Barbara Mikulski

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Thank you very much. I thank the Senator who has sponsored the resolution for yielding me this time. I rise to speak in favor of the Boxer resolution. The purpose of this resolution states: ``To instruct the Select Committee on Ethics of the Senate to hold hearings on certain allegations of wrongdoings by Members of the Senate.'' I want to commend Senator Boxer for her efforts in pursuing this issue. Senator Boxer has been persistent and clear. She says we must hold public hearings in order to defend the integrity of the U.S. Senate and follow its historic precedent. I agree with her purpose. I regret that some have made Senator Boxer the issue. Senator Boxer is not the issue. And I would like to compliment Senator Boxer on her stamina and on her strength in resisting the abuse that has been hurled at her because she wishes to exercise her prerogative as a Senator and offer legislation on the floor. I compliment her that she refused to have her voice silenced on behalf of defending the women who have been the victims in this ethics proceeding. As we both know, whenever women are assaulted, battered, they themselves are always made to look like they are the problem rather than the victim. So I thank Senator Boxer. I thank her for not having her voice silenced, and I thank her for offering an amendment to ensure that the voices of the women are not silenced. And I say that because as we look at what has been happening, we now see that as a Member--as it currently stands, the voices of the women will be silenced. As a member of the Ethics Committee, I voted to support public hearings in the Packwood case. Unfortunately, that motion failed on a 3 to 3 vote, strictly on party lines. I wanted public hearings to occur because I felt it was important for the honor and integrity of the U.S. Senate. I also voted to release all relevant information to the public as soon as physically possible. Let me clarify that this release of information is the usual practice of the Ethics Committee. It is neither unusual nor is it unprecedented. It is the committee's customary practice that this type of information has been released to the public in the seven major cases in this century--involving Senator Hiram Bingham, Senator Joe McCarthy, Senator Thomas Dodd, Senator Herman Talmadge and Senator Harrison Williams, as well as Senator David Durenberger and Senator Alan Cranston. I want to emphatically state that I do not believe that the release of this information is a substitute for public hearings. I do not believe that it is in lieu of public hearings. And, also, it is not a proxy for public hearings. It is the minimal acceptable form of disclosure. Now, why is this not a substitute for public hearings? As my colleagues know, I am always for public hearings, public hearings to protect the honor of the Senate and because it is important to give voice and value to the charges brought by women. These women are the first actual victims ever to bring complaints against a U.S. Senator to the Ethics Committee. It is the case of first impression. And if we silence them now on the issue of sexual misconduct, will victims ever, ever again bring a charge to the Ethics Committee because they believe they will be treated as the problem or that they will be silenced because of the kind of vote that we saw? I voted for public hearings because I wanted to be sure that women got a fair shake and that they got a fair shake in the U.S. Senate, that, as we know, when again women are ever assaulted, battered, or abused they are told to be silent or there is institutional forums to be silent. I want to assure them that their voices were not silenced, that they were treated with respect and dignity, that their allegations were taken seriously and would have value. I never met these women. I have only heard their stories through depositions, affidavits, and through the summaries of their testimonies. I do not want their stories to be filtered. I also did not have a chance to personally hear the other witnesses, whether it was related to diary tampering or solicitation of jobs for Senator Packwood's wife to have a job to lower the alimony. I did hear Senator Packwood's statements. There has been no opportunity to cross-examine or ask questions of the women or other witnesses in this area of investigation. I did not get to talk to the women. I did not get to talk to the lobbyists that Senator Packwood spoke to about a job for his former wife. I did not get a chance to talk to the woman who has been typing Senator Packwood's diary for all of these years and whether, in fact, there has been diary tampering and why. Because that is the way the committee works. The committee first functions like a grand jury. We listen to the issues and concerns through depositions, through affidavits. And then we come to a conclusion. Is there substantial, credible evidence to present a bill of particulars to the U.S. Senate? We did do that. Now we have to decide whether there is clear and convincing evidence on those allegations to determine the sanctions. Now, how can we decide whether something with a higher standard of evidence is clear and convincing unless we follow the practice that has been done by the Senate in each and every one of those cases? That is the purpose of public hearings. I also believe that the public hearings will help restore the honor and integrity of the U.S. Senate. We all know the American people have little confidence in their elected representatives and little confidence in the institution of Congress. They do not believe that we can police our own. The American people believe that, given a choice, we will always protect our own at the expense of others. They believe we meet in backrooms, behind closed doors, cut the deals, circle the wagons to protect our own. We must demonstrate by our actions this is not so. And this is why we need public hearings. Now, I lived through the Anita Hill debacle. To many, the Senate did not deal fairly with Miss Hill's allegations. The Senate trivialized what Miss Hill had to say. Anita Hill was put on trial and treated very shabbily. She was shamed here in the U.S. Senate. And the institutional behavior of the U.S. Senate raised questions whether this institution could ever deal with allegations related to sexual misconduct. Now, I want the American people to believe that we can act responsibly, and we do that not with words, but with deeds, and the most important deed we can do today is to vote for the Boxer resolution on public hearings. I support public hearings because it will allow all of us, Members of the Senate and the American public, to judge for ourselves what has happened, to show that we can hold hearings that are neither a whitewash nor a witch hunt. No matter what we decide, the full Senate and the American people have a right to know the facts on these cases, a right to know how we arrived at those facts and reached our decisions. And they should have confidence that we have done the right thing. Now, why do the arguments against hearings not hold up? Some say this will be a spectacle. I say it is going to be a spectacle if we do not hold public hearings. No matter what the Senate decides, I believe that there will be a public forum held on this matter.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? When I said there would be a public hearing, even if your amendment is defeated, the women are counting on the U.S. Senate to provide a forum. They have counted on us for 30 months. If, in fact, the Senate rejects that opportunity, and rejects them, I believe that the women will conduct some type of forum themselves--I do not know that. I will reiterate the point that I have never spoken to the women as a member of the Ethics Committee. I have followed the rules of the Ethics Committee and never spoken to those women. They are going to tell their story. I would much rather that they tell their story in an organized format in the Senate than through a series of other forums.

