Barbara Mikulski

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Thank you, Mr. President. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. MIKULSKI. I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Ms. MIKULSKI. I urge all of my colleagues to join in the celebration by adopting this resolution.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I would also further like to thank the Republican leader, Senator Dole, for allowing the Senate to have no more votes after 5:30 last night so those Senators who were fortunate enough to have tickets to the game could get there to be there on time, to hear the national anthem sung, and Mr. Ripken's children throw out the ceremonial first ball and to see America as it really ought to be. So I would like to thank the majority leader for the courtesy that he extended to me and to the other Senators. Mr. President, it is with pride and enthusiasm that I rise today to honor a baseball hero, a Maryland hero, and an American hero. Last night Cal Ripken, Jr., broke baseball's endurance record. Cal Ripken played in his 2,131 consecutive ballgame, and in doing so, he broke Lou Gehrig's record in consecutive games played. Yes, Cal surpassed the great Iron Horse, Lou Gehrig, by playing 2,131 straight games. Cal has started every game as a Baltimore Oriole player since May 30, 1982. Now, Cal has achieved many honors already, in his career: Two league Most Valuable Player awards, 13 All-Star games, and two Golden Glove awards. These are just a few of his many accomplishments. His streak is astounding for the character and the commitment it represents. To the people from Maryland like me, the streak means so much more, though, than physical endurance and awards. For us, Cal's effort is a testimony to what someone can achieve when they put team interests ahead of self interests. Cal has not done this just for the sake of breaking a record; he broke that record because that is how he lives. He gives 100 percent every day. Ask any of the hundreds of Baltimore Orioles, who played with him over the last 14 years. Ask Cal's coaches who have seen him rededicate himself every day. Ask any of the thousands and thousands and even millions of Orioles fans for whom he stayed at the ballpark late at night, willing to sign autographs, appear at charity events and be [[Page S 12755]] there for Baltimore and be there for the Orioles. Ask any of the millions of baseball fans who have watched him handle himself with dignity, who have watched him handle himself with gallantry on the playing field and off the playing field. We have watched him also treat others with dignity throughout his career. And, you know, if you ask Cal why he did it, he will tell you he wants to give his team the best chance of winning each and every game, and give the game the good name that it deserves. Mr. President, this celebration is not for Cal alone but also for the man who held that record for so many years. Lou Gehrig represented the same qualities that we look for in Cal Ripken. It is words like masculine virtue, honor, integrity, being with your team, standing up for what is right. The Lou Gehrig record had really helped create a Yankee dynasty, and Lou Gehrig was the major reason for that dynasty. Lou Gehrig was in a class all by himself. He will always be a champion and have a unique place in baseball. It was thought during Gehrig's time that the record would never be broken. However, I believe that if Lou Gehrig were alive today he would admire Cal Ripken and see a man following in his footsteps, putting pain and self-interest aside, and see a man working harder than anyone else. He would see Cal Ripken trying to be the best player and the best person he could be, and I believe that the ``Pride of the Yankees'' would tip his hat in respect for the ``Pride of the Orioles.'' Mr. President, I believe that people in positions of public trust should serve as role models for young people. I believe this includes athletes and public officials. So, today, I am proud to say that some of Cal's greatest achievements have actually come off the field. He is a role model for kids. When so many are teaching the philosophy of ``me, only,'' he represents the philosophy of ``we, together.'' Also, he represents the philosophy of giving your time to your community. His efforts at raising financial resources to fight pediatric cancer at Johns Hopkins--on the night that he tied the Gehrig record, Baltimore raised over $1 million to give to Johns Hopkins for research on the Lou Gehrig disease. That is what Cal Ripken is. And, most important, Cal is a loving father, husband and son. It is fair to say that the streak does not end when Cal steps off the field. The field is only where it begins. So on behalf of all Marylanders and the Nation's baseball fans, I want to congratulate Cal Ripken for his achievement. Maryland and America are proud of him. Today is Cal's day. And in Baltimore and in his hometown of Aberdeen, it is ``Calleluia Day.'' So to commemorate his record, I am submitting this Senate resolution along with my colleagues to honor this remarkable achievement.

