Barbara Mikulski

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. I ask unanimous consent for 2 additional minutes. [[Page S 8724]]

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, I rise today to join my colleagues in enthusiastically supporting the efforts of our Vice President and Mrs. Gore in bringing breast cancer awareness to the attention of our Nation's women. their participation in the Race for the Cure demonstrates their on-going commitment and dedication to finding a cure for breast cancer and for early detection. I am proud to have been an advocate for breast cancer research and early detection. When we passed the breast and cervical cancer amendments of 1993, it showed that we can build a preventive health care system using the community-level, public/private partnerships which are critical to success. This legislation saved women's lives. But our job is not over. There are many States that have no screening program for breast cancer and many other States are just getting started. Screenings are absolutely necessary if we are to prevent this dreaded health risk for America's women. All women in America are at risk. In fact, 50,000 mothers, daughters, relatives, and friends will die from breast cancer alone. but the women most at risk are also those who are our most defenseless--older women, women of color, and women of limited income. Over the past few years, we have made significant strides in breast cancer research--focused through the National Institutes of Health's Office of Women's Research. We know what it takes to save many of these lives. It takes regular screening for women over 40 using mammograms and self-exams. All women need to hear this message. All women should think of getting a mammogram as once a year for a lifetime. For the fortunate majority of America's women, following through on that message is not too much to ask. That is why I take pride in joining my colleagues today in urging participation in the Race for the Cure to be held this Saturday, June 16. Events like this get the message out. The message of ``breast cancer is preventable'' and ``Once a Year for a Lifetime'' in getting that mammogram. I welcome the day when no woman turns away from the decision to have a mammogram for lack of funds, access to services, or lack of awareness. This is the noble cause I am dedicated to. America's women deserve no less. Join Race for the Cure. race for the cure

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Maine for recognizing me. I rise today as the dean of the Democratic women to salute a great and grand lady, a daughter of Maine, Senator Margaret Chase Smith. Growing up as a young girl, there were very few role models that I or women of my generation had for women participating in politics. Certainly, there had been Eleanor Roosevelt who served as the First Lady of the United States of America. But during the fifties, as a high school girl, I admired two great women--Clare Boothe Luce, who was a Congresswoman, and also Margaret Chase Smith from Maine. And going to a Catholic woman's high school and college, these two women were always held up as models and examples. In those days, we did not have words like ``role models,'' but they used terms like ``examples,'' about how women could retain their femininity and dignity and yet participate in the dynamic world of politics. When I came to the U.S. Senate, I was struck by the many parallels in the lives between Senator Smith and myself. I was deeply honored to follow in her footsteps. Until 1992, only 17 women had served in the U.S. Senate. Only five of those women had been elected in their own right and there was one who served only 1 day, but that was not Senator Margaret Chase Smith. For four distinguished terms, she served in the U.S. Senate and was a woman of many firsts and many accomplishments. The similarities in our backgrounds were brought to my attention by the Senate Historian when I came here. Senator Smith was the first woman elected to the U.S. Senate in her own right. I was the first Democratic woman elected in my own right. She was the first woman to serve in both Houses. I, when I came, was the first Democratic woman to serve in both Houses, and now I am delighted to say I have been joined by Senator Snowe of Maine and Senator Boxer of California. Senator Margaret Chase Smith, in one of her elections, defeated another woman for the job that raised eyebrows all over America in that spirited combat. I defeated another woman in my general election, and I must say we not only raised eyebrows but we raised a bit of a decibel level in the debate. Senator Smith was a member of the Appropriations Committee, and I have the honor to be appointed to that committee as well. Senator Smith was on the Board of Visitors at the U.S. Naval Academy and I, too, share that great honor. Only when she was there during the dark days of the beginning of the cold war through her term, there were no women at the Naval Academy, and I think she would be delighted to see the accomplishments and advancements of those women. She was also the first Republican woman who held, or perhaps the only woman to hold, a leadership position in her party for many years. Just recently, I had the opportunity of being chosen by my colleagues to be the Secretary of the Democratic caucus. I bring these issues to the Senate's attention not because I want to draw attention to myself, but to the fact that the parallels here were so inspirational to me. When one comes to the Senate, and my colleagues on the floor, the other women Senators, know how tough it is to be the first in many areas; often they know how tough it is to be the first and the only. When I turned to the history books and see Margaret Chase Smith, and when I came here and joined Senator Kassebaum, I was so fortified, so inspired, it really gave me guiding principles to follow here in the U.S. Senate. However, there are things that differ Senator Smith from myself--not only of different parties, but Senator Smith, as a young girl, was an outstanding athlete. That was not my forte. And, also, she did something I believe no other woman has done in the Senate--she was a lieutenant colonel in the Air Force Reserve and served in the Reserve Forces. Senator Snowe spoke at great length about the declaration of conscience. I hope that all the women of the Senate and all the men of the Senate feel that same sense of responsibility to speak out where necessary. When I was elected, I invited her to my swearing in. She could not come but sent me the most gentle and encouraging note. I believe if she were here today, she would like this Senate. She would look at her own party and see another daughter of Maine joining the U.S. Senate and with great admiration, admire Senator Snowe's moving quickly to responsibility in both fiscal matters and in foreign affairs. She would be delighted to see Senator Kassebaum chairing the Committee on Labor, Education, and Human Resources, showing that we can meet our fiscal responsibility, look out for America's day-to-day needs, and yet meet the long-range needs of our country. She would admire the fact that Senator Hutchison had joined the U.S. Senate and was taking up the role of women on the Armed Services Committee. I think she would like Senator Boxer's spunk; Senator Feinstein's executive ability; Senator Murray being the voice of a mother to the U.S. Senate, a young mother; Senator Carol Moseley-Braun's ability in housing, banking, and also judicial affairs and being willing to take on the tough issues in making her own declaration of conscience. I think she would like me here on the Appropriations Committee, saying, Barbara, watch out for the money, watch out for the country and you will be OK. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, unfortunately I was unable to vote on the balanced budget resolution and several pending amendments. I was the commencement speaker for the 1995 graduating class of Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore from which my niece and nephew were also graduating. However, had I been here to vote I would have voted against the resolution because I believe it hurts too many Americans. It hurts our seniors and it hurts our students. Everything this country has fought for is being attacked in this budget, Medicare, Medicaid, long-term care, veterans health care, and education. We must have a call to arms to save lives and save people. Mr. President, during consideration of the budget resolution, Senator Conrad offered an amendment which would have achieved a balanced budget by 2004. I support Senator Conrad's approach to balancing the budget because I believe that it represents a far more equitable approach to balancing the budget than the budget resolution which passed the Senate. Mr. President, I support the Conrad amendment because it balances the budget without counting the Social Security trust fund surplus. I have stated in the past that I cannot support a balanced budget that does not protect Social Security. A promise made must be a promise kept. We cannot jeopardize the retirement benefits of the G.I. Joe generation--the generation that fought and saved civilization. We owe it to our veterans and their families to ensure a safe and secure future. In addition, I support the Conrad amendment because it fully funds education and restores some of the cuts to veterans programs, infrastructure investments, and technology programs, while still achieving a balanced budget. Mr. President, I also want to express my strong support for an amendment offered by my colleague, Senator Kennedy, to restore funding for college aid. The Republican budget resolution would cut $30 million in Federal aid to college students over the next 7 years. This is the largest education cut in U.S. history. This is unacceptable. Education must be a No. 1 priority. It is with me and it should also be a priority in this budget. Senator Kennedy's amendment would have helped to restore college student aid funds. This amendment did not pass, but yet it is extremely important when half of all college students receive Federal financial aid. However, I am pleased that the Snowe amendment which was adopted will restore $9.4 billion over 7 years to student loans. I support this amendment because I know what it will mean to Maryland's students. Our undergraduate students borrow the maximum of $17,125 just to be able to afford a college education, access to increased opportunities and to achieve the American dream. The cost of college has skyrocketed and our students need our support through Federal financial aid programs or through innovative initiatives like National Service. We cannot turn our back on them now. Mr. President, in this budget, we are given cuts, not compassion. As an appropriator, I know firsthand what these cuts mean. These are not numbers. These are not statistics. These are not line items. They are issues people care about. Balancing the budget should not be about rhetoric or about scoring political points. Balancing the budget should be about honoring the contributions of the G.I. Joe generation, the generation who worked hard, played by the rules, and served our country well. It is for those who are fighting for the future generations of Americans. Mr. President, the Senate still has a long way to go this year and a lot of work to do on this Nation's budget. This resolution is not the final word and I look forward to setting this Nation's priorities straight and fighting for the generations to come.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Conference Report on H.R. 1158. While I am a strong supporter of deficit reduction, I am opposed to the precedent of requiring large budget cuts in order to pay for emergency disaster relief. In addition, I believe this bill undermines programs which make the investments in our Nation's future. In addition, my own State of Maryland suffers a disproportionate share of the rescissions which will have a negative impact on Maryland's economy. For these reasons, I am opposed to this bill. The conference report made a very deep cut in funding for the consolidation of the Food and Drug Administration facilities in Montgomery County, MD. The conferees' decision to rescind $228 million will delay the consolidation of FDA facilities which are in desperate need of modernization. I believe that modernizing the FDA is a national priority that is vital to protecting public health and safety and improving the regulatory capability of this agency. This conference report also makes significant cuts in the VA/HUD Subcommittee budget in order to pay for disaster funding for Northridge, CA and Oklahoma City. It is wrong to require programs within the jurisdiction of single appropriations subcommittee to bear the costs of funding national disasters. Funding assistance for national disasters is a national responsibility requiring everyone to contribute. During the Senate's consideration of H.R. 1158, I offered an amendment to that would have made an across-the-board cut in discretionary spending to pay for disaster relief in a more equitable manner. Unfortunately, this amendment was defeated. As the flood waters once again rise throughout the Midwest, we are reminded of the need to establish a rainy day fund to prepay the costs of disaster relief. Our failure to establish such a fund is costing VA- HUD programs $8.5 billion--over 10 percent of all the funds appropriated for VA-HUD programs in FY 1995. The conference agreement also nearly triples the Senate-passed rescissions for education programs and doubles the amount of funding rescinded for national service. These programs represent the kind of strategic investments that I believe the we have to make if we are to prepare future generations for the 21st century. While the conferees did recognize the value and need of moving forward with this project in the future, I will continue to fight for FDA consolidation despite the rescission contained in this bill. For these reasons, Mr. President, I am opposed to the conference report to H.R. 1158.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment offered by Senators Lautenberg and Rockefeller that would partially restore funding for VA programs by closing the ex-patriot tax loophole. The ex-patriot tax loophole is a provision of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 that allows billionaires to renounce their citizenship and avoid paying Federal taxes. By closing this loophole, an additional $3.6 billion will be added to the Treasury between 1995 and 2005. I think it is appropriate, Mr. President, that we apply the revenues generated by closing the ex-patriot loophole to help restore funding for veterans programs. In supporting the Lautenberg/Rockefeller amendment, I rise in defense of the GI Joe generation--the World War II generation--our fathers who fought on the battlefront overseas and our mothers who fought on the homefront here in our communities. Those wonderful Rosie the Riveters who kept the United States of America running while the men fought for democracy around the world. These are the women--the Rosies--who made sure that not only the schools and businesses operated, but that we built airplanes, mobilized our defenses. Mr. President, these are the men who fought from the shores of Normandy to Iwo Jima. America's veterans fought to save Americans; they fought to save Western civilization; and they fought to save the very principles that this country was founded upon. And when the war was over, the GI Joe generation went back home to raise their families and contribute to the greatest prosperity that this country has ever known. Mr. President, we would not be here as a nation today, we would not be a superpower today, if it had not been for the GI Joe generation. We just commemorated V-E Day. In a few months we will commemorate V-J Day and the end of World War II. And now, here we are on the eve of Memorial Day. And, how are we remembering these gallant men and women? With our thanks, with our commitment, with our compassion? No, Mr. President. With this budget resolution, we are telling the GI Joe generation that promises made are not promises kept. We are telling these brave men and women that we intend to cut VA medical care by more than $5.5 billion over the next 7 years. What we are telling our mothers and our fathers is that we are going to close 35 VA medical centers and that we are canceling 200 medical construction projects needed to bring existing