Ms. MIKULSKI. We need to have a fair format, to make sure the format and tone is fair for the victims telling their stories, and a fair format for Senator Packwood. Public hearings are the best way to ensure that there is no spectacle and that all parties are treated fairly. s To say that those hearings will debase and sensationalize the Senate and that the Senate will compete with the O.J. trial--hey, let me say this. No one seems very concerned about the Whitewater hearings debasing the U.S. Senate. No one seems concerned that the Whitewater hearings are debasing the Presidency. No one seems very concerned about debasing the Congress through the Waco hearings. Nobody seems very concerned that at the Waco hearings, one of the purposes is to demean another woman, the Attorney General of the United States. Nobody seemed to be concerned when a Senator stood on one side of the aisle and chanted, ``Where's Bill? Where's Bill?'' No one seemed concerned about the Senate when another Senator stood on the floor and sang ``Old MacDonald Had a Farm,'' concluding with ``oink, oink, oink.'' Well, there is a question about where the barnyard really is. So I think we should stop these arguments that are filled with fallacy. If we want to honor the Senate, let us follow its historic precedents. I think we further debase the Senate if we do not hold these hearings, precisely because citizens have come forward, they believed in us, they believed in the process, and the procedure. This is the first time that citizens have come forward and made statements about misconduct, the first time victims have come and asked us to listen to them, to allow them to tell their story, and this must occur. Let me be clear, a public hearing at this point in the proceedings has been the practice of the Senate. If the Senate does not hold public hearings in this matter, the Senate would deviate from its own precedent. In every case where the Ethics Committee has reached the investigation stage, where the Packwood case now stands, there have been public hearings. Those cases were Senators Tom Dodd, Herman Talmadge, Harrison Williams, David Durenberger, the cases involving Charles Keating--Senators DeConcini, McCain, Riegle, Glenn, and Cranston. Let me be clear that in this case the Ethics Committee found substantial credible evidence of misconduct and has moved to the ``investigation'' stage. This resolution sets forth the committee findings in three areas: Sexual misconduct, diary tampering, and jobs for Mrs. Packwood. Let me remind my colleagues what the committee members found. We found substantial credible evidence that Senator Packwood may have engaged in a pattern of sexual misconduct spanning 20 years, 18 instances involving 17 women. Let me give an example, just so it refreshes everybody's memory. Out of our bill of particulars, we found substantial credible evidence that in the basement of the Capitol, he walked a former staffer into a room, where he grabbed her with both hands in her hair and kissed her, forcing his tongue into her mouth. We also found that in his Senate office in DC, he grabbed a staff member by the shoulders, pushed her down on a couch and kissed her. When the staffer tried to get up, he repeatedly pushed her down. In the Capitol, he grabbed an elevator operator by the shoulders, pushed her to the wall, kissed her on the lips, followed her home, tried to kiss her and elicit her to engage in an intimate relationship. I cannot bring myself to read more of these cases on the floor of the U.S. Senate, but I think if you read the bill of particulars, you will see what this is. Then we find there is a strong possibility that Senator Packwood tampered with his diaries; that he fought the committee 1 year--1 year--and this is why it has taken so long. Then there are the allegations he improperly solicited job offers for his former wife so he could reduce his alimony payments. All I see for the Senate to do is what it has done before, to hold public hearings in a case where we also found substantial credible evidence of misconduct, to then determine what is clear and convincing so we can come to what sanctions we need to recommend to the Senate. Hearings will allow all of us--Members of the Senate and the American public--to judge for ourselves what happened. No matter what we decide, the American people have a right to know how we reached our decision. They should have confidence in us that we did the right thing. As we try to then judge for ourselves what happened in the Packwood matter, know today when this vote is taken, it will be the Senate that will be judged and the criteria will be: Can the Senate police its own? Can it follow its precedent, and can it do its business in an open, public, fair format? Mr. President, I yield the floor. How much time do I have left?

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I want to make clear that at no time during this debate or at any time during my membership on the Ethics Committee have I been critical of the other members of the Ethics Committee or of its current chairman. I believe that the Ethics Committee has conducted itself with honor, meticulousness, and really pursued due diligence. We have an honest disagreement on the issue of public hearings. There is something special about the U.S. Senate. The world views us as the greatest deliberative body. The rules guarantee full and complete opportunity for all concerned parties to speak. We have great pride in the way we protect the rights of the minority. It is that history and tradition that I believe that calls us now, as we get ready to vote, to honor the precedent of public hearings, for cross-examination of witnesses, to resolve discrepancies in testimony, to have a fair format----

Ms. MIKULSKI. I reserve my time for later on in the debate.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Will the Senator from Kentucky yield for a point of clarification? The Senator from Maryland wishes to inform him, the Democratic leader is coming.