Ms. MIKULSKI. I thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Arizona for yielding. He knows why I rise on the Senate floor today. It is because, in behalf of myself and Senator Sarbanes, as well as our colleagues from the other side of the Potomac, Senators Warner and Robb, I send to the desk a resolution congratulating Cal Ripken, Jr., on the occasion of breaking the Major League baseball record for consecutive games played, and I now ask for its immediate consideration.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, it is with enthusiasm I rise to support the Democratic alternative on welfare reform. I support it with enthusiasm because it is firm on work, provides a safety net for children, brings men back into the picture in terms of child support and child rearing, and at the same time provides State flexibility and administrative simplification. Mr. President, I am the Senate's only professionally trained social worker. Before elected to public office, my life's work was moving people from welfare to work, one step at a time, each step leading to the next step, practicing the principles of tough love. This is the eighth version of welfare reform that I have been through as a foster care worker, as a child abuse and neglect worker, a city councilwoman, Congresswoman, and now U.S. Senator. Each of those previous efforts in times have failed both under Democratic Presidents and under Republican Presidents. It failed for two reasons. One, each reform effort was based on old economic realities, and, second, reform did not provide tools for the people to move from welfare to work, to help them get off welfare and stay off welfare. I believe that welfare should be not a way of life but a way to a better life. Everyone agrees that today's welfare system is a mess. The people who are on welfare say it is a mess. The people who pay for welfare say it is a mess. It is time we fix the system. Middle-class Americans want the poor to work as hard at getting off welfare as they themselves do at staying middle class. The American people want real reform that promotes work, two-parent families, and personal responsibility. That is what the Democratic alternative is all about. We give help to those who practice self-help. Democrats have been the party of sweat equity and have a real plan for work. Republicans have a plan that only talks about work and can not really achieve it. Democrats have produced a welfare plan that is about real work, and we call it Work First because it does put work first. But it does not make children second class. Under our plan, from the day someone comes into a welfare office, they must focus on getting a job and keeping a job and being able to raise their family. How do we do this? Well, first, we abolish AFDC. We create a temporary employment assistance program. We change the culture of welfare offices from eligibility workers to being empowerment workers. Instead of only fussbudgeting over eligibility rules, social workers now become empowerment workers to sit down with welfare applicants to do a job readiness assessment on what it takes to move them to a job, stay on a job, and ensure that their children's education and health needs are being met. Everyone must sign a parent empowerment contract within 2 weeks of entering the welfare system. It is an individualized plan to get a job. The failure of individuals to sign that contract means they cannot get benefits. Everyone must undertake an immediate and intensive job search once they have signed that contract. We believe the best job training is on the job. Your first job leads you to the next job. Each time you climb a little bit further out of poverty and at the same time we reward that effort. Yes, this is a tough plan with tough requirements. It expects responsibility from welfare recipients. Everyone must do something for benefits. If you do not sign the contract, you lose the benefits. If you refuse to accept a job that is offered, you lose the benefits. If, after 2 years of assistance, you do not have a job in the private sector, then one must be provided for you in the public sector. No adult can get benefits for more than 5 years in their adult lifetime, but if you are a minor, you are able to stay in school and receive benefits. So, yes, we Democrats are very tough on work. Everyone must work. Assistance is time limited and everyone must do something for benefits. If you do not abide by the contract, then you lose your benefits. What else do we do? We provide a safety net for children. We not only want you to be job ready and work force ready, we want you to be a responsible parent. We want you to be able to ensure that as part of getting your benefits, your children are in school and that they are receiving health care. Once you do go to work, we will not abandon you. We want to make sure that a dollar's worth of work is worth a dollar's worth of welfare, and while you are working at a minimum wage, trying to better yourself, we will provide a safety net for child care for your children, nutritional benefits will continue, and so will health care. We want to be sure that while you are trying to help yourself, we are helping your children grow into responsible adults. I do not mind telling people that they must work because I do not mind telling them that they will not only have the tools to go to work, but that there will be a safety net for children. This