facilities up to current health delivery standards. Mr. President, this budget resolution will force the VA to eliminate 53,000 full-time jobs including physicians, nurses, lab technicians, x- ray technicians, and mental health counselors. Treatment will be denied to over 1 million patients, including deep reductions in patient visits for primary care, acute medical and psychiatric care, treatment for the chronically mentally ill, post- traumatic stress disorder, cardiovascular disease, and extended care. In addition, this budget resolution adds insult to the injury we would inflict on our veterans. By forcing the elimination of almost 1,000 VA jobs in benefit services, the VA claims backlog will increase from 500,000 to over 1 million claims. Having served on the front lines, we will now ask our veterans to stand in line for 2 to 4 years in order to receive their benefits. Finally, this budget resolution would limit future benefits for disabilities to those resulting directly from a veteran's performance of military duty, would phase in higher veteran prescription copayments, and increase the amount a servicemember must contribute in order to be eligible for benefits under the Montgomery G.I. bill. Mr. President, we have gone from the New Deal and the Fair Deal--to the raw deal in this budget. I urge my colleagues to honor our veterans this Memorial Day with more than parades, plaques, and platitudes. Let us honor the GI Joe generation with our gratitude and our commitment. Let us stand and fight for them, the way they fought for us. I urge my colleagues to vote for the Lautenberg-Rockefeller amendment. amendment no. 1179

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in opposition to the proposed cut in the earned income tax credit [EITC]. The other day I spoke about this budget, its attacks on Medicare and how it affects senior citizens and their families. Today, I rise to speak about how the reduction in the earned income tax credit will affect their families and their children. Today, I want to speak about how this is also a fight for the children and grandchildren of the senior citizens who are hit by cuts in Medicare. In 1993 we dramatically increased the earned income tax credit, which cut taxes for middle and lower income families. We cut taxes for parents working hard to stay out of poverty and off welfare. The first step to welfare reform is to make work pay. The EITC helps us to make work pay. If this budget resolution passes we will increase taxes on millions of working parents. What do we say to these mothers and fathers? What do we say to any working family making less than $28,000 a year? Who is affected? A mother who makes ends meet by waiting on tables. A mother who counts on every tip, every nickel and quarter left on the lunch counter. A mother who can make ends meet because of the earned income tax credit. [[Page S7450]] A father who lost a good-paying factory job and lost a piece of the American dream. A father who works a second job just to support his children, but still makes less than $28,000. This budget cuts taxes for the wealthy by taking $21 billion from the EITC and the families who use it. This budget cut will hit over 12 million taxpayers, 199,000 in Maryland alone. For those Marylanders making $28,000, they will pay $1,500 in taxes if the EITC is cut. This is not welfare reform. We cannot tell people to get off welfare and then cut what they will get in a paying job, and cut their Medicaid. We cannot tell a mother on welfare to take a low-paying job that will be even lower paying if we cut this program. We must reward people who work. It is time that we returned to the bipartisan spirit of this tax break. Let us return to the support that had President Reagan praise the EITC as, ``the best antipoverty and pro-family'' measure to ever come out of Congress. When I spoke the other day on another occasion, I reminded the audience of First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt and how she explained that this is ``no ordinary time.'' This is no ordinary time. It is a time to fight for these families who have worked hard and have earned a break.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by Senator Snowe and others that [[Page S7290]] would reduce funding for NASA's Aeronautics Program by $1.1 billion over the next 5 years. The $1.1 billion reduction proposed in the Snowe amendment for Aeronautics is in addition to the $800 million reduction proposed for NASA's Aeronautics Program that is included in the chairman's mark. The effect of the Snowe amendment would be to eliminate NASA's Advanced Subsonic Technology Development and High-Speed Research programs which make up the core of NASA's Aeronautics program. Mr. President, the aeronautics industry contributes over 1 million high quality jobs to the U.S. economy and generates $20 to $30 billion in exports each year. But U.S. aircraft and engine manufacturers must compete on both cost and technical capability against government- subsidized foreign competition. The European Airbus Consortium already claims more than one-third of the commercial aircraft market, a market once dominated by U.S. manufacturers. The goal of Airbus is to control 50 percent of the global market by the year 2005. I do not intend to let the Europeans accomplish their goal, Mr. President. That is why, when I was chair of the VA-HUD Appropriations Subcommittee, I pushed NASA to expand their research and technology efforts in aeronautics. NASA's Advanced Subsonic Technology program specifically addresses future technology needs in next-generation subsonic aircraft--from large commercial jets to small general aviation aircraft--and the evolving airspace system. NASA's role is to develop high-risk, high- payoff pre-competitive technologies to prove technical feasibility and then transfer these new technologies to the FAA, DOD, and U.S. industry. Elimination of the Advanced Subsonic Technology program would terminate NASA's efforts to develop technologies to increase the capacity of the airspace system, to ensure that the existing aging aircraft fleet remains safe and cost-effective, and that the technologies needed for U.S. industry to meet international environmental, noise, and pollution regulations are available. Mr. President, the Snowe amendment would also wipe out NASA's High Speed Research program which is conducting the early, high-risk technology development needed for an environmentally compatible and economically competitive high speed civil transport (HSCT). The goal of this program is develop a plane that would fly at more than twice the speed of sound and carry 300 passengers over 5,000 nautical miles at fares competitive with existing subsonic aircraft. Mr. President, the stakes associated with the development of the HSCT are enormous. If the Europeans are the first to market an HSCT, it will cost the U.S. larger trade deficits and the loss of hundreds of thousands of high-skilled, high-wage jobs. If the U.S. wins this race, the U.S. market share for commercial aircraft could grow to nearly 80 percent, and create $200 billion in sales and 140,000 new jobs. Mr. President, I happen to believe that the best social program is a job, and that job creation in America must be linked to our manufacturing base. Manufacturing in the new economy of a post-cold war era will require high technology and competitiveness in the global marketplace. America's future in manufacturing begins and ends with aeronautics. Commercial aviation is one of the few areas of manufacturing where the U.S. continues to export more than we import, and where we are able to provide high-skilled, high quality jobs for American workers. Mr. President, I do not intend to let our commercial aviation industry go the way of the VCR, the automobile, or the textile industry. I intend to fight to keep the U.S. aeronautics industry competitive so that we preserve the jobs we have and the job opportunities needed for the 21st century. The Snowe amendment would reduce funding for NASA's Aeronautics Program by two-thirds over the next 5 years. The amendment is shortsighted and threatens our ability to develop a manufacturing strategy for this Nation. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. I yield the floor.