Ms. MIKULSKI. A vote here is the right thing to do. It is the senatorial thing to do. It is the American thing to do.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to support the amendment offered by the Senator from Massachusetts, and to support efforts to raise the minimum wage. In recent weeks I have read articles and newspaper editorials concerned about wage stagnation. While profits are up, wages are down. Raising the minimum wage represents the least this Congress can do. Our failure to act to raise the minimum wage will only add to the problem of stagnant wages. No excuse about not being able to fit this issue in our agenda will satisfy workers who are just looking for a break. The bill that is being proposed will raise the minimum wage from its current rate of $4.25 per hour to $4.75 next year and $5.15 per hour in the second year. If we fail to raise the minimum wage beyond the current $4.25 an hour, the buying power of workers earning the minimum will be at its lowest level since 1955--1955. How many people here would be satisfied with 1955 wages? There are those who will argue that the minimum wage doesn't really help families or adult workers, but that is not what the facts tell us. The facts are that over 60 percent of workers receiving the minimum wage are adults. And over one-third of minimum wage earners are the only wage earners in their families. Mr. President, far too many workers are losing ground. Far too many people are working longer and working harder, but their checks are getting smaller. Far too many of our actions this year have ignored the average wage earner. How can we justify keeping the minimum wage at $4.25 an hour in the same year we decide to cut the earned income tax credit? If Congress opposes an increase in the minimum wage and votes to cut this tax credit how can we expect people to get ahead? How can we expect some of these struggling families to stay off the very public assistance programs, which ironically, some Members are trying to cut or eliminate? It is time we returned to the bipartisan support this issue once had. It is time we returned to the spirit of 1989 when only eight Members of the Senate voted against increasing the minimum wage. Let's make a commitment to working men and women all across the country and tell them that hard work will be rewarded and that they can get ahead. Making $5.15 an hour won't make anyone rich, but it may give some people a fair shake.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, today, we celebrate the 30th anniversary of the passage of Medicare by the Congress. Thirty years ago, Members of this body took a courageous step and guaranteed health insurance coverage to seniors and the disabled--regardless of a person's income, regardless of a person's illness. The struggle was not an easy one. In fact, it took 30 years of struggle by Democrats to pass Medicare. Through the unwavering leadership from Presidents Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, and Johnson, Medicare was finally signed into law. What does Medicare mean to the seniors of Maryland and this country? Let me tell you. Earlier this week, I visited senior centers in Maryland. I talked about the 30th anniversary of Medicare. And I listened to the seniors-- who told me what it means to them to have Medicare coverage and of their concerns about the proposed cuts to Medicare. Mr. President, who is going to speak for the senior couple in Catonsville, MD, who do not know if they will be able to afford higher Medicare premiums, particularly given all the out-of-pocket expenses like for prescription drugs that Medicare doesn't even cover? Who is going to speak for the widow I met at the Liberty Road Senior Center in Baltimore County that needs cataract surgery that can save her eyesight and doesn't know if Medicare will be there to pay for it? And, Mr. President, who is going to speak for the sons and daughters of these seniors who after these cuts may be forced to balance the financial demands of helping their parents pay deductibles and copayments for necessary lab and screenings and the financial needs of their own children? Mr. President, I am going to speak out--and speak out loudly and forcibly--for these seniors, their families, and their health care. Medicare is a unique American success story. Let us not turn back the clock on this success. We should not be talking about downsizing and degrading Medicare. On this 30th anniversary, we should be talking about innovations and improvements. I, personally, would like to see a prescription drug benefit and coverage for prostate cancer screenings, and we desperately need a long-term care policy. Instead we are facing cuts that mean seniors will pay significantly more for the privilege of keeping their own doctor or going to the hospital of their choice. That is no choice at all. That is not the American way and that is not what Medicare is about. Medicare is a commitment to America's seniors. Medicare says that in America, if you are over 65 or disabled, no matter what your income, we will stand by your side and you will get the health care you need. I intend to fight to keep this commitment. I intend to keep the ``care'' in Medicare. This year, we are not only celebrating the 30th anniversary of Medicare, but we are also celebrating the 50th anniversary of the end of World War II. Fifty years ago, the Medicare generation organized, mobilized, and saved Western civilization. Now is the time once again, for all of us to organize, mobilize, and save health care for our seniors. Just as in the days of World War II, the GI Joe generation-- the current Medicare generation--hunkered down and was committed to the cause. So must we. I am here on the floor today to tell you that I am committed to the mission and meaning of Medicare. I am ready to fight the good fight. And I am prepared to do whatever is necessary to preserve and protect the health care benefits of seniors in Maryland and throughout this Nation.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, the moral and practical consequences of our actions in Bosnia are on a collision course. Every moral instinct I have tells me to lift the arms embargo of Bosnia. I share the anger, frustration and pain that inspired this amendment. We must finally recognize that the U.N. peacekeeping mission has failed. They cannot keep the peace in a land where there is no peace. Despite their bravery, despite their good intentions --they are not able to protect Bosnian civilians--they are not even able to protect themselves. As a Polish-American, I see what is happening in Bosnia, and I think of what happened to Poland in the Second World War. Polish patriots on horseback, armed only with swords, faced German tanks and German howitzers. The world watched but did nothing. And as Hitler exterminated the Jews, most of the world stood by. This passivity amounted to acquiescence. We are showing the acquiescence today with our meaningless U.N. resolutions and our empty threats. What is the result of our failure? It is mothers and children running for their lives from so called safe havens. It is the young woman who took her own life after being forced from her home and separated from her family. It is the food and medicine convoys prevented from getting to those in need. It is the Serb gunfire that is continually targeted toward civilians. And it is the rape and torture that has been going on for 3 years. This barbarism is a crime against humanity. It is very painful to be reminded of the inhumanity that man is capable of. It is a shame on all of us. What history does not teach us, our principles should. And there is no more fundamental principle than the right to self-defense. We never should have imposed an arms embargo on Bosnia. So my heart tells me to lift the embargo. I want the Serbs to pay for their barbarism. If we cannot or will not defend the Bosnian people-- let us stop pretending--let us lift the embargo, let us let them defend themselves. But, Mr. President, I cannot vote to take this