is what the Republican bill does not do. It does not look at the day-to-day lives of real people and ask what is needed to get that person into a job. People we are telling to go to work are not going to be in high-paid, high-technology jobs. We know that that mother who wants to sign a contract that requires her to work will be on the edge when it comes to paying the bills. She does not have a mother or an aunt or a next door neighbor to watch her kids. She needs help with child care to move into the work force. The Republican bill does not provide enough money to pay for real child care. Suppose that mother lives in suburban Maryland or Baltimore city or the rural parts of my State? She does the right thing; she gets about an entry-level, minimum-wage job. She is going to make about $9,000 a year, but will have no benefits. She might take home, after Social Security taxes, $175 a week. But if her child care costs her $125 a week, that leaves her $50 a week for rent, food, and clothing. So that means, under the Republican welfare bill, it is like jumping off of a [[Page S 12688]] cliff into the abyss of further and further poverty. Our bill wants to help people move to a better life. The Republican bill will push them into poverty through its harsh, punitive approach. How do we expect this woman to support a family on $50 a week? There would be no incentive to do that. Welfare reform is about ending the cycle of poverty and the culture of poverty. Ending the cycle of poverty is an economic challenge. It means helping create jobs in this country and then making sure that our country is work force ready and that welfare recipients are job ready. But it also must end the culture of poverty, and that is about personal responsibility, that is about bringing men back into the picture, that is about tough child support, saying that if you have a child, you should support that child and rear that child. We believe that the way families will move out of poverty is the way families move to the middle class, by bringing men back into the picture, having two-parent households, by ensuring that there are no penalties to marriage, to families, or to going to work. So, Mr. President, that is what the Democratic alternative is. That is why I support it with the enthusiasm that I do.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise to offer my best wishes to our colleague, Senator Claiborne Pell. I know that many of my colleagues have already spoken eloquently about Senator Pell and his accomplishments. But, I wanted to express my gratitude for what Senator Pell has meant to me, to foreign policy and to the creation of an opportunity structure for the students of this country. For me, Senator Pell serves as a model for commitment and conviction. He's been committed to the people of Rhode Island for 36 years. That kind of commitment is hard to find. The contributions he's made over that time are enormous and should empower all Americans to work hard for what they believe in. Mr. President, Senator Pell has been actively involved in foreign affairs. As the senior Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee since 1981, he helped create the international institutions that helped us to win the cold war. And he's been a leader in the effort to adapt these institutions to meet the challenges of the post-cold-war effort. He was instrumental in crafting arms control treaties and has been one of the Senate's strongest and most consistent voices for human rights throughout the world. But, I probably know him best for his work as a member of the Labor Committee. He's been a pioneer for education and has made an enormous contribution to create an opportunity ladder for all Americans through Pell grants. Fifty-four million people have been educated through Pell grants. That's a lot of people. That's a lot of young minds and a lot of Maryland students who can now have access to the American dream. Students and their parents are always worried about how they will pay for education. Senator Pell made it possible. He's been there to make sure our education needs were being met and that this Nation's students knew they had a friend in the U.S. Senate. He's been a voice for students who would have been left out and left behind. And he's been a voice for those who had no voice. This kind of contribution cannot be truly appreciated on a resume or on a list of legislative accomplishments. It can only be seen in the opportunity that others now have to create a better life for themselves and their families; and in turn, they will contribute to their communities and their country. I want to thank Senator Pell for what he has meant to the Nation, to foreign policy, and to the students of this country. We are blessed to have his legacy. Mr. JOHNSTON addressed the Chair.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise as an original cosponsor and strong supporter of the Maritime Security Act of 1995. Mr. President, I support this legislation because I believe we need a strong U.S. merchant fleet for our military security and our economic competitiveness. This legislation creates a Maritime Security Program to retain an active, privately owned U.S.-flag and U.S.-crewed vessel presence in our Nation's foreign commerce and military security. In times of national emergency, there is no substitute for a strong U.S. merchant fleet. 