Ms. MIKULSKI. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the Sarbanes-Mikulski amendment which strikes the provision which cuts Federal employee retirement benefits. The proposed change in the budget resolution would reduce lifetime retirement benefits for Federal employees between 2 and 4 percent. Now, that might not sound like that much, but for an average Federal worker, that could mean as much as a loss of $27,000 or more over a lifetime. Mr. President, this is outrageous. We are changing the rules of the game on Federal employees in the middle of their career or near the end of their career. I have Federal employees in my State, 130,000 of them. They are the civilian work force that makes your Air Force One keep flying. They are the people at the National Institutes of Health that we just extolled the virtues of when we supported NIH. We talked a great deal about a wonderful physician by the name of Dr. Rosenberg who has devoted his life to saving lives and curing cancer, and now this amendment will cut his Federal pension. It is both a reality and a metaphor for people who gave up careers that would have paid more in the private sector but wanted to serve their country and they thought they would have an adequate health insurance plan and a reasonable retirement plan. So, Mr. President, I really ask the U.S. Senate to support the Sarbanes-Mikulski amendment to ensure that promises made are promises kept and that we can continue to attract the kind of quality work force for the Federal Government that we have had. Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise to express my passionate support for the National Institutes of Health. The National Institutes of Health is the foundation of this Nation and the world's medical research. It is an investment in the future health and well-being of every American. Over 85 percent of the NIH funding goes to academic medical centers of excellence all over the United States of America. From Stanford University, Johns Hopkins University, and Harvard to the University of Maryland and the University of Wisconsin--these are the leaders in medical science research. What does our investment dollars get? Our investment in the NIH provides the means to find the cures and preventions for disease. It keeps the United States of America in the forefront of biomedical science and biomedical technology. It encourages our global competitiveness and assures economic growth through the creation of jobs in Maryland and throughout the United States. It helps communities help themselves. The NIH has icon status in America and around the world. The short- sightedness of narrow-minded people in green eyeshades who would cut the NIH funding is deeply disturbing. I simply cannot understand it. The American people deserve a future of improved health. They understand the importance of investing in research and prevention. They want their Federal dollars to go to programs that will help them meet their day-to-day needs. That is what the NIH does. Its research finds cures, prevents the onset of disease, and helps people live not only longer but better lives. For some time, I have worked on a bipartisan basis to advocate for a women's health agenda. I was one of those who led the fight to establish an Office of Women's Health Research at the NIH--the first of its kind. I worked with my colleagues to expand research and address gender-specific health concerns like breast cancer, cervical cancer and prostate cancer. The National Institutes of Health is the anchor for health research investment in this country. And now, this picky little budget wants to freeze NIH funding into the year 2000, or worse yet, may even cut NIH funding by 10 percent. Let us face the fact. You cannot freeze disease. You cannot freeze neurological deterioration and Parkinson's disease. And you cannot freeze life saving research. You just cannot. The impact of cutting NIH will take an incredible human toll. The major killers of men and women today are lung cancer and heart disease. What will happen to this research when there is not enough dollars to invest in finding a cure? How will we ever find a cure the necessary dollars? My own dear father died of Alzheimers disease. He died one brain cell at a time, and it did not matter that I was a U.S. Senator. All I could do was look out for him, care for him, and make sure that he was comfortable and safe. In loving memory of my father, I vowed to do all that I can to lead the fight for research to find a cure for Alzheimers. This is what this Budget would knock out. It is a tragedy for the dedicated men and women of NIH who have committed their lives to finding cures to deadly diseases. And it is a tragedy for the American people who look to NIH to meet our day-to-day health needs and to get us ready for the future. I am passionate about my commitment to preserve this investment. We must not turn our back on NIH. There are those who seem set on trying to dismantle the National Institutes of Health. I want to put those people on notice--they will have to put up with me first. I will do everything I can to keep the National Institutes of Health an investment that saves lives, saves jobs, and helps communities.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Will the Senator yield?

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I was saddened to learn of the passing of Les Aspin. He was a great public servant who worked all his life to make our country better and stronger. Les Aspin understood the defense budget better than just about anyone. He chaired the House Armed Services Committee during the height of the cold war and during the even more challenging years of the post cold war. He led the Department of Defense as it began to adjust to America's new role in the world. And he began the difficult process of expanding opportunities for women in the military. Most recently, he took on the challenge of reviewing and reinvigorating our Nation's intelligence programs. He didn't come to Washington for power and prestige--he came to serve. He came to represent the working families of Wisconsin's First Congressional District. He quickly became an expert on national defense. His goal was to strengthen our military while making sure that the U.S. taxpayer got the most out of every dollar spent on defense. He realized that national security was too important to become politicized. He believed that a strong defense is not a Republican position or a Democratic position--it is a necessity for the world's only superpower. Les Aspin served the people of Wisconsin and the people of this Nation with honor and distinction. He will be greatly missed.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. I thank the ranking member for yielding such time. Mr. President, I rise to oppose the Roth amendment to further reduce the Federal work force beyond the quarter of a million that we have already done under the Clinton reinventing Government framework. I am concerned that we are engaging in a mass mania of who can rack up the biggest number. Every day there seems to be a bidding war on who can escalate the numbers of Federal employees that need to be laid off in this so-called downsizing of Government. But make no mistake, every time we raise the number beyond a reasonable and rational level that we can achieve through technological innovation, we are not accomplishing downsizing; we are accomplishing downgrading. The sense-of-the-Senate resolution essentially says what it is that the Senate wants to do. Well, I believe that we have already been on record to support reinventing Government as laid out by President Bill Clinton and Vice President Al Gore, looking at the best available management practices and technological innovation to reduce, in a rational way, the Federal work force. What this says to 200,000 more Federal employees is we do not want you to show up; we do not value you; we do not think you are needed; we think your time is up and it is time for you to go. Well, Mr. President, who is it that we do not want to show up? I want to talk about my own State of Maryland. I have the honor of representing the National Institutes of Health, which are located in the State of Maryland, and there are thousands of Federal employees working there from research scientists to lab technicians to back-up support services to security personnel. Now who are we saying not to show up at the National Institutes of Health? Are we saying to that Nobel prize candidate who could have a breakthrough in AIDS research, Don't bother to show up, we're downsizing, we're going to technological innovation, we don't need your intellectual competency, we'll do a computer simulation? What will we say in this decade of the brain research to those scientists working on Alzheimer's research which killed my father-- Alzheimer's killed my father--and if we can find a cure for it it would significantly reduce the health care debt in this country. Are we saying to NIH, Don't show up? But let us not just stay around the State of Maryland. Let us go to the Centers for Disease Control. We now know Ebola virus threatens Zaire and could even possibly threaten the world. We had a near outbreak in something called The Hot Zone in northern Virginia. If you read the book, you know what the story was. It was Federal employees at Fort Dietrick who were willing to risk their lives--willing to risk their lives--who were willing to go into the hot zone to kill the monkeys that carried this disease. When you read the newspaper accounts--this is not Mikulski memos, this is newspaper accounts--that talk about how skimpy the resources are at CDC and in infectious diseases, they are stretched so thin that they are now afraid an accident could happen at the CDC exactly at the same time when we are asking for their help. The world is asking for their help to come and take care of the Ebola virus. Let us talk about other threats to the safety and security of the United States. Let us talk about our law enforcement. Who else are we telling not to show up? Shall we say no more FBI agents, do not show up? Are we saying to the Secret Service, Well, you might be in the line of fire in one way, but we're going to put you in the line of fire in another way. We are going to tell them not to show up? We in Maryland were willing to take a Federal prison. There is a medium-security prison right now in the Allegheny Mountains in the community of Cumberland. We have a Federal prison for medium-security prisoners. Are we telling the prison guards that they are superfluous, we are going to have better locks, better keys, maybe have chain gangs; we do not need you? Well, I want those prison workers there. I want the bums and thugs off the street. I supported life without parole legislation. I have supported not only prevention programs but tough prison sentences. So are we going to tell the prison workers we do not want