course unless I also consider the consequences that we and the Bosnian people will face down the road. What happens after we lift the embargo? Most people think that the Bosnian people will then be able to defend themselves--and that Americans would stay out of the war. But both of these points are wrong. Just allowing the Bosnians to arm will not make it happen. According to our military leaders, it will take months to sufficiently arm and train the Bosnian army. In the meantime, the Bosnian people will be defenseless. The Serbs will not wait. The moment we lift the embargo, the Serbs will make a land grab--not just into the eastern enclaves, but also into central Bosnia. Their brutality could spread across all of Bosnia. So by lifting the embargo, we could make things a great deal worse for the people we so want to help. In addition, lifting the arms embargo will guarantee that United States troops will be on the ground in Bosnia. They would be in rough terrain, surrounded by hostile forces. Not defending the Bosnian people--but defending the U.N. peacekeepers as they make their retreat. There could be American casualties and there could be American POW's. And we will have done nothing to protect the Bosnian people. While most people in this body support lifting the embargo--how many support sending U.S. troops? And how many of us are willing to take responsibility for the carnage that could occur if we lift the embargo and leave the unarmed Bosnians to fend for themselves? We need to consider the moral consequences of our action. In any military action abroad, I believe that must always have clear criteria and objectives that answer three important questions: Why are we there? What keeps us there? And what gets us out? Without answers to these questions, we cannot send U.S. troops into battle. And we have no such answers in Bosnia. I am not saying that we should stick with the status quo. That has brought the Bosnians nothing but misery. I had hoped that in the London meetings last weekend that the allies would reach consensus on clear, decisive and immediate action. We did not go as far as we should have. We did not end, once and for all, the dual key policy that puts U.N. bureaucrats in control of military decisions. But NATO policy does seem to be shifting. We are at least preparing for more robust and meaningful retaliation for Serb aggression and for substantial and decisive use of NATO air power. I believe that we must give this new policy a chance to succeed. So I will oppose the Dole resolution. This is a heart-wrenching decision for me. As I have said, every instinct I have tells me to lift the embargo. But I believe that we should not go it alone unless we are willing to act alone--unless we are willing to send in our troops to save Bosnia from the carnage that could occur. We must look at the moral and practical consequences of our action.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, on Wednesday, July 19, the children of Maryland lost a distinguished educator. African-Americans in Maryland lost an impassioned, tireless and eloquent leader. All of us who thirst for justice and equality lost an enormously distinguished champion. And, I lost a good friend. I refer, Mr. President, to the passing of Balitimore's Dr. Samuel L. Banks. My relationship with Dr. Banks was one of long-standing, dating back to my earliest days as a grassroots organizer and community activist. Dr. Banks and I debated one another on many occasions. I always felt that we not only debated each other but delighted each other. No community ever had a more persuasive, persistent and effective advocate than did Baltimore's African-American community in Dr. Banks. He had a rare and wonderful gift for language and communication. He never failed to awe me with his unique ability to express the most content-rich views in the most vivid of images. Dr. Banks was a fighter for those left out and left behind. He was a mighty warrior for good. In an illustrious career of over 30 years as a teacher and Administrator in Baltimore City public schools, he implemented his vision of education as a tool of empowerment. His loss is a deep tragedy for his family and friends. My condolences go out to all his loved ones. But his passing is also a tremendous loss for the children of Maryland. I wish we had a hundred--a thousand--Dr. Banks in Baltimore and in communities throughout Maryland and, indeed, the country. We desperately need more people with his dedication and vision. So, all of us will miss him greatly. I hope, though, that when he entered the gates of Paradise, he was greeted by Martin Luther King, Jr., Sojourner Truth, Frederick Douglass and Mary McLeod Bethuse. And wouldn't we all like to sit there and listen to that heavenly choir. Mr. President, I would like to share with my colleagues an article and an editorial tribute from the Sun which sum up much of what made Dr. Samuel Banks such a remarkable figure, and ask that they be printed in the Record. The articles follow: [From the Baltimore Sun, July 20, 1995] Samuel L. Banks Regular readers of this newspaper's letters to the editor knew Samuel L. Banks as an inveterate correspondent always ready to take on the powers-that-be with a rhetorical flourish that both enlightened and entertained. Dr. Banks, who died Wednesday at 64, was for 36 years a teacher and administrator in the Baltimore City public schools. But it was through his innumerable letters to the editor, his feisty opinion-page pieces and his sometimes prolix prose that he became known to thousands of Marylanders as a tireless champion of equal opportunity. Most people write letters to the editor to let off steam, express a personal opinion or simply for the thrill of seeing their name in print. The letters columns are a forum for all manner of complaints, grudges and passionate appeals as well as for the occasional gem of lucidity and sweet reason. A few people develop virtual second careers as letters column correspondents, vying with other letter writers and the newspaper's own staff members for pride of placement and frequency of publication. For Dr. Banks, however, a letter to the editor or an opinion page article was a means to an end, not an end in itself. He addressed the issues of the day not out of vanity but because he believed fervently that change would never come unless the status quo was challenged. He made it his business to do so as forcefully as possible. He wanted to wipe out every trace of bigotry and discrimination so that the nation might at last fulfill its historic promise of justice and equal opportunity for all. Applying the dictum of old-time labor leader Sam Gombers-- always demand more, more, more--Dr. Banks brought to his advocacy an unquenchable demand for improvement in the lives of his fellow African Americans. This newspaper was his special focus. He would rise in righteous fury against news stories or editorials he considered unfair to this constituency or his several causes. Yet when writers displayed what he regarded as greater sensitivity, he would dispense gentlemanly praise before launching into a lecture of what could be done better. He was one of our most persistent bed bugs, albeit a beneficent bed bug. We suspect that description would please him. Dr. Banks' style often mimicked the stately cadences of a church sermon. But he was fond of spicing up his phrases with unusual and sometimes arcane words that lent his expressions a peculiar dignity and sly humor. He knew readers delighted in his seemingly inexhaustible stock of adjectives, which he piled atop one another. Editors could pare words, phrases or whole paragraphs from his letters and still have more than enough left to fill the allotted space. Dr. Banks' vision of America and its possibilities was as generous as his use of words, and as wise.