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 a national crisis. They have been patriots--reliable, consistent, and faithful. Without Americans manning the supply ships, we cannot guarantee that the U.S. military will be able to do its job. Without some form of Government action, the United States will be forced to be almost totally reliant on foreign-flag vessels for international transportation and military sealift. Some say it is OK to rely on the good will of foreigners. But if we put our military materials under a foreign flag, then they would have command over the supplies necessary to back our troops. We also need a U.S.-flag merchant marine to preserve our historic presence as a global economic power moving goods on the high seas. Most of all, we need American men and women to run those ships. This legislation is the most cost-effective way of guaranteeing that the merchant marine is there when we need it. It is no secret that threats to national security are increasingly waged in the economic sphere. We are constantly hearing of predatory practices, dumping, and poaching. Without a U.S. presence on the high seas, who is to say that U.S. goods would not be victimized by foreign shipping companies loyal to the commercial interests in their own countries. Higher rates? Slower delivery? I think it is possible. Finally, I believe in public sector-private sector cooperation to encourage Government savings. This program gives a lot of bang for a buck. It provides a service to the Department of Defense for less than if they did it in house. It also guarantees a loyalty that would not be there if they went foreign. Mr. President, this legislation is smart, it is strategic, and it makes sense. I wholeheartedly endorse this bill and I stand by our merchant mariners who never gave up the ship.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, Next week we mark the 48th anniversary of the Independence of India. I rise today to pay tribute to the proud legacy and bright future of the people of India and of the Indian community in the United States. Indian patriots won independence in 1947, after long years of struggle and sacrifice. A new generation of Indians has inherited their courage--a generation dedicated to safeguarding and enlarging the gains of freedom both in India and in the United States. The Indian people are committed to democracy, development, international cooperation and the advancement of human rights. India is also committed to economic growth and reform. The Indian Community has greatly enriched the United States. They have achieved the highest levels of education; founded philanthropic, religious, and cultural organizations; pioneered scientific advances; and presented an informed voice to the American political process. The contributions of individual Americans of Indian descent--in business, medicine, academia and government--is extraordinary. On Indian Independence Day, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring the history and accomplishments of the Indian people --and in working toward continued friendship and cooperation between India and the United States.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I want to share with my colleagues my pride in the accomplishments of Maryland's athletes in the recent Olympic Festival. As my colleagues know, the Olympic Festival is one of the premiere events for Olympic-caliber athletes. Many of the more than 3,500 American athletes who participated in the festival will go on to compete in next year's summer Olympics in Atlanta and in the winter games in Nagano, Japan. They truly are America's finest. I am proud to note that two dozen Maryland athletes were awarded gold medals. I salute them for their dedication to their sport and to the pursuit of excellence. I look forward to hearing of their future achievements. The names of Maryland's gold medal winners follow: Maryland's Gold Medal Winners Peggy Boutillier of Baltimore, gold medal in field hockey. Sonia Chase of Baltimore, gold medal in basketball. John Criscione of Baltimore, gold medal in canoe/kayak-- slalom, c-2 team. Dana Rucker of Baltimore, gold medal in boxing-- middleweight. Jennifer Hearn of Bethesda, gold medal in canoe/kayak-- slalom, k-1 team. William Hearn of Bethesda, gold medal in canoe/kayak-- slalom, c-1 team. Steven Jennings of Bethesda, gold medal in field hockey. Brian Parsons of Bethesda, gold medal in canoe/kayak-- slalom, k-1 team. Brent Wiesel of Bethesda, gold medal in canoe/kayak-- slalom, k-1 team. David Briles Jr. of Bowie, gold medal in soccer. Clint Peay of Columbia, gold medal in soccer. Zach Thornton of Edgewood, gold medal in soccer. Carolyn Schwarz of Gaithersburg, gold medal in field hockey. Kendra Cameron of Gambrills, gold medal in bowling--team. Catherine Hearn of Garrett Park, gold medal in canoe/ kayak--slalom, k-1 team. Paul Dulebohn of Germantown, gold medal in figure skating-- pairs. Louis Bullock of Laurel, gold medal in basketball. Tricia Burdt of Olney, gold medal in field hockey. Joseph Criscione of Perry Hall, gold medal in canoe/kayak-- slalom, c-2 team. Kira Orr of Poolesville, gold medal in basketball. Julie I-Wei Lu of Potomac, gold medal in table tennis. Todd Sweeris of Rockville, gold medal in table tennis, singles. Anthony Wood of Rockville, gold medal in soccer. Amy Jun Feng of Wheaton, gold medal in table tennis-- doubles and singles.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Yes.

