Barbara Mikulski

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the proposed amendment and in support of the Committee's recommendation regarding funding for the national wind tunnel complex. The reason I oppose the amendment is that I believe that in our quest for quick fixes to help ease the budget deficit, that we do not make the kind of shortsighted cuts which will cost us jobs and productivity in the long run. Wind tunnels are the 21st century test tubes for America's aeronautics industry. No industry defines our country's economy more than commercial aeronautics. The European aeronautics consortium, Airbus, started just 25 years ago. But since that time, they've gained a 35-percent market share in commercial aviation. The European Airbus consortium now make and sell more commercial planes than McDonnel-Douglas, second only to Boeing. They are gaining ground on us, year by year, and threaten the long-term dominance of the United States in this centerpiece of our manufacturing base. Mr. President, the commercial market for aircraft is forecast to be in excess of $800 billion in the next 20 years of which almost two- thirds will be sales to foreign airlines. Russia, China, and Japan are weighing entry into this market. A vital factor in obtaining market share in the next century will be the ability of the U.S. manufacturers to introduce new aircraft that are capable of advanced performance through improved technologies. The new low-speed transonic wind tunnels will enable U.S. manufacturers to more effectively simulate flight conditions and reduce cycle times in the development of new aircraft and derivatives. It should come as no surprise that European governments have invested in six major wind tunnels in the last 15 years, which has provided Airbus with a distinct aerodynamic advantage. Mr. President, U.S. aircraft testing facilities are so far behind the times that American airplane makers must go to Europe to do much of their testing and face the threat of having their most promising technology compromised in the backyard of their biggest competitor. Commercial aviation is one of the few areas where U.S. preeminence in manufacturing now exists. We export far more than we import. This is one area of our manufacturing base where we still provide high-skilled, high-quality jobs for American workers. But unless we act to make this industry fit for duty, we run the risk that U.S. commercial aviation may go the way of the VCR, the automobile, the textile industry, or the TV. Mr. President, the $400 million that was appropriated in the fiscal year 1995 VA-HUD bill was provided to allow the Federal Government to join with the private sector in a cost-shared accelerated effort to develop these wind tunnel facilities. This is a Federal investment in pre-competitive research and development. It is not our intention to have the Federal Government pick winners and losers. We don't subsidize the production of commercial products. With this investment, we are simply making sure that U.S. companies who are up against other countries in this field have the kind of test facilities they need to retain their edge. Mr. President, if we are not willing to fight for aeronautics, what kind of manufacturing strategy do we have? It was an attempt to answer that question that persuaded Senator Bond and me to make the recommendation that we did. Rather than sacrifice future productivity and jobs, we elected to reduce funding available for public housing and new construction at HUD. We decided to defer some new starts and, given the administration's proposal to reinvent HUD which the VA-HUD Subcommittee will be addressing in the fiscal year 1996 bill, it makes little sense to add to the existing public housing inventory. Mr. President, we need this wind tunnel initiative to go forward now. As we noted in the statement of managers that accompanied the fiscal year 1995 VA-HUD appropriations bill, the $400 million appropriated is needed to leverage reliable and resilient cost-sharing from the private sector and State and local governments that will bidding on potential sites for the wind tunnel complex. The total cost of the national wind tunnel complex is estimated to be between $1.8 and $2.3 billion. This is more than either the Federal Government or private industry can fund alone. What is required is a partnership between the public and private sectors to share costs and technical know-how. NASA has already established an industry team led by Boeing that includes McDonnell Douglas, Lockheed, Northrop Grumman, Pratt & Whitney, and General Electric. Working with NASA this industry team is developing engineering, performance, cost, financing and site evaluation options needed to lay the groundwork for a comprehensive plan and strategy for the development of the wind tunnels. Although the administration has not requested additional funding for the national wind tunnel complex in its fiscal year 1996 budget request, the President is proposing that the $400 million appropriated in fiscal year 1995 remain available until fiscal year 1997 to allow for the completion of the comprehensive study. Guided by this study, construction of the wind tunnels can begin in fiscal year 1996, provided that funding provided in fiscal year 1995 is available. There might be those in America who say, why does the U.S. Senate want to advocate more wind tunnels? The whole Senate is a wind tunnel. Well, Mr. President, I know how they feel. Very often