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the Ryan White Comprehensive AIDS Resources Emergency [CARE] Act reauthorization. This act that honors the memory of a teenager who touched the lives of all Americans by bringing to the public's consciousness the need to respond to people living with AIDS. I am proud to be a cosponsor of this legislation and I urge my colleagues to join me in keeping the ``care'' in the Ryan White CARE Act. My home State of Maryland, and Baltimore in particular, has benefited greatly from the services funded under the Ryan White CARE Act. Many Marylanders with AIDS would have gone without care or received substandard care if this law was not in existence. The CARE Act has provided primary care services and specialized HIV/AIDS care specifically for children, adolescents, women, men, and families through cost-effective community-based, family-centered comprehensive systems. In Maryland alone, the number of reported AIDS cases has increased every year since 1990 when the Ryan White CARE Act was first passed. In 1990, the number was 923, in 1992 it was 1,242, in 1993 it was 2,483, and last year it was 2,810. As we have seen in Maryland, the AIDS epidemic is far from over. The greatest spread of the disease in Maryland has been in the Baltimore metropolitan area. In Baltimore City alone in 1993. there was a 64.4 percent increase in the AIDS caseload. The number of AIDS cases in Baltimore has multiplied more than 21 times since 1985. Sixty-one percent of AIDS cases in Maryland are in Baltimore. The Federal Government has always responded to national tragedies and epidemics with targeted assistance--AIDS is no different. We must make sure that the Ryan White CARE Act continues to provide community-based care as well as new care and prevention programs. I believe this Act as reauthorized accomplishes this goal. We cannot ignore the human element of this disease and the individuals whose lives have been affected by it. We cannot forget their personal plights and how this law has affected their lives. We have an opportunity today to do the right thing by reauthorizing this Act. We need to ensure that those affected by HIV and AIDS receive help in coping with the ravages of this dreaded disease. AIDS is a disease that does not discriminate among children and adults, rich or poor, Democrats and Republicans. It affects everyone. Now is the time to come together in a bipartisan way to show Americans living with AIDS and their families that their elected officials--their Congress--is standing firmly behind them in their time of need. Let's keep the ``care'' in the Ryan White CARE Act.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on how best to control the viewing habits of America's children. We are in a communication revolution. We have all heard about the information highway. We know that there is more and more information available to all of us. And more information available to children. Much of it is good, and some of it is bad. The information highway includes ever- increasing numbers of television channels. These new and changing channels and the programs they broadcast are coming into our living rooms. There is a good side to this growing technology and information, but we also know there is a bad side. Studies tell us that by the time a child enters high school, that child will watch over 8,000 murders and 100,000 acts of violence on television. How can parents know and control what their kids are watching. How can they control it when they are away from home working? How can they control what their kids see on the living room television when they are busy in the kitchen? For some the solution is simple, just censor the networks or moviemakers. I believe there is a better way. It is the approach I believe in, and that is the approach that uses technology and information. Mr. President, I am proud to cosponsor the Media Protection Act of 1995. This is the V-chip bill. A television that has this V chip will allow parents to block out programming that they don't want their children to see when they are away or in another room. This automatic blocking device will be triggered by a rating system that the networks can develop themselves. This is not censorship. It is no more censorship than the current movie theater rating system that was created by the movie industry less than three decades ago. I am also pleased to cosponsor the Television Violence Report Card Act of 1995. This is the information part of what parents need. This legislation will encourage an evaluation of programming to let parents know just what to watch for or watch out for. Some call this legislation censorship, but it is not. It is parental empowerment and parental involvement, and maybe a way to stem the tide of violence that kids are exposed to every day and evening they watch television. ``WHY NOT ATOM TESTS IN FRANCE?''

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise to oppose the amendment offered by Senator Gramm to kill affirmative action initiatives in Federal contracts, and I support the second degree amendment offered by my colleague, Senator Murray. I oppose the Gramm amendment because we cannot walk away from the people in our society who have either been left out or pushed aside. We must have tools to deal with persistent bias. Mr. President, the second degree amendment is very clear. No Federal funds can go to any affirmative action program that results in quotas, in reverse discrimination or in hiring of unqualified persons. It makes very clear that affirmative action programs must be completely consistent with the Supreme Court's recent Adarand decision. That decision says that affirmative action programs could be justified. The second degree amendment recognizes that the war against discrimination is not won. It still exists today. And affirmative action is just one tool needed to help win that fight. But, other tools are needed too--education, employment, and Federal contracts. Mr. President, I support enforcing the law. That means no quotas because they are illegal. That means no discrimination because it is illegal--and totally unacceptable. Mr. President, affirmative action is about persistent bias in our system, bias in our government agencies, and unfortunately bias in the hearts of many people. I'm talking about persistent bias against minorities, against women, and against economic empowerment. What do I mean when I say persistent bias? I mean when people are told throughout their lives ``no'' based on their race, gender, or ethnicity. When they are told no you can't go to that school, no you can't belong to that club, no you can't go to that college, no you can't have that job, no you can't have that promotion, no you can't have that salary. Persistent bias exists. The Supreme Court knows it. Statistics show it. And every day, someone in the United States feels it. Mr. President, statistics prove that persistent bias exits. The Glass Ceiling report shows the disparity against minorities and women. Black men with professional degrees earn 79 percent of what white men make with the same degree and in the same job. The report states that white men make up 43 percent of the work force, but hold 95 percent of the senior management positions. And women and minorities who do make it to the top, make less than their male counterparts. Why is this the case? Persistent bias. It's not just about race, it's about gender too. Exactly how far have women come? Only 5 percent of senior managers in Fortune 2000 industrial and service companies are women. Women are over 99.3 percent of dental hygienists, but are only 10.5 percent of dentists. Women are 48 percent of all journalists, but hold only 6 percent of the top jobs in journalism. And it's 1995. Mr. President, with facts and statistics like these, the need for affirmative action programs is crystal clear. I'm against discrimination. Everybody else says they are too. But the problem is that many people don't practice what they preach. Throughout America, growing and pervasive economic insecurity has created immense anger and anxiety. We've heard it all. Some say that minorities and women are the problem. And so, many attack affirmative action. Everyone is afraid of losing