Ms. MIKULSKI. I thank the Chair. It is with great enthusiasm that I rise to support the Work First Act, the Democratic alternative on welfare reform. I support it with enthusiasm because it is firm on work, provides a safety net for children, brings men back into the family for both child support and child rearing, and at the same time provides State flexibility and administrative simplification. Mr. President, I am the Senate's only professionally trained social worker. Before elected to public office, my life's work was moving people from welfare to work, one step at a time, each step leading to the next step, practicing the principles of tough love. This is the eighth version of welfare reform that I have been through--as a foster care worker, as a child abuse and neglect worker, a city councilwoman, a Congresswoman, and now a U.S. Senator. Each of those previous efforts in times have failed both under Democratic Presidents and under Republican Presidents. It failed for two reasons. One, each reform effort was based on old economic realities, and, second, reform did not provide tools for people to move from welfare to work--to help them get off welfare and stay off welfare. I believe that welfare should be not a way of life, but a way to a better life. Everyone agrees that today's welfare system is a mess. The people who are on welfare say it is a mess. The people who pay for welfare say it is a mess. It is time we fix the system. Middle-class Americans want the poor to work as hard at getting off welfare as they themselves do at staying middle class. The American people want real reform that promotes work, two-parent families and personal responsibility. That is what the Democratic Work First alternative is all about. We give help to those who practice self-help. Democrats have been the party of sweat equity and in our Work First bill have a real plan for work. Republicans have a plan that only talks about work, but does not really achieve it. Democrats have produced a welfare plan that is about real work, not make work. That's why we call our bill ``Work First,'' because it does put work first. At the same time, it does not make children second class. Under our plan, from the day someone comes into a welfare office, they must focus on getting a job and keeping it, and work at raising their family. How do we do this under the Work First plan? First, we abolish AFDC. In its place, we create a program of temporary employment assistance. Second, we change the culture of welfare offices--moving welfare workers from eligibility workers to being empowerment workers. Social workers are now forced to fussbudget over eligibility rules. Under the Work First Act, social workers now become empowerment workers. They sit down on day one with welfare applicants to do a job readiness assessment. So they can find out what it takes to move a person to a job, stay on a job, and ensure that their children's education and health needs are being met. Third, everyone must sign a parent empowerment contract within 2 weeks of entering the welfare system. It is an individualized plan to get a job. The failure of individuals to sign that contract means they cannot get benefits. Fourth, everyone must undertake an immediate and intensive job search once they have signed that contract. We believe the best job training is on the job. Your first job leads you to the next job. Each time you climb a little bit further out of poverty, up the ladder of opportunity, and at the same time we reward that effort. Yes, this is a tough plan with tough requirements. It expects responsibility from welfare recipients. Everyone must do something for benefits. If you do not sign the contract, you lose your benefits. If you refuse to accept a job that is offered, you lose benefits. If, after 2 years of assistance, you do not have a job in the private sector, then one must be provided for you in the public sector. No adult can get benefits for more than 5 years in their adult lifetime. If you are a minor, the 5-year limit does not apply, so long as you are able to stay in school and receive benefits. So, yes, we Democrats are very tough on work. Everyone must work. Assistance is time limited and everyone must do something for benefits. If you do not abide by the contract, then you lose your benefits. What else do we do under the Work First plan? We provide a safety net for children. We not only want you to be job ready and work-force ready, we want you to be a responsible parent. That's why we require parents, as a condition of receiving benefits, that you make sure your children are in school and that they are receiving proper health care. Once you do go to work, under the Work First plan we will not abandon you. We want to make sure that a dollar's worth of work is worth a dollar's worth of welfare. While you are working at a minimum wage, trying to better yourself, we will provide a safety net--child care for your children, continued nutritional benefits, and health care. We want to be sure that while you are trying to help yourself, we are helping your children grow into responsible adults. I do not mind telling people that they must work. Because in asking them to take that step, our Work First plan makes sure they have the tools to go to work and that there will be a safety net for their children. Unfortunately, the proposed Republican welfare bill does none of these things. It does not look at the day-to-day lives of real people and ask what is needed to get that person into a job. The people we are telling to go to work are not going to be