you; do not show up? And then here we are now on the eve of celebrating victory in Europe, the end of World War II, and what do we say to the GI Joe generation? Oh, aren't taking your health care, but we are going to say no to the doctors at VA; we are going to say we are going to shrink the nurses; we are going to say we are going to shrink the lab technicians; we are going to say we do not need them. We are going to replace them with something called technological innovation. We know we are going to downsize. We have already begun to do it. The President of the United States has not been AWOL on this issue. He has been in the forefront. He has charged the Vice President to do it, and we have absolutely done it. In Maryland, this downsizing will have devastating impacts on the economy of Maryland but also on the morale of Maryland. Right now, there is a morale crisis among Federal employees. They have essentially been told they are not needed, they are not valued, and now the bums and thugs in the world are even targeting them for violent attacks. I do not think this is the United States of America. We are from the generation that when Jack Kennedy said ``Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country,'' we answered that call. Many of the people in my generation saw public service as a noble calling, a way to serve the United States of America to do good and earn a decent living. Now they feel that they are absolutely under attack. I can tell you what is going to happen. You will not only downsize Federal employees, but, no smart, self-respecting person will want to come to work for the Federal Government. And who do you think is going to be in these Federal agencies? Do we not want a Government at all? If we want to do that, well then let us do that. Let us not go through this charade of downsizing, if you are going to have a Government and you believe that there are core functions that Government must perform, not only in national defense, but on domestic security issues and the risks that the United States of America faces--crime on the streets, drug dealing, punks that want to sabotage the United States of America, and we need law enforcement. We are also plagued by another horseman of the apocalypse called plague and pestilence, and we want to [[Page S7107]] make sure that we have the medical research and the staff at FDA and the Centers for Disease Control that are going to find the cures for disease and be able to work to contain pestilence around the world. We think that is important. What are the other threats to the security of the United States of America? It is a crisis of confidence. We should make sure that we have a core set of values that encourage people, along with the values of duty, obligation, loyalty, patriotism. If we treat our Federal employees this way, how are we going to call it forth? We are going to ask them to be loyal to us when we are not loyal to them, to have a sense of duty about the job they do when we do not have a sense of obligation to them? I think this is a terrible course of action. There is a logical, rational way to downsizing. I oversee as an appropriator 25 different agencies. We are already taking concrete steps to be able to do it. I was the one that commissioned the study on the National Association of Public Administrators, which is now being used as the framework to downsize HUD. I am not opposed to shrinking the work force, but I am opposed to shirking our duties to our Federal employees. Mr. President, our Federal employees have served their country, they have devoted themselves to public service, they deserve our gratitude and our support. We are already reducing by 272,000 positions. The Roth amendment is not only going to result in downsizing but, as I said, in downgrading. So I stand here to support those Federal employees and to defend them who defend my health, my safety and my national security. Mr. President, I hope we defeat the Roth amendment and, most of all, I hope we defeat the attitude that underlies the Roth amendment. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. I thank the Presiding Officer. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Medicare amendment now being discussed. I oppose the cuts in Medicare, Medicaid, and also in this budget resolution, I oppose the cuts in veterans' health care. I rise in defense of the GI Joe generation. And who am I talking about when I say the GI Joe generation? I am talking about the World War II generation--the men who fought on the battlefront overseas and the women who fought on the homefront here in our own communities; those wonderful Rosie the Riveters who kept the United States of America running while the men fought for democracy around the world. Now they are our senior citizens. They are the very ones who are the beneficiaries of Medicare and particularly the long-term care component of Medicaid. And they are the ones this budget will place an undue, devastating, and debilitating burden on. That is why I oppose these cuts in Medicare and Medicaid. In this budget, we are given cuts, not compassion. And here we are, on the eve of Memorial Day. We just commemorated V-E Day. In a few months we will commemorate V-J Day and the end of World War II. And now we are telling this gallant GI Joe generation that promises made are not promises kept. I am an appropriator. I once chaired the VA-HUD Subcommittee. I know about budgets. And I know firsthand what these cuts will mean. These are not numbers or statistics or line items. These are issues related to people's care--primary care, acute care, long-term care, and to making sure that people have the prosthetic devices they need. Mr. President, I ask my fellow colleagues in the Senate: Have we no character? Have we no memory of who these men and women are? They are the men who fought from the shores of Normandy to Iwo Jima. America's veterans fought to save Americans; they fought to save this Western civilization; and they fought to defend the very principles that this country was founded on. These were the women, as I said, who were called the Rosies, who made sure that not only the schools and businesses operated, but they were there making sure that we built airplanes, mobilized our defense, kept the United States of America running. And when the war was over, they went back home to raise their families, and they contributed to the greatest prosperity that this country has ever seen. We would not be here as a nation today, we would not be a superpower today, if it had not been for the GI Joe generation. They did not hesitate when they were called to service, whether it was the battlefront or the homefront in their own neighborhoods and communities. They organized and mobilized to save America. They organized and mobilized to save Western civilization. And now they must organize and mobilize to save their very own health care. Well, they are not alone. They should know I am on their side. I value them and I appreciate them. And that is why I oppose these cuts in Medicare and Medicaid and in veterans' health care. This budget deals with Medicare and Medicaid. It proposes to cut $250 billion in Medicare and $170 billion in Medicaid. The Lautenberg-Rockefeller-Mikulski amendment seeks to reduce some of the devastating effects and impacts that this would have on the very people who rely on these programs. Let us be clear. This is the single largest cut in the history of the Medicare Program. What will it mean to the GI Joe generation? It will mean that senior citizens in Maryland and throughout this Nation will have less access to health care. It will mean fewer visits to the doctor, reduced preventive care, including screenings for breast cancer and prostate cancer. It means fewer laboratory tells, such as delayed diagnosis for treatable illnesses like pneumonia. And it will also mean fewer doctors and hospitals accepting Medicare patients--those very doctors and hospitals that are now willing to treat senior citizens. There are going to be fewer home health care services and seniors will have less access to lifesaving equipment, like oxygen and kidney dialysis. The impact on long-term care is devastating. It will mean, in my own home State, that 4,500 Marylanders, senior citizens, will see nursing home care shrink in 1996 alone. They will see cuts in preventive care. They will lose prescription drug benefits for chronic diseases like high blood pressure, angina, and colitis. Mr. President, I am saying no to these cuts in Medicare. I am saying no to the cuts that would hold up treatment of heart disease and strokes for Maryland's World War II veterans. I am saying no to the cuts that would delay the mother and grandmother in Maryland from getting their yearly mammograms. I am saying no to these cuts. Of course, we have to worry about sustainability and solvency of the Medicare and Medicaid programs. But while we are looking at the bottom line, let us make sure we do keep the ``care'' in Medicare; let us make sure we keep the ``security'' in Social Security; and let us keep the ``aid'' in Medicaid. Balancing the budget should not be about rhetoric or scoring political points. Balancing the budget should be about honoring the contributions of the GI Joe generation, the generation who worked hard, played by the rules, created prosperity for this country. And it should be about fighting for the future generations, as well. This is a crucial time in our Nation's history, when we decide what kind of Nation we want to be, when we decide if promises made are promises kept, when we will decide if we will honor our mother and our father, which is not only a good commandment to live by, but I believe it should also be strong public policy. By supporting this amendment, I do believe that we take a stand as to where we will be going in the 21st century. Fifty-five years ago, a great First Lady by the name of Eleanor Roosevelt stood before the American people at a political convention. Europe had been invaded, Poland was occupied, the blitz had begun in London. We were on the brink of war here. She said to the American people that this was no ordinary time, and it called for no ordinary effort. And the people that she sent out that call of arms to were no ordinary generation. They were the men and women who organized and mobilized an incredible war effort--and they made the difference and they made no ordinary sacrifice. So now, here we are on the brink of Memorial Day and there will be those who will want to honor the GI Joe generation with platitudes and plaques and parades. I say we honor them by offering our gratefulness, our gratitude, our appreciation, and our commitment to them in the U.S. budget as we pass it. So I hope when they call the roll, we will vote aye for the Lautenberg-Rockefeller-Mikulski amendment and fight for this GI generation that fought so hard for us. Mr. President, I thank the Senate and I yield the floor.