their job, being downsized or being left behind. Blacks and whites, men and women are being pitted against each other--most often for political gain. But, let's be clear. Scapegoating takes us nowhere. Look at how we all benefit from having an inclusive society where everyone has the opportunity to achieve and compete. Affirmative action has just begun the process of opening up the competition to everyone. Between 1982 and 1987, the number of women-owned businesses rose more than 58 percent. And now we see more women and minorities in law enforcement, firefighting, skilled construction work, and as doctors, and lawyers. But, it's not enough. Discrimination is still alive and well. My constituents write me repeatedly about discrimination in our Federal Government agencies and right here in our own U.S. Congress. Mr. President, We must provide an opportunity ladder. The Gramm amendment cuts off that opportunity. You don't have to sacrifice quality when you pursue equality. Affirmative action is not a guarantee for those who could not otherwise succeed. It's simply an opportunity to compete. I support giving everyone that opportunity. I'm going to fight for equality, fairness, and a merit-based society, with real opportunity structure so that people can make it, and the end of persistent bias. We have to show people that we are on their side. Mrs. MURRAY addressed the Chair.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleague, Senator Boxer, in offering this amendment that protects the public health by ensuring the continued implementation of mammography quality rules. As the original coauthor of the Mammography Quality Standards Act, I was especially proud when this act was adopted in 1992. The Mammography Quality Standards Act requires all facilities providing mammography to be accredited and certified. This is extremely important in our efforts to detect breast cancer early when treatment is available and less invasive. For the past year, the mammography quality standards have been reviewed by a Mammography Advisory Committee. It is my understanding that the FDA is now prepared to move forward with the publishing of these rules in October. The women of America have waited since October 1992 for these mammography quality standards to be implemented. A delay at this time will result in needless deaths and disability by women who are tested by facilities and equipment not meeting Federal, uniform quality standards for mammography. We are so close in getting these final rules for mammography quality standards approved. We must ensure that the mammogram women receive is of the highest quality possible. I urge immediate passage of this amendment.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, each year an elite group of young women rise above the ranks of their peers and confront the challenge of attaining the Girl Scouts of the United States of America's highest rank in scouting, the Girl Scout Gold Award. It is with great pleasure that I recognize and applaud Kerri Marsteller of Monkton, MD, who is one of this year's recipients of this most prestigious and time honored award. Kerri is to be commended on her extraordinary commitment and dedication to her family, friends, community, and to the Girl Scouts of the United States of America. The qualities of character, perseverance, and leadership which enabled her to reach this goal will also help her to meet the challenges of the future. She is our inspiration for today and our promise for tomorrow. I am honored to ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating Kerri Marsteller. She is one of the best and the brightest and serves as an example of character and moral strength for us all to imitate and follow. Finally, I wish to salute the families and Scout leaders who have provided Kerri and other young women with continued support and encouragement. It is with great pride that I congratulate Kerri Marsteller on this achievement.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise in strong opposition to the conference report to the budget resolution. It will have negative consequences for seniors, children, veterans and the people who serve people--our Federal employees. It will also hamper our ability to make investments in our future for job creation and economic growth. This conference report violates the most basic contract we have with the American people--to provide for a safe and secure future for our children. Let me make this perfectly clear--I support the goal of a balanced budget. However, I believe that in balancing the budget, we must be guided by certain principles that uphold our commitment to our seniors, our children, our veterans and our federal employees. This budget resolution upholds none of these principles. This budget resolution could have devastating consequences for Maryland. The Baltimore Sun reports that this seven year budget plan could cost the State of Maryland 100,000 jobs over the next ten years. This means that Maryland could be thrown into an economic depression as a result of this budget resolution. For all of these reason, I am vehemently opposed to this resolution and I urge my colleagues to vote against it. Mr. President, this conference report makes unprecedented cuts in Medicare--this is outrageous. The proposed cuts to Medicare send a clear message to the G.I. Joe generation--the generation that saved western civilization. Thank you for saving humanity, but we are going to cut your health care when you may need it most. On the 50th anniversary of the end of World War II, we are turning our backs on our veterans. It is shameful. Is this what they fought for? To have their Government turn its back on its senior citizens? Under this budget resolution, our seniors will have to pay more and get less--less choice, less coverage and less security. Our seniors deserve better than this. And so do our Federal employees. This budget resolution is a declaration of war against Federal employees. To the people who answered John Kennedy's call to service--NASA employees who put us on the moon, NIH employees who are trying to find a cure for cancer and FBI and Secret Service agents who risk their lives trying to make our streets safer--this Congress decides to cut their benefits and reduce their retirement. This violates our contract with these employees. It is unfair, it is unjust and this Congress should be ashamed for the action it is taking today. This budget resolution also makes dramatic and potentially crippling cuts to student loans. How can we turn our backs on middle class families who are hoping to send their children to college? We are taking away the ladder of opportunity for millions of students and the families who have sacrificed for their children. This resolution fails in another fundamental way. It fails to make the investments in science and technology. It fails to create high wage jobs. It fails to promote economic growth. In my own State of Maryland, agencies such as NASA, NIST and NIH are in the forefront of developing new technology. I support this effort. But this budget resolution means less money, less research and less benefits to the economy and the people of this country. Mr. President, with this budget resolution, I believe we are breaking our promise to our seniors, our Federal employees, our children and our veterans. I find this unconscionable. This Congress must recognize that balancing the budget must be based on principles that protect our most vulnerable citizens and preserve the ladders of opportunity for the next generation. We must never forget the contributions of our Federal employees and the vital role they play in preserving our prosperity. Unfortunately, this Congress has rejected these principles. For this reason, I oppose the conference report to the budget resolution and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, each year an elite group of young women rise above the ranks of their peers and confront the challenge of attaining the Girl Scouts of the United States of America's highest rank in scouting, the Girl Scout Gold Award. It is with great pleasure that I recognize and applaud two young women from the State of Maryland who are some of this year's recipients of this most prestigious and time honored award. These young women are to be commended on their extraordinary commitment and dedication to their families, their friends, their communities, and to the Girl Scouts of the United States of America. The qualities of character, perseverance, and leadership which enabled them to reach this goal will also help them to meet the challenges of the future. They are our inspiration for today and our promise for tomorrow. I am honored to ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating these recipients. They are the best and the brightest and serve as an example of character and moral strength for us all to imitate and follow. Finally, I wish to salute their families and Scout leaders who have provided these young women with continued support and encouragement. It is with great pride that I submit these two names as recipients of the Girl Scout Gold Award. Girl Scout Gold Award Recipients Miranda Jean Buck of Frederick, MD Carla R. Williams of Union Bridge, MD.