in high-paid, high-tech jobs. We know that mother who wants to sign a contract that requires her to work will be on the edge when it comes to paying the bills. We know that she will have serious problems with finding affordable and quality child care unless she has a mother or an aunt or a next door neighbor to watch her kids. The Republican bill does not provide enough money to pay for real child care. Suppose that mother lives in suburban Maryland or Baltimore City or the rural parts of my State? She does the right thing; she gets an entry-level, minimum-wage job. She is going to make about $9,000 a year, but will have no benefits. She might take home, after Social Security taxes, $175 a week. But if her child care costs her $125 a week, that leaves her $50 a week for rent, food, and clothing. How do we expect this woman to support a family on $50 a week? There would be no incentive to do that. So that means, under the Republican welfare bill, she must jump off of a cliff into the abyss of further and further poverty. Where moving to work puts her at an economic disadvantage. The Democratic bill wants to help people move to a better life. The Republican bill will push them into poverty through its harsh, punitive approach. Welfare reform is about ending the cycle of poverty and the culture of poverty. And the Democratic Work First plan will tackle both. Ending the cycle of poverty is an economic challenge. It means helping create jobs in this country and then making sure that our country is work-force ready and that welfare recipients are ready to be part of our new economy. But welfare reform must also end the culture of poverty, and that is about personal responsibility. It is about bringing men back into the picture. It is about tough child support, saying that if you have got the stuff to have a child, you should have the stuff to support that child and rear that child. We believe that the way families will move out of poverty is the way families move to the middle class--by bringing men back into the picture, having two-parent households, ensuring that there are no penalties to marriage, or to families going to work. So, Mr. President, Democrats in this debate are firm on work and personal [[Page S 11829]] responsibility. We believe that the Democratic welfare reform alternative will bring about these results. That is why I support it with the enthusiasm that I do. I yield back the floor. Mr. HELMS addressed the Chair.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, today I introduce the Hazardous Occupations Retirement Benefits Act of 1995. This legislation will grant an early retirement package for revenue officers of the Internal Revenue Service, customs inspectors of the U.S. Customs Service, and immigration inspectors of the Immigration and Naturalization Service. Under current law, with the exception of the groups listed in this legislation, all Federal law enforcement officers and firefighters are eligible to retire at age 50 with 20 years of Federal service. The legislation will amend the current law and finally grant the same 20- year retirement to these members of the Internal Revenue Service, Customs Service, and Immigration and Naturalization Service. The employees under this bill have very hazardous, physically taxing occupations, and it is in the public's interest to tenure a young and competent work force in these jobs. The need for a 20-year retirement benefit for inspectors of the Customs Service is easily apparent. These employees are the country's first line of defense against terrorism and the smuggling of illegal drugs at our borders. They have the authority to apprehend those engaged in such activities and carry a firearm on the job. They are responsible for the majority of arrests performed by Customs Service employees. In 1994, inspectors of the Customs Service seized 204,000 pounds of cocaine, 2,600 pounds of heroin, and 559,000 pounds of marijuana. They are required to undergo the same law enforcement training as all other law enforcement personnel. These employees face multiple challenges. They confront leading criminals in the drug war, organized crime figures, and increasingly sophisticated white-collar criminals. Revenue officers struggle with heavy workloads and a high rate of job stress, resulting in a variety of physical and mental symptoms. Many IRS employees must employ pseudonyms to hide their identity because of the great threat to their personal safety. The Internal Revenue Service recently put out a manual for their employees entitled: ``Assaults and Threats: A Guide to Your Personal Safety'' to help employees respond to hostile situations. The document advises IRS employees how to handle on-the-job assaults, abuse, threatening telephone calls, and other menacing situations. Mr. President, this legislation is cost effective. Any cost that is created by this act is more than offset by savings in training costs and increased revenue collection. A 20-year retirement bill for these employees will reduce turnover, increase yield, decrease employee recruitment and development costs, and enhance the retention of a well- trained and experienced work force. I urge my colleagues to join me again in this Congress in expressing support for this bill and finally getting it enacted. This bill will improve the effectiveness of our inspector and revenue officer work force to ensure the integrity of our borders and proper collection of the taxes and duties owed to the Federal Government. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Wisconsin, Senator Feingold.