more gets said than gets done. What we did when we advocated the building of a national wind tunnel complex--this is the new infrastructure that enables the United States of America to be competitive in terms of developing the new aviation technologies that we need to have in order to have the new aeronautic aviation designs for the new planes of the 21st century. The reason I oppose this amendment is that I do not believe in our quest for quick fixes. Those kind of one-liners we can put out on talk rodeo or radio are so shortsighted that we think if we knock something out like this, we can grab onto how we cut out $400 million and saved a little muffin at the school lunch program, then we have been doing something. Mr. President, we need to have a future. We need to have jobs in manufacturing. The most important source of jobs in manufacturing right now are in our aviation industry, and yet we are being beaten to death in the new world market. Our competitors abroad have government-financed wind tunnels that are helping them develop the new technologies of the 21st century. That is what these wind tunnels are. They are test tubes for America's aviation industry. My colleague has spoken to the aeronautics consortium, Airbus, that started 25 years ago. With all the big bucks subsidies they get they have now gained a 35 percent market share in commercial aviation. The commercial in the next 20 years. Russia, China, and Japan are talking about getting into this market. Mr. President, keep in mind that the European Airbus consortium began in 1972 and by 1980 had a 20-percent share of the commercial market. By 1990, Airbus controlled 30 percent market share by the year 2005. So we will have competition from fortress Europe and we will have competition from the juggernauts on the Pacific rim. This is why we need to develop this technology, so that we can continue to make sure we are not on a glidepath and heading into a crash when it comes to our aviation industry. This is a partnership with the private sector. We are not picking winners and losers. We are paying for the previous competitive infrastructure with cooperation from the private sector. The private sector will pay to use wind tunnels. We cannot afford further delay. We cannot continue to allow U.S. market share in aviation to erode. Make no mistake. The issues here are jobs today and jobs tomorrow. Jobs in manufacturing that employ everyone from high-tech engineers to highly skilled people in manufacturing. I believe the best social program is a job. I want America to continue to be ahead in aviation. This investment is what will help the United States be able to stay there and develop the products necessary. I urge my colleagues to vote to table the Bumpers amendment and to support the committee recommendation.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Bond-Hutchison- Feinstein-Mikulski substitute to the Bumpers amendment. I want to thank the Senator from Arkansas for his cooperation in resolving this issue. Know that I support the policy questions that his original amendment raised, and am appreciative of the fact that when resolving one policy issue related to possible nuclear proliferation, we were not creating damage and havoc in America's space program. I urge the adoption of the substitute. I thank the Senator from Arkansas for his cooperation.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Will the Senator yield for just a question?

Ms. MIKULSKI. I am surprised the way the Senator characterizes this.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise today in strong opposition to Senator Kassebaum's amendment that effectively vetoes President Clinton's Executive order that prevents striker replacement from being used by Federal contractors. I am a blue collar Senator. I support the right to strike. I can't support Solidarity's right to strike in the shipyards of Gdansk and not support the rights of American unions to strike here at home. The President's Executive order protects the right of Americans to strike by prohibiting Government contractors who make their profit off the Federal funds from permanently replacing striking employees. The Executive order will also force these managers to deal with the issues raised in the strike, not just replace workers who protest as a last resort. It will restore basic fairness to the bargaining process. Strikers can mean economic ruin for both the workers and the company they rely on for work. There must also be equal pressure on both the workers and the company to compromise if a strike does occur. I believe that allowing management the threat of replacing workers gives them an unfair advantage at the bargaining table. If strikers can be permanently replaced, there is considerable less pressure on businesses to address the underlying problem and settle with their workers. However, if businesses can hire only temporary replacements and workers have to face the social economic disruption of a strike, the pressure remains on both sides to work out their differences. It's a matter of basic fairness to American workers. It ensures fairness in resolving labor disputes. My roots are in blue collar neighborhoods--this goes to my basic values. That is why I strongly oppose Senator Kassebaum's amendment. This amendment vetoes my values. I urge my colleagues to join me opposing this amendment.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, the Department of Defense's recommendations on base closings would have a very serious impact on Maryland. Up to 1,700 jobs could be lost--and an additional 4,000 potential new jobs are at stake. The effect of these job losses on families and communities would be devastating. I won't forget these families as I fight for Maryland's bases. But I will fight for Maryland's facilities based on their military value. There are three basic criteria that must be considered. These are the mission, merit, and value to the Nation of each base. In Maryland, my colleague Paul Sarbanes and I are working on a bipartisan basis with the rest of the congressional delegation. We are also working together with task forces in our local communities to make our best case based on those principles. When the BRAC examines the recommendations in Maryland, those are the principles on which we expect to compete. And we expect to prevail. I am shocked that some of the recommendations that the Commission will be examining do not appear to be based on merit, mission, or value to the Nation. The Navy's new plan to move the Naval Sea Systems Command [NAVSEA] to Washington, DC--overturning the last Commission's instructions to move to White Oak, MD--is incomprehensible. In 1993, the Department of Defense found that we would save tax dollars by relocating many of the White Oak personnel to make room for the Naval Sea Systems Command, which has been in leased space. Nothing has changed in the last 2 years to change that assessment. The strategic and budgetary reasons for the move have not changed. Already, many people have been transferred. Lives have been disrupted and new plans made. Now, the Navy's recommendation says that it was all just a big bait and switch game. We are now beginning a new round of defense base closures by reexamining the decisions of the last round. The Navy is asking us to overturn decisions made by the 1993 BRAC, approved by the President and accepted by Congress. This is a perfect example of why people are frustrated with their government. No one questions the merit of White Oak. Just yesterday, General Shalikashvili, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said that the loss of White Oak's hypervelocity wind tunnel ``could eliminate a unique national capability, a capability that serves military research and development needs and that is used by other agencies such as NASA.'' That wind tunnel, along with a 1.75 million gallon testing tank, are irreplaceable one-of-a-kind facilities. This time, the burden of proof must be on the Navy. They must show that the merit of their new proposal significantly outweighs the findings of previous BRAC commissions. They must show that their mission can be performed butter, quicker, and cheaper in Washington instead of in White Oak. And they must show that the Nation will achieve real savings from this new proposal. Those are tough standards * * * but in 1993, those are the standards White Oak met. We will hold the Navy's new proposal to the same standards--and we don't think their numbers can add up or hold up. The recommendation to close the Naval Surface Warfare Center in Annapolis is also a serious blow to Maryland and to the military. And it is another attempt to revisit decisions that were made during the 1993 BRAC. Some of the Navy's most important research and development is done at the Annapolis site. We have one-of-a kind facilities, and a world class workforce in place and working at peak capacity. Their mission is more important now than ever before--it is focused on the kinds of ship systems our Navy will need in the 21st century. And once again, the reasons and numbers haven't changed. So Paul Sarbanes and I will once again be leading the charge to maintain this vital facility. The Army's recommendations, too, must be examined by the same principles and standards. I am deeply concerned that the recommendation to close Fort Ritchie was made without fully examining all of the missions performed at this post, and has not taken a full accounting of the value to the Nation of those missions. This post is almost 100 years old--but has proven to be one of the Army's most versatile facilities. It has constantly adapted and upgraded its facilities to fit changing communications needs. Its facilities And nowhere does the concept of a full accounting become more important than at the Army Publications Distribution Center in Middle River. This center is competitive with the most technologically advanced private sector operations, yet the recommendation to close was flatout wrong when it said that they are not automated. I will push to make sure that one of the BRAC Commissioners visits this site, so that they can see this state-of-the-art facility first hand. With the facts in hand, I am confident that the Commission will recommend to the DOD that they revisit their recommendation entirely. There are some silver linings for Maryland. The far-reaching and forward-thinking consolidation at the Naval Air Warfare Center, Patuxent River will continue. Pax River is the only Navy base in the country that can do aircraft acquisition, research, development, and training. This ``one-stop-shop'' is a crown jewel in the Navy. I will stand sentry during this BRAC process to ensure that the next century mission of Pax is not overlooked or undermined. And across southern Maryland, I am pleased that the value to the Nation of NESEA and the Naval Surface Warfare Center at Indian Head was acknowledged and maintained. Another piece of good news is that additional jobs will be coming to both Aberdeen Proving Ground and Fort Meade. Each of these posts has a proud history of service and stand ready to make significant contributions as the military continues to reexamine the roles and missions they must perform in the new millenium. Mr. President, before a serious consideration of the fate of Maryland's bases can begin, we must first confirm the nominations to the Base Closure and Realignment Commission. I fully support these nominees. They will be seeing a lot of me, because I will be fighting tooth and nail for Maryland's unique facilities and capabilities.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Thank you very much, Mr. President. I rise with great enthusiasm to support the Rockefeller amendment. I believe that we should under no circumstances balance the red ink of the Federal budget by using the red blood of America's veterans. Americans have served the United States of America proudly with honor, with dignity and enormous self-sacrifices. We are at the 50th anniversary of the commemoration of World War II-- World War II in which ordinary people were called to do extraordinary things, and they did them. They did it at Normandy, they did it at Okinawa, they did it at the Battle of the Bulge. And when, at the Battle of the Bulge, a message was sent to our troops to ``Nuts.'' Well, that is exactly what we are saying on the floor today for those who would not be willing to exempt veterans with service-connected disabilities from the balanced budget amendment. We say, ``Nuts'' to those who wish to use veterans funding and make them vulnerable to these swashbuckling kinds of issues that we are discussing here. We know that the veterans appropriation for medical care alone numbers about $15 billion to $16 billion. I know that, Mr. Chairman, because I once was the Chair of the subcommittee that appropriates those. Though I am now in a sabbatical from the chairmanship, I am not in a sabbatical from fighting for American veterans. That $15 billion is designed to meet the needs of America's veterans in order to be able to meet their acute care, provide primary care connected to service-connected disabilities, and long-term care for those who bear the permanent wounds of war. Do we really want to make that vulnerable to budget cuts, mandatory budget cuts that will obviously come through a balanced budget amendment? The other part that the VA funds is disability pensions for those, again, who were wounded in the war and for those who are also now applying for those, who served in Desert Storm and other recent conflicts. Because of inadequate funding, we have a backlog that needs to be addressed, because our veterans now have to wait several months in order for that backlog to be able to be processed. Mr. President, I believe that the veterans who have already served the United States of America should not be called to do double duty by placing those programs related to the deficit--those veterans with service-connected disabilities being exempted from that. When we think of those veterans, they are the men and women of the Armed Forces who fought over there so we could be safe there. People like my Uncle Pete, my Uncle Fred, my Uncle Richie, who left banks, shops, and grocery stores to fight the Nazis and the war in the Pacific. They were the brave men who fought in Korea in an undeclared war, and in Vietnam in an unpopular war, and in Desert Storm in a high- technology war, and countless other contingencies, so when a President dials 911 they are there to answer, ready and fit for duty. Then what do we say? Thank you. We always say a grateful Nation will never forget. Well, I am absolutely concerned that we will forget and those who we will forget the most are those who wear the green eyeshades rather than military epaulets, as they look down at the Federal budget. That is why I support the Rockefeller amendment. Each and every one of those men and women in the military is a symbol and living testament to the principles that have kept this country strong and free: loyalty, self-sacrifice, and patriotism. When we think of our enlisted people, we think of everything that is good about this country--courage, loyalty. Our responsibility now is to live up to the kinds of promises we made to them when they were called to duty.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I hope that my colleagues will think long and hard, that when they go to Veterans Day observances, when they go to Memorial Day, when they rise at Fourth of July parades and give the V sign or the thumbs up, and when we vote we should never, ever balance the red ink of the Federal budget on the backs of American veterans who have served so well. I yield the floor.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I support the Rockefeller amendment. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 1 additional minute to conclude.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Five minutes.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to oppose invoking cloture on the balance budget amendment. Mr. President, the Senate should not rush to finish this measure--we are amending the Constitution of the United States and there is still much we do not know. We still do not know the impact of the balanced budget amendment on Social Security, Medicare, and many other vital programs. I am voting to continue with robust and vigorous debate so the American people fully understand the ramifications of what we are doing and how it will affect their lives.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, as a life member of Hadassah, the Women's Zionist Organization of America, I am proud of their humanitarian work around the world. I am also proud that Hadassah's founder, Henrietta Szold, was born in my hometown of Baltimore. Private philanthropy cannot take the place of public policy. But it can play a vital role in providing aid and comfort in places like Bosnia--where medical facilities have been decimated by war. I am pleased to share information with my colleagues on Hadassah's international relief work. I ask that Hadassah's report on their work in Sarajevo be printed in the Record. The report follows: Hadassah Nurses Councils Organize Massive Relief Effort for Sarajevo Just a year after its founding in 1912, Hadassah, the Women's Zionist Organization of America, sent two intrepid nurses, Rose Kaplan and Rachel Landy, to Palestine to treat the malnourished and diseased mothers and children of Jerusalem, thereby laying the foundation for its ongoing medical work in Israel. More than 82 years later, in August, 1994, Hadassah again sent its nurses on an arduous journey, this time to the besieged city of Sarajevo. Elsie Roth and Kathryn Bauschard of St. Louis, Dianna Pearlmutter of Boston, and Charlotte Franklin of Santa Barbara, all members of Hadassah's nurses councils, went to assess the medical needs of the war-torn city and plan and coordinate the delivery of much needed medical supplies and clothing. Traveling under the banner of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, the nurses visited Kosevo Hospital and the State Hospital of Sarajevo during their 7-day trip. The nurses met with hospital administrators, doctors, nurses, and other personnel and inspected operating rooms, pediatric wards and pharmacy supply centers. They found deplorable conditions in the hospitals, which lacked even the most basic medical supplies. At the time of their visit, Deborah Kaplan, Hadassah National President, stated, ``Hadassah has a long-standing commitment to providing humanitarian aid throughout the world. We are proud to sponsor these four courageous women and, through the Hadassah Nurses Councils, will work to facilitate aid to Bosnia as identified through this mission.'' Within five months of their return, the nurses, with the help of Hadassah Nurses Councils throughout the United States and in coalition with other organizations, churches and synagogues, amassed 30 tons of medical supplies and clothing valued at $3.5 million for transport to Sarajevo. Since the nurses' trip, close connections have been forged between the coalition and the Jewish community of Sarajevo. About 300 Jews, a remnant of the 2,500 Jews from Sarajevo who survived World War II, remain in the city. Under the auspices of La Benevolencija, the Jewish humanitarian society formed in 1892, the Jewish community in Sarajevo has assumed responsibility for caring for the entire community. They operate the pharmacies and other health facilities, distribute foods, operate a daily soup kitchen, and facilitate the evacuation of the elderly and children. In this way, the tiny Jewish community, which has existed in Sarajevo for more than 500 years, has been working to save its Catholic, Muslim and Orthodox Christian neighbors. All have been living under increasingly desperate conditions since the Bosnian conflict began nearly three years ago. More than 12,000 residents, including 1,625 children, have been killed and some 60,000 wounded. Medical supplies are not available to treat the sick and injured and restore them to health. Moreover, water, food, gas and electricity are in very short supply. Residents are now resorting to burning what possessions they have left, including old books and family heirlooms, in an effort to survive the winter cold. The supplies collected by Hadassah and the other coalition members were shipped to New York for storage in a central warehouse provided by Queens, NY Hadassah. Eight tons of clothing are now on their way to Bosnia by cargo ship. The remaining 22-ton shipment, including pharmaceuticals, medical supplies and uniforms, has already been sent from Dover Air Force Base on air force planes to Croatia where it will now be airlifted by the United Nations directly to Sarajevo. Hadassah members Sherry Hahn of Arlington and Elsie Roth, taking advantage of the cease-fire negotiated by former United States President Jimmy Carter in December, will return to Sarajevo to meet the shipment and help La Benevolencija distribute the supplies. Hearts will beat again when restarted by a perfectly reconditioned defibrillator included in the shipment. Bodies will heal when external fixators will hold them together without invasive surgery. Limbless people, wounded by shell fire, will walk again when more than 100 pieces of prosthetics replace their feet, legs and knees. In a letter to Hadassah, Sven Alkalaj, the Bosnian Ambassador to the United States, wrote, ``The Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina and its people sincerely offer the American organization Hadassah their thanks for the fine activities of four nurses who, despite the dangerous situation in Sarajevo, had the courage to visit our nation's capital. Their mission was one of humanitarian concern and genuine compassion for our citizens who are in need of desperate medical attention. ``All of these registered nurses displayed an overwhelming desire to help those in need. Their compassion will long be remembered by those of us who had an opportunity to experience their love of humanity and their zeal for the advancement of the human spirit.'' Ambassador Stuart E. Eizenstat, representing the European Community, praised Hadassah, saying that this organization providing in this tragic situation. Hadassah, the WZOA, sincerely thanks the government of the United States, particularly the Department of Defense, for its cooperation in airlifting the relief goods we were able to gather together into this ravaged land. For more than 82 years, Hadassah has been recognized for its pacesetting medical care and for the use of its resources and knowledge to benefit all humankind. This is but another example of Hadassah's affirmation of the Mishna's teaching ``Whoever saves one life, it is as if he saved the entire world.'' The women of Hadassah have learned this lesson well.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I support raising the minimum wage. It helps working Americans improve their standard of living. It moves in the direction of self-sufficiency and away from welfare. It gives help to those who practice self-help. First, raising the minimum wage will certainly help increase working Americans' standard of living. In this country, a full-time job should not mean full-time poverty. The typical American family is living on less than it did 15 years ago. The current minimum wage of $4.25 an hour for a full-time year-round worker equals only $8,500 per year. This minimum wage is not a living wage. Second, increasing the minimum wage helps people move toward self- sufficiency and away from welfare. I know that raising the minimum wage 90 cents is not enough to lift a family above the poverty level. But, if a 90 cent increase to $5.15 an hour is the best we can get right now, then we will take it. Finally, raising the minimum wage will help those who practice self- help. Two-thirds of minimum wage workers are adults over the age of 21. They are reliable, dedicated employees who want a chance to move up in society, or just to get back on their feet. They believe, as we all do, in the satisfaction that comes from hard work. They do not apologize for not making a lot of money and they are not looking for public hand-outs, but they certainly deserve a decent wage for honest work. Mr. President, the minimum wage is worth less than it used to be. Because of inflation, the value of the minimum wage has fallen by nearly 50 cents since 1991, and is now 27 percent lower than it was in 1979. I know in the coming weeks we will see many statistics, graphs, and figures from supporters and opponents of raising the minimum wage. But in this debate, I do not want my colleagues to lose sight of the fact that these statistics represent people, real people who go to work every day so they can pay their bills, and have a decent place to live. These are real people, who live in Baltimore, Annapolis, Hagerstown, and other American cities who must choose between clothing or food for their kids, between medical care or heat. A low minimum wage contributes to the notion of ``working poor''. By raising the minimum wage, we give people a chance to help themselves, to do better for themselves and their families, and to achieve the American dream. That is why I support this legislation to help make work pay.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to bring to the attention of my colleagues the excellent column which appeared in this morning's Washington Post by Dr. Henry Foster, President Clinton's nominee for surgeon general, entitled ``Why I Want To Be Surgeon General.'' I support this sterling nominee. He brings the right professional credentials. He has an extraordinary life history and record. Dr. Foster has devoted years to maternal and child health, and he is dedicated to the prevention of babies. He is a respected doctor for over 30 years, a medical professor and former dean of a medical school. He is a community leader in Nashville--a member of the board of the March of Dimes Birth Defects Foundation and the force behind a teen pregnancy prevention program, ``I Have a Future.'' ``I Have a Future'' was recognized by the Points of Light Foundation and former President Bush for its efforts in fighting teen pregnancy and fighting drugs. I am very concerned about the toxic atmosphere which has accompanied recent nominations of distinguished professionals to high office in our Government. I am disturbed at the thought that Americans of great accomplishment will decline to serve, reluctant to undergo the invasive and debilitating nomination process. Dr. Foster is the kind of distinguished public servant our Government needs. I am pleased that he is telling his own story, through this column and through the recent speech he delivered at George Washington University. I believe he must have the opportunity to tell his story in confirmation hearings. I am asking all of my colleagues to reserve judgment on Dr. Foster until he has the chance to tell his own story through the normal committee process. I ask unanimous consent that Dr. Foster's column appear in the Record at the conclusion of these remarks, and I yield the floor.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Reid- Feinstein amendment to exempt Social Security in any balanced budget amendment to the Constitution of the United States. I want to be absolutely clear. I will not vote for a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution that does not exempt Social Security. I will defend that principle in the Constitution. I will defend it on the Senate floor. And I will make sure to do all I can to exempt it in the balanced budget amendment. Social Security is our primary contract with America. Social Security is a sacred and legal trust between the people and the U.S. Government. It is a social contract that was established more than 60 years ago and I believe promises made should be promises kept. We said to the American people if you practice self-help, if you contribute to a Social Security trust fund, we will make available to you a safety net and a floor on which you can build your retirement. I believe this is a promise that needs to be kept. It was made in the New Deal. It was made in the Fair Deal. It was made in the New Frontier. It was made in the Great Society. It was reaffirmed by Ronald Reagan and George Bush and we should reaffirm it here. Social Security should be a sacred trust among the American people and should not be subjected to the vagaries of the U.S. Congress. Republican colleagues say, ``Do not worry. We all like Social Security. It is probably the one thing the Democrats did that we really do like. We do not want to touch Social Security and we can balance the budget without it.'' That is like hearing somebody say, ``Do not worry, Honey, I will take care of you.'' But then we all know that does not happen. If in fact my colleagues on the other side of the aisle believe that Social Security should not be touched, let us not wait, then, for some mysterious enabling legislation. Let us put it in writing now and then let us put it in the constitutional amendment. We talk a lot about the Contract With America and there is much about it that I support: the Congressional Accountability Act, the unfunded mandate legislation, the fact that we need to reform welfare to make sure we reward work, support families, and move people to self- sufficiency. I also want to go back to the original contract, which is the Social Security contract. We need to honor work. We need to honor sweat equity. We need to continue to give help to those who practice self- help, those people who put money into the Social Security trust fund, believing it would be there for them and not be subject to whatever the Congress wants to do on any given year with the budget. My contract with the American people and the people of the State of Maryland is I will not vote to cut Social Security and I will not vote for a balanced budget amendment that does not exempt Social Security. I will not vote to balance the budget on the backs of the generation that saved Western civilization. Right now we have wonderful, ordinary men and women who did extraordinary things during World War II who are now in their seventies and eighties, who absolutely rely on Social Security. Eleanor Roosevelt called that generation who mobilized for the war, for World War II, she called them to something, and said it was no ordinary time and no ordinary solutions would be sufficient to defeat those enemies of America and Western civilization. Not only was it no ordinary time, they were no ordinary generation. Now we cannot make them pay for the red ink that has been run up in the Federal deficit. Social Security is not the cause of the Federal deficit. It is an independent, self-financed and a dedicated fund. In the early 1980's we all took tough medicine in order to make the Social Security trust fund solvent. Today the Social Security has a reserve, it has a surplus because we anticipate the needs of an aging generation. Older Americans who survive on Social Security plus a small pension are not responsible for this Federal budget deficit and should not pay the price for the balanced budget amendment. family issue. Right now there are many families in my age group who are called the sandwich generation. They are helping support their mother and father--or in many instances their family is self-sufficient because of Social Security combined with a private pension plan--but this sandwich generation is helping mom and dad and paying for the kids in college. They deserve the fact that their mother and father should get the Social Security check that they planned for and that they thought would be there for them. I will not let those families down. I am on their side, standing up for the principles of family responsibility, self-help and believing when your U.S. Government makes a contract with you it will not change the rules of the game in the midst of debates on the budget. Let us be clear. Social Security is not welfare. It is not a line item in the appropriations process. It is not something we decide on every year. It is an independent self-financed solvent trust--underline the word ``trust''--fund. It is the foundation of retirement security and family security. If we do not exempt it from the balanced budget amendment I predict it will be cut. I predict it will be cut severely. This will mean that millions of families could see their incomes sink, and older Americans and disabled Americans will be placed at risk. We hear a lot about angry taxpayers, but they are not angry at Social Security. Americans know that Social Security works, and 79 percent of the American people want to see Social Security exempted from the balanced budget amendment. I stand with those Americans. Count me as part of the 79 percent. Count me