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in support of the Securities Litigation Reform Act. I like this bill for three reasons: It stops the bounty hunters, it puts people who have lost money in charge, and it penalizes people who commit fraud. Mr. President, we are finally moving on this issue. We've moved beyond discussing whether or not there is a problem--to discussing exactly what reforms are needed. Here is what I think. First, let us stop the bounty hunters. This bill says that lawyers can't shop around for clients. I mean--a lawyer will not be able to pay a commission to someone else to find them a client. I have heard of instances where lawyers seek out clients just so they can have cases to litigate. Second, I think the people who lose the most money should have the most to say. By that I mean--with this bill the court will be able to pick one person--who has lost a lot of money in a class action suit--to be the leader. This way the system works for investors instead of against them. Third, Mr. President, I am all for ending fraud and protecting businesses that are just trying to create jobs. This bill will not apply to people who knowingly cheat investors. I have talked to several investors and I have heard from the people of Maryland on this issue. Accountants tell me that some attorneys pay stockbrokers, and others, in return for information about possible lawsuits and possible clients. That is unacceptable. Courts are for protecting the rights of people and promoting fairness, not for frivolous lawsuits. Companies are hit with higher insurance costs, time in court and are generally distracted from the mission of creating jobs. Lawsuits mean that companies are reluctant to provide the kind of public information that can benefit investors. In Maryland, high-technology companies are hit the most by this problem. That means these unnecessary lawsuits are costing Maryland citizens--lost jobs and lost opportunities. Mr. President, this is not about protecting some ``savings and loan con artist'' as the ads say. This bill is about saving jobs and keeping the courthouse doors open to those who really need to get inside. I support this bill because I believe it will create jobs. We needs investors. We need new companies. We need new jobs. But we will not have any new jobs if companies cannot invest or ask people to invest in their future. Mr. President, this legislation is long overdue. I am pleased this day has come, and I am pleased that this reform has overwhelming bipartisan support. It is time we look at liability issues and liability reform not on a partisan basis but on an American basis. It is in the best interest of business and it is in the best interest of the consumers. We can do both, because this bill does both. Mr. GRASSLEY addressed the Chair.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Could I have 1 additional moment? Let me just conclude by saying this. In a room in a meeting with Dr. Foster, I said to him, ``What do you want to do as Surgeon General?'' He said, ``I want to help all Americans live better and I [[Page S 8861]] want to help poor kids do better and make sure they have a future.'' Dr. Foster has devoted his life to giving other people a chance. Let us give him a chance and not hide behind parliamentary procedure. Let us make this decision day for Henry Foster. I yield the floor.

Ms. MIKULSKI. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, this is decision day on Henry Foster. This is not decision day on Joycelyn Elders. This is not decision day on Bill Clinton. We get to do that in November 1996. This is decision day on Henry Foster. We should be talking about Henry Foster and is he or is he not qualified to be the Surgeon General of the United States of America. I believe he is. Now, when one wants to ask: Where are those people who will unite us on broad issues of public health? Bill Clinton has done it. He gave us Dr. Phil Lee, a distinguished physician, who is our Assistant Secretary of Health, who is coordinating health policy in a time during shrinking budgets and higher need. He has given us Dr. Varmus to head the National Institutes of Health when George Bush delayed the appointment of the head of NIH because of a litmus test on fetal tissue. But Dr. Varmus is attracting the kind of young talent and retaining the seasoned talent for NIH to continue to be the flagship of research of the life science issues in America. Bill Clinton is meeting his responsibility. Today, it is our responsibility to pick a Surgeon General. And we are not voting on Dr. Elders. We did that. We are voting on Henry Foster. Henry Foster is a man unique unto himself, bringing his own credentials and expertise. He is not Joycelyn Elders in wingtips. Now, let us get it straight. I regret that abortion has become the focal point of this debate rather than the broad policy issues of public health. We should be focusing on who can focus on prevention, primary care, and personal responsibility in a public health agenda. That is what it is all about, and Dr. Foster has done that. We knew that, yes, there would be those who would focus on the big A word, abortion, so in a public hearing at the Labor Committee, chaired in a very outstanding way by Senator Kassebaum, I asked Henry Foster tough questions because I felt the public had a right to know. I said to Dr. Foster, ``Did you ever perform an illegal abortion?'' He said, ``Absolutely not. I have only done those things that were legal and medically necessary.'' I said, ``Did you ever do a trimester abortion?'' He said, ``Absolutely not.'' I said, ``Did you ever do an abortion for sex selection?'' He said, ``Absolutely not.'' I said, ``Did you ever sterilize mentally retarded girls without parental involvement?'' And he said, ``Absolutely not.'' So that is the record, and it is on the record. ``Absolutely not.'' And on this sterilization study that has been discussed, the record is clear. Dr. Foster's name is on a study of a variety of people who conducted hysterectomies on retarded women, and on those three in which he was involved--and he was involved in only three--there was parental involvement and parental consent. They were acting in loco parentis, in the guardianship role of parents. Now, we believe parents should be involved. I support parental consent for abortion. There was parental consent in this area. Henry Foster did the right thing as a clinician, and he did the right thing in involving parents. So that is where we are on these issues. Now, the question becomes with Henry Foster, when is good good enough? This man has devoted his life to public service and the practice of medicine. To be Surgeon General of the United States, to serve your country, when is good good enough? Thirty-eight years in the practice of medicine. When is good good enough to be Surgeon General? When you serve in the U.S. military as a captain, as a physician, when you have done that job for your country, when is good good enough to be Surgeon General? When you practice medicine in a town like Nashville, and you are chosen to be head of your own bioethics committee, you are asked to be the dean of a medical school, is that not good enough credentials? What more do we want? Competency, well respected by your peers, 38 years of devotion, volunteer work in the community, starting a program called ``I Have a Future,'' going into the public housing projects to say to kids that you just say no. Schoolmarmist admonitions with these Victorian values only get good headlines. They do not get good results. You have to go to those kids and reach out to them. And the way you get them to say no is when they say yes to the possibilities of a life where they can define themselves as full men and women, not only in terms of their sexual prowess. That is what he did. And that is why George Bush wanted him to be a point of light, because these kinds of programs are a point of light.