Ms. MIKULSKI. The Senator from Indiana is here. I do not know whether the Senator from Oklahoma wants to yield to him.

Ms. MIKULSKI. I yield to the Senator from Nebraska, the ranking minority floor manager, whatever time he needs.

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

Ms. MIKULSKI. I yield 2 minutes with pleasure to the Senator from California.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, we are now coming to the end of this debate. I know we have only a few minutes. This is where good and honorable people can differ. I ask the Senator from Oklahoma, on his idea of modifying his rape and incest amendment, if he would also add the language medically necessary?

Ms. MIKULSKI. Later this afternoon I will offer that amendment and we will be able to expound on what medically necessary means. In conclusion, I believe Federal employees should have the same right to determine what is necessary or appropriate for their health as private sector employees do. Restrictions ignore the reality of women's lives. Half of all pregnancies are unplanned, contraceptive failure, and also there are medically appropriate and medically necessary circumstances beyond rape and incest that necessitate the performance of an abortion. This is not about what is decided for coverage under the Federal employees. It is not about what is decided but who decides. The principle of self-determination, freedom, reproductive, and otherwise, personal responsibility, the prohibitions on Federal health insurance benefits violates all these principles. I urge my colleagues to defeat the amendment that is pending. I believe that the issue, the fundamental issue pending before us, is discrimination against women. Restrictions on primary health care services, especially where those restrictions apply only to services required by a particular group--in this case, women--does constitute discrimination. Striking the committee amendment would perpetuate discrimination against women employees and their dependents. Let us be clear about what funding restrictions for Federal health insurance means. It means women who work for the Federal Government or receive health insurance benefits from the Federal Government will be denied the same coverage for abortion as they would receive if they worked in the private sector, that private sector that receives tax subsidies, which is really a form of taxpayers' money, to provide that private sector insurance. It means that women receiving the health insurance coverage through the Federal Government will be denied their basic constitutional protection for obtaining an abortion under the health insurance program in which they pay for their services. It would mean that women who receive their health care coverage through the Federal Government will continue to get second-class health care. Congress should not micromanage the Federal employees benefit programs, and the Congress of the United States should not put itself between a woman and her physician on what is determined to be medically necessary or medically appropriate. I urge the defeat of the amendment.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Ms. MIKULSKI. A vote ``aye'' would be to retain the position of the Senator from Maryland and to retain the committee amendment that was offered by Senator Shelby and is current law.

Ms. MIKULSKI. For this portion of the debate on this amendment, we have concluded it. I thank all of my colleagues who spoke, the Democratic women of the Senate, I thank the good men of the Senate who support a woman's right to choose, and I thank our Republican colleagues, because I think we have demonstrated that our position is a bipartisan position and a right position.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. For a social reason, possibly an economic reason. What I use, and what I believe the physicians also use, is the dictionary definition of ``necessary'': that which is essential, indispensable, or requisite in order to save the health of the mother.

Ms. MIKULSKI. I know we are waiting for Senator Feinstein. Did Senator Murray have any other remarks that she wished to amplify? I say to the Senator from Oklahoma, I note that the other Senator from Oklahoma wished to speak. I will reserve what time I have remaining.