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. [[Page S6802]] It is with great pleasure that I recognize and applaud young women from the State of Maryland who are 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 the recipients of this award from the State of Maryland. 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 the families, Scout leaders, and the Girl Scouts of Central Maryland who have provided these young women with continued support and encouragement. It is with great pride that I submit a list of this year's Girl Scout Gold Award recipients from the State of Maryland, and I ask unanimous consent that the list be printed in the Record.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise to speak about the Medicare Program and the need to protect it from drastic cuts. The Republicans have announced their plans to cut the Medicare budget by over $250 billion in order to fund tax cuts for the rich. Let me start by saying that I want to make sure that we keep the care in Medicare. I believe that the basic values of honoring your father and your mother should be the anchors of our public policy. I do not believe our seniors should have to pay almost $900 more in out of pocket health care costs each year. I do not believe that the typical Medicare beneficiary should have to see 40 to 50 percent of his or her Social Security cost-of-living adjustment eaten up by increases in Medicare cost sharing and premiums. We cannot let this happen. We owe it to our mothers and fathers, and to our family members. Last week I spoke at the White House Conference on Aging. It was an impressive gathering of 2,500 seniors and senior advocates from all over this Nation. Many of the delegates were current or former doctors, lawyers, administrators, business owners, nurses, social workers, gerontologists, and senior service providers. The delegates were charged with coming up with a navigational chart to meet the needs of our seniors today and to take us into the 21st century. The White House Conference on Aging came at a very crucial time in our history. We all know that our senior population is growing and growing rapidly. Demography is destiny. We must anticipate the future and what their needs are and what they will be. At the end of the conference, the delegates voted on priorities. Ensuring the future of the Medicare Program was one of the top five priorities. More specifically, the conference stated that the United States should: . . . reaffirm the covenant that it established with the American people 30 years ago with the enactment of Medicare and act to maintain and strengthen the program's structure and purpose, its fiscal solvency, and widespread public support. . . . continue to protect older Americans and disabled Americans, especially those on low and fixed incomes with respect to health care affordability and access, giving special consideration to the burdens imposed by co-payments, deductibles, and premiums. . . . ensure that programmatic changes safeguard the viability of the Medicare trust funds. . . . ensure that any changes to Medicare provide access to a standard package of benefits which includes affordable long term care, strengthens the program's financial well-being, preserves the social insurance nature of Medicare, enhances the quality of care and improves the program for beneficiaries within the broad context of health care reform There is much talk about another contract with America, but I believe the real contracts we must honor are Medicare and Social Security. We must preserve the covenant that we established with our seniors and their families to provide them with health insurance for their old age. Seniors have worked hard all their lives, paid their dues, paid into the system. We must remember who are seniors are. On May 8, we commemorated victory in Europe and the beginning of the end of World War II. Our seniors were part of the generation that saved Europe from tyranny and changed the course of history. We must never forget that. We cannot forget them and we cannot forget who will be the next generation of seniors. They will be many of us. And the next generation after that. They will be our children and grandchildren. We must continue to ensure that all seniors now and into the next century have the resources they need for their health care. Without such resources I fear they will become impoverished, their children may become impoverished, and we as a country will become impoverished.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I am delighted today to bring to the attention of my colleagues the installation next month of Rebecca S. Finley, Pharm.D, M.S., as the president of the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists at the society's 52d annual meeting in Philadelphia. ASHP is the 30,000-member national professional association that represents pharmacists who practice in hospitals, health maintenance organizations, long-term facilities, home care agencies, and other components of health care systems. Early in her career, Dr. Finley made the professional commitment to practice, research, write, and teach pharmacy in the challenging field of clinical oncology. She currently directs the section of pharmacy services and is associate professor of oncology at the University of Maryland Cancer Center in Baltimore. She holds an appointment as associate professor in the department of clinical pharmacy at the university's school of pharmacy. Dr. Finley received her bachelor of science and doctor of pharmacy degrees from the University of Cincinnati and a master of science in institutional pharmacy from the University of Maryland. On behalf of my colleagues, Mr. President, I want to extend my best wishes to Dr. Finlay in her tenure as president of ASHP. I look forward to working with her and the society on health care issues in the years to come.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Are asbestos-related injuries and deaths covered by the toxic harm exception to the statute of repose in S. 565?

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I voted for cloture on the product liability bill because I believe it is important to the economy, job creation, international investment, and our ability to do research, especially on issues of women's health. Mr. President, much has been said about caps. I do not like caps-- caps on job creation or caps on innovative research. I do not like caps on technological advancement or caps on our ability to go global. I am opposed to caps on profits, caps on wages, or caps on opportunity. My job as a U.S. Senator is to save jobs, save lives and save communities. I support efforts to reduce frivolous law suits and improve the efficiency of our legal system. I have heard of cost estimates for cases that are in the millions. That's outrageous. We should make every effort to establish consistency and uniformity, but not at the price of people's fundamental right to redress. When it comes to public health and safety I want to ensure that those responsible are in fact held accountable for their actions. For that reason, I will not support any legislation which closes the courthouse door to citizens with legitimate cases. This is the kind of balance I support and that I believe we, as Members of Congress, need to achieve with this legislation. Mr. President, today's cloture vote was a difficult decision for me. Product liability involves very complex and complicated issues, including joint and several liability, noneconomic versus economic damages, statute of repose, punitive damages, and alternate dispute resolution. To help me better understand product liability and its impact on people's day to day lives, I met with people on both sides of this issue. I met with business organizations and consumer organizations. All the groups made legitimate arguments expressing worthwhile and important concerns. Some businesses are concerned about how our current system ultimately impacts their decisions about innovation and competitiveness, small businesses are concerned about going out of business all together. We should take every step we can to cut unnecessary liability costs and encourage innovation. Innovation will ultimately lead to jobs today and jobs tomorrow. We must acknowledge that innovation, particularly in the health field, is critical for out Nation's economic stability and competitiveness, and it is critical to the health and safety of American citizens. I was particularly moved by the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association's position that tort reform is needed to increase investment in women's health research and technologies. Mr. President, the product liability issue has been around for quite some time. There was no doubt that I could not sign on to previous product liability reform bills introduced in the early 1980's. But, I believe the current legislation is an attempt to achieve a reasonable balance at this point. Is this bill perfect? Of course, it is not. In this case, it is hard to put forth a perfect bill. There is no doubt that we should review this issue in the coming years and make sure it is working. If it is not working, we in Congress have the option to review it and make changes. Looking at our current system, I believe there are areas that can be improved. For that reason, I am willing to support Federal product liability reform. Many of the reforms proposed by this legislation have already been done at the State level. So, in many ways we are acting consistently with respect to the States. Mr. President, I want to make it clear. The House bill goes too far. It includes a number of bad provisions, including severe caps on pain and suffering. To move beyond the Senate bill would be a mistake. The scales on this issue are delicately balanced. If those scales are tipped, it is unlikely I will support this bill.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, today we are commemorating one of the proudest days in our history--Victory in Europe Day. World War II was no less than a triumph of good over evil. As President Harry Truman said, it was ``a solemn and glorious hour.'' Today we celebrate our victory over the Nazis--and we honor those who gave their lives in the most deadly conflict we have ever seen. But most of all, we honor the Americans whose personal sacrifices gave us our greatest victory. In Maryland, thousands left factories, shops, and farms to fight on the front lines. People like my uncles Pete, Fred, Richard, and Florene. We also honor those on the homefront who kept the steel mills and shipyards going 24 hours a day to serve the war effort. That includes the women--the Rosie the Riveters who kept America going while our boys fought on the battlefields. Eleanor Roosevelt said that those days were no ordinary time and that no ordinary solutions would be sufficient to defeat the enemies of America and Western civilization. No only was this no ordinary time, this was no ordinary generation. I was a child during the War. I grew up seeing the heroism and patriotism of our soldiers--and seeing America united behind a common goal. I saw the sacrifices that individuals were willing to make for our country. That was the only America I knew. Our veterans of World War II are each a symbol of the principles that have kept this country strong and free. When we think of our veterans, we think of everything that is good about this country--patriotism, courage, loyalty, duty and honor. Our responsibility is to live up to the standards they have set--to foster a new sense of citizenship and a new sense of duty. That is why it troubles me that too often, young Americans do not learn enough about this special generation. It is our responsibility to honor our Nation's veterans--not just on V-E Day--but every day. Let us honor them in our homes, our schools, our churches, and our synagogues. And here in the U.S. Senate--when we set funding for veterans health care and pensions. Every day that we live in freedom, we should remember that their triumph was democracy's greatest victory.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to praise the members of the Montgomery County Maryland Search and Rescue Team for their work in Oklahoma City. This team worked among the death and destruction of Oklahoma City, driven by the hope that they would find another survivor within the tons of debris of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building. I cannot stress the gratitude that I feel as the Senator for Maryland to this group of dedicated heros, who worked 12 hours a day, for days on end, in their search for survivors. This group concentrated on search and rescue, ignoring the danger of falling debris and the mental agony of this tragedy. Mr. President, I feel the dedication this team and others like it displayed in Oklahoma City exemplifies the American spirit, a spirit of helping those in need to overcome a crisis. The brave men and women of the Montgomery County Search and Rescue Team placed their lives on the line for their fellow Americans; this is nothing less than an act of heroism. The Montgomery County team worked at the center of the blast zone of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building by shoring up and removing giant slabs of concrete as members of the Oklahoma City Fire Department removed bodies. Working at the center of the blast zone, at ground zero, was dangerous duty. I know that I speak for all of my colleagues as I recognize this Montgomery County team because they were an example of the many dedicated Americans who came from all across the Nation to lend a helping hand in the wake of this disaster. Mr. President, I conclude my remarks today by passing along to the Montgomery County Search and Rescue Team a much deserved thank you for a job well done. Thank you for restoring the notion that the American spirit is still alive and well. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the real contract with America. This contract was not written last summer, and it was not designed to last 100 days. It was written 60 years ago and was designed to last indefinitely. Mr. President, I am referring to Social Security, our primary contract with the American family. There has been a lot of talk recently about Social Security, much of it negative. There are many misconceptions about what Social Security stands for, what it does, and how it works. Today, I want to set the record straight. Social Security is a sacred compact between the U.S. Government and the American people. It is a system that gives help to people who practice self-help. Since it was created by President Roosevelt during the New Deal, it has provided financial security, and most importantly, family security for millions of Americans. There are so many problems in our Nation today that are robbing our families of their security. Crime, violence, drugs and divorce are some of the biggest fears that American families face. I do not want to add Social Security to that list of fears. Social Security is family security. If any of my colleagues doubt that, consider this fact: Twenty-four million Americans rely on Social Security to provide more than half their income. Almost 5\1/2\ million Americans rely on Social Security as their only source of income. To all those millions of Americans, Social Security means the ability to put food on the table, to support their families, and to live independently. Let me address some other misconceptions about Social Security. It is not the cause of our budget deficit. It has never added one penny to our deficit or our national debt. It is an independent, self-financed, and dedicated fund. Social Security is not welfare either. Today's retirees paid into the system and have earned a secure retirement, not a handout. I will not rob American families of their secure retirement. I will not vote to cut benefits and I will not support legislation that threatens the Social Security trust fund. Throughout my career, I have voted to defend Social Security. I have defended cost of living adjustments, which protect against the erosion of benefits by inflation. I have opposed a reduction in the Social Security tax, which would jeopardize the trust fund. I supported making Social Security an independent agency, which will ensure that it is run efficiently and smoothly. Finally, I voted to exempt Social Security from the balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. If we do not exempt Social Security from a balanced budget amendment, the trust fund will be in jeopardy. Right now there is a surplus in the trust fund. In other words, there is more money being paid into the system by working people than there is being paid out to retirees. By law, this surplus can only be used to pay benefits, the administrative costs of Social Security, and to buy Government securities. These Government securities become part of the trust fund and earn interest, just like Government bonds that we might purchase as an investment. I strongly believe that without it being exempted, this surplus will be raided by politicians in the name of deficit reduction. This would result in emptying the trust fund of the current Government securities, which must be paid back to Social Security. Make no mistake, this means cuts. It means going back on promises we made. It means saying no to people who have spent a lifetime playing by the rules and contributing to the success of this country. It means that the Government cannot hold up its end of the primary contract with American families. And it means robbing families of their security. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle said, ``Don't worry. We won't touch Social Security. We want to protect it just like you do.'' Yet they were not willing to write a protection into the constitutional amendment. I know I will not vote to raid the trust fund, and it may be true that my friends on the other side of the aisle won't either. But I cannot speak for members of a future Congress, and I don't believe they can either. This is the danger that we faced during the balanced budget amendment debate. I am happy to say that it is a danger that we have temporarily avoided. I am a middle-class Senator. I have spent my career helping those who are not in the middle class get there, and making sure that those who are in the middle class have the security to stay there. Social Security is the linchpin that holds the majority of our retired citizens in the middle class. Promises made must be promises kept. I will continue to fight for the promise of family security that America's retirees have earned.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to ask my colleagues to continue mourning the brave and innocent men, women, and children who lost their lives this past Wednesday in Oklahoma City. As I speak, I know that search and rescue workers continue to dig toward the bottom of the Alfred Murrah Federal Building where the bodies of more Federal workers lay. These public servants paid the ultimate price in the service of their country. Mr. President, most of the victims of this tragedy were men and women of our Federal Government. These people put their lives on the line just by being associated with the U.S. Government. These were common, decent human beings that were trying to make their Government work better. I urge my colleagues to always remember the countless, nameless Federal workers who work long, hard hours, committed to making our system of government work for the better who put their lives on the line for the U.S. Government. It was also an American community--working women and men with families providing for their children, who were affected by this horrible tragedy. The past week, this American community has come together as a shining example of why America is so strong. Local police and firefighters, Federal law enforcement agents of the FBI, ATF, Secret Service, and Federal Emergency Management Agency personnel show us what Americans want from their public servants: efficiency, competence, cooperation. Americans rallying to overcome a crisis that threatens their stability. This is the American spirit. I urge my colleagues to keep the victims and their families in your thoughts and honor them with your prayers. Thank you, Mr. President, and I yield the floor.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I want to thank the Senator from New Mexico for being the organizer of the Character Counts Coalition here in the U.S. Senate. We are men and women, Democrats and Republicans, from all geographic parts of the United States of America, and we are united with one voice today to talk about why character counts and why we need to instill these pillars of character in our public schools, our nonprofit organizations, and throughout the United States of America through every cultural method of communication. Mr. President, we are 6 years from the year 2000. A new century is coming. A new millennium is about to be born. We in America need to ask ourselves, what will the United States of America be in the 21st century? Will we be a superpower? Yes. We will be a superpower because of our economic structure. We will be a superpower because of our military might. But we will also be a superpower because the people of the United States have been empowered by a set of values. I believe the continuity that will sustain us between the centuries is our values. It is the core values that are expressed in the pillars of character, trustworthiness, fairness, justice and caring, civic virtue, and citizenship. These are the aspects of continuity that will help us not only cope with change but to embrace change and lead us into the 21st century. For some time, I have been concerned that in the United States of America we have gone from being a progressive society to being a permissive society. Instead of having character, you are rewarded if you are a character. To that end, I have been concerned that we call celebrities heroes. I will tell you what a hero really is. It is a man or woman who makes significant personal sacrifice, maybe even risking their lives for a greater good with no personal gain. Right now, there are foster mothers throughout the United States of America caring for children who are abused, caring for children who have AIDS. Those people are heroes. They are willing to make personal sacrifices with no personal gain for the greater good. They are people with strong values. They know they have a call to duty, a call to responsibility and understanding that for every right there is a responsibility, for every opportunity there is an obligation. Mr. President, we need to keep advocating a society based on virtue and value and not a society where every aspect of our cultural communication regards and exploits violence and vulgarity. This is not what the United States is about, and this is not what built the United States of America. What built America was virtue and value. Those are the ties that bind, the habits of the heart, neighbor helping neighbor, personal respect for yourself and respect for others. This coalition wants to reinforce those values that have sustained America through good times and bad, through war and through peace. That is why I am advocating the Character Coalition and the inculcation of these values once again through our public schools and nonprofits. My State of Maryland has been dedicated to character education. Over a decade ago, Blair Lee, a former Governor, had a values commission. Our Maryland attorney general encouraged values to be taught in the schools. We are now again moving on innovative character education programs. In my own hometown of Baltimore, the public schools are making sure that character counts. In many of our schools and higher education facilities, they are looking at how to have institutes to be able to advocate character. Mr. President, this initiative is important because we need to concentrate on community building and individual capacity among our young people so they can be part of a larger community. We need to be sure that we strengthen the American family and extend that to a larger community. I am happy to lend my voice and my efforts for a cause that I believe transcends party and geographic lines because it is not only the laws on the books that help govern us as a society, day to day behavior, and the way you react with one another, your neighbors, and the larger community. I believe the pillars of character count, and I am happy to be part of this coalition.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Mrs. Nancy D'Alesandro, a first-class First Lady of Baltimore. She was a dedicated wife, mother of 6, grandmother of 16 and the driving force behind a family that distinguished itself in Baltimore and in Washington. Nancy D'Alesandro was a Baltimore institution. There was nobody closer to the street or closer to the people. From 1947 to 1959, her husband Thomas D'Alesandro served as mayor of Baltimore and Nancy was a hands-on first lady. Likewise, she provided endless support during her husband's years in the U.S. House of Representatives. Devoted to her children, she was there for her son, Thomas D'Alesandro III, who also served a term as mayor of Baltimore and she was there for her daughter Nancy Pelosi, who currently Representatives. She was such an important part of not just the Little Italy section of Baltimore, but of the whole city and its history. She was a tireless worker and a great woman. She immigrated to Baltimore from Italy and graduated from my high school, the Institute of Notre Dame, in 1926. She and her husband were married for nearly 60 years, until his death in 1987. Nancy was so good to so many people--the nuns, the people in her neighborhood, people all over town. The city of Baltimore and the State of Maryland are proud and honored to have known her. The great First Lady of Baltimore has been called to glory. We will miss her.