worked to transform Pakistan from a military dictatorship to a parliamentary democracy. The Prime Minister has been courageous in her efforts to build close ties to the West. Under her leadership, Pakistan has proven to be a valuable ally in combatting terrorism and in stemming international flow of illegal drugs. She has been liberalizing the economy and opening it up to foreign trade and investment. It has come to the point where this issue is clouding all others. Improved human rights, nonproliferation and greater trade and investment are held hostage to this largely symbolic issue. So I will support the Brown amendment. The Pressler amendment will still stand--and it should. Pakistan will not receive the F-16's. But by passing the Brown amendment, we will remove an impediment to our relations with Pakistan--and we will be able to focus on improving security in South Asia.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, it is with reluctance that I rise in support of the welfare legislation which the Senate is about to pass. I have serious reservations about many aspects of the bill as it now stands, not the least of which is the ability of States to address the needs of poor children during periods of recession or economic downturns. Having said that, I believe that the modifications adopted in the agreement between the Democratic and Republican Leaders begin to move this bill in the right direction. Compared to legislation passed by the House earlier this year, it is substantially more responsible and in that sense, more likely to succeed. First, the bill provides for an additional $3 billion for child care for those moving from welfare to work. We should expect those people on welfare to go to work. But to do so, we must give them the tools to go to work. And child care is the most significant problem young mothers face as they try to move into the work force. Second, the bill now requires States to maintain a safety net for poor children through the so-called maintenance-of-effort requirement. As a result, States must continue to spend at least 80 percent of their current welfare spending for the next 5 years. This will help ensure States go the extra mile to move people from welfare to work, rather than simply forcing recipients off of the rolls with no chance for employment. Third, the bill does not include a job training block grant that could have siphoned off precious dollars used to help retrain victims of foreign competition, base and plant closings, or the negative effects of corporate downsizing. Fourth, the bill creates a very modest contingency grant fund of $1 billion which States could tap to deal with increased need due to the effects of a recession or population growth. In addition to these provisions, the bill incorporates much of the Democratic Work First proposal, S. 1117, in several key areas. Teen Pregnancy: The bill includes the tough stay-at-home and stay-in- school provisions of the Work First bill. It also makes $150 million available as seed money for second chance homes, locally-based, supervised group homes for teen-age mothers which have been popularized by the Democratic Leadership Council. Private sector work bonus: The bill also contains a bonus pool of funds that will be awarded, in part, on the basis of States' success at moving welfare recipients into private sector work. Parent empowerment contract: The final bill has a requirement for a parent empowerment contract that welfare recipients would have to sign once they sign up for benefits. This contract obligates them to take charge of their own lives, commit to acting as responsible parents, and undertake an intensive job search--all designed to move them from welfare to work. Work requirements: Finally, the bill includes provisions of the work first bill that tell States they should do everything they can to be moving welfare recipients into the work force as quickly as possible, with the expectation that the period for a transition from welfare to work should be approximately 6 months. Having announced my support for this measure, albeit with some great reservations, I want the conferees on this bill to know that I will not support any conference report that moves in any significant and substantial way toward the punitive and harsh proposals in the House- passed welfare bill. If the conference agreement contains a mandatory family cap, or arbitrarily cuts off benefits for young women, I will oppose it. If it modifies the child care or maintenance of effort provisions now in the Senate bill, I will not support it. If it has no means for States to cope with economic downturns, I will withdraw my endorsement. If it moves to block grants for foster care and adoption assistance, for food stamps or child nutrition programs, this Senator will cast a ``no'' vote on that conference report. I hope that the Senate framework will emerge from the conference committee so that we can have bipartisan welfare reform this year. But if not, this Senator will be on this floor later this year fighting to stop a bad bill from getting enacted. information technology and welfare reform

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I introduce an important piece of legislation called the Federal Employee Compensation Protection Act. With a budget stalemate looming ahead, I think it is crucial that we keep our faith with Federal employees. The Mikulski-Sarbanes legislation will keep that faith by protecting 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. They are some of the most dedicated and hard-working people in America today. These employees have devoted their careers and lives to public service, and they should not be used as pawns in a game of political brinkmanship. Federal employees have already endured their fair share of hardship this year. Downsizing, diet COLA's, attacks on pensions and health benefits, and now the threat of unpaid furloughs have damaged morale at nearly every Federal agency. This assault must stop Mr. President. We cannot continue to denigrate and downgrade Federal employees and at the same time expect Government to work better. I urge my colleagues to support the Mikulski-Sarbanes legislation and work to prevent this train wreck from happening. We have a contract with our Federal employees, and we should encourage their dedication by ensuring that the contract is honored and their pay and benefits are not put in jeopardy.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I introduce an important piece of legislation called the Federal Employee Compensation Protection Act. With a budget stalemate looming ahead, I think it is crucial that we keep our faith with Federal employees. The Mikulski-Sarbanes legislation will keep that faith by protecting 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. They are some of the most dedicated and hard-working people in America today. These employees have devoted their careers and lives to public service, and they should not be used as pawns in a game of political brinkmanship. Federal employees have already endured their fair share of hardship this year. Downsizing, diet COLA's, attacks on pensions and health benefits, and now the threat of unpaid furloughs have damaged morale at nearly every Federal agency. This assault must stop Mr. President. We cannot continue to denigrate and downgrade Federal employees and at the same time expect Government to work better. I urge my colleagues to support the Mikulski-Sarbanes legislation and work to prevent this train wreck from happening. We have a contract with our Federal employees, and we should encourage their dedication by ensuring that the contract is honored and their pay and benefits are not put in jeopardy.