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise this morning to lend my voice and my vote to the nomination of Dr. Henry Foster to be Surgeon General of the United States of America. This morning I will be pleased to vote for Dr. Henry Foster to be the Surgeon General of the United States. Why? When I look at Dr. Foster, I see a man who meets my criteria for the Surgeon General of the United States. He has competence. He has character. He has commitment. He brings bedrock values and the right professional credentials to the office of the Surgeon General. He is truly a leader, a man who leads by example. He leads by example in the way he has lived his life, both personally and professionally. Dr. Foster has dedicated his life to improving people's health, particularly the health of women and children, and most often the health of those who are without health care, those who have been left out, those who have been pushed aside, those who have been down and out. When Dr. Foster returned from the U.S. military, he could have gone to a lucrative practice somewhere in the North and would have gone on to make a great medical contribution and, I am sure, would have made a lot more financial profit for his family. But he chose to go to the South. And to the South he went. And he reached out his very able hand to those in a segregated health care system that needed a doctor and needed a medical helping hand. That is who Dr. Foster is. He is a qualified professional bringing competence as a clinician, a medical administrator, and a scholar in residence now. For 38 years, he has been a respected member of his own medical community. He has been a medical professor and then even a dean of a medical school. He will bring great knowledge and expertise to the Surgeon General post. I believe he will serve with distinction. In the debate, we will hear things about the Tuskegee study, the famous study done on the issue of syphilis in which African-American men did not know that they were being experimented on in his own country. You will also hear about how Dr. Foster participated in a study on hysterectomies and how some of the people involved were mentally retarded. But let me tell you about that. There is much going to be said, what did Dr. Foster know and what did Dr. Foster do? In that area of the Tuskegee study, Dr. Foster told the committee that he knew nothing about that Tuskegee study until years later. Now, that will be disputed here this morning. I will tell you, as a member of something called the National Medical Society--because the AMA would not let African-American doctors in--his own peers, if they knew that he knew about the Tuskegee study, he would have been shunned and ostracized in his own community. They would not have made him the dean of the medical school at one of the most distinguished, historically black colleges in the United States of America. Then they will talk about the fact that in a study that he did--not hysterectomies that he performed--mentally retarded girls were involved. There will be the issue of parental consent. Dr. Foster will tell you there was parental involvement. Now, are we going to dispute that? Well, his peers in Nashville did not dispute it. Then the medical society, when they finally admitted African- Americans after all those years, they made him the head of the bioethical committee. So who should judge who Dr. Foster is? Is it the U.S. Senate, who has only gotten to know him or the people who have known him for 38 years in his own medical profession? I say, let us go back home and talk to the people who knew Henry Foster, and they will tell you how he stands. Now, Dr. Foster's character. Dr. Foster served as a captain in the U.S. Air Force. He brought character and competence, as I said, to that job. When he served willingly in the military, his character and competence were never questioned. So why should we question it now? He willingly served in the U.S. military. America wanted him then. And I say America wants him now. They want him to be the Surgeon General. The Surgeon General's office is organized on a military model-- ``Surgeon General.'' And I believe that he will lead a campaign, a campaign against teenage pregnancy, a campaign against infectious disease. The Surgeon General will show that the triad for health care in the United States is prevention, primary care, and personal responsibility. And that is the kind of campaign Dr. Foster will lead. But while he is a great clinician, he brings old-fashioned values. As a community leader in Nashville he did voluntary work in his own community, serving on boards, including the March of Dimes, to lead the fight against birth defects. We have all heard a lot about how he has been a driving force behind the teenage pregnancy program, I Have a Future. He won a point of light for that. I hope he will be more than a point of light for the United States of America. I Have a Future stresses to the teens the importance of abstinence. Mr. President, I ask for 2 additional minutes.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Good morning, Mr. President.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, this debate of Dr. Foster has often characterized him in a way that I think is misleading. Dr. Foster has been characterized as someone who is not the man that I met in my office. Dr. Foster came and met with me, both in my office and met in the committee, and showed the kind of person we want to be the Surgeon General of the United States. First of all, he showed backbone and he showed guts. Anyone of a lesser personality would have flinched under this new toxic atmosphere in which we find Presidential nominees going forward. But he was willing to speak to both friend and to foe, to speak with candor, grace, dignity, quiet good humor, the willingness to set the record straight. That is why we can see why he was so well-regarded by his patients and by his own community with the bedside manner.

Ms. MIKULSKI. I Have a Future stresses to teens the importance of abstinence and self-esteem and teaches teens to say ``no'' to teenage pregnancy, and ``yes'' to abstinence, personal education and jobs. We see under that program fewer teens getting pregnant and more young people going to college. Dr. Foster has dedicated his life to giving people chances, giving women the chances to have healthy babies, giving babies the chance to have healthy childhoods, and giving the teens a chance to have a successful future. I say let us give Henry Foster a chance. Let us give him a chance. He is both a man of the mind and a man of the heart. He is a man of the medical community and is involved in his own community and the kind of leader and distinguished public servant our country needs. I look forward to his tenure as the next Surgeon General. I hope we will not deny him his day in the U.S. Senate by hiding behind a parliamentary maneuver. Mr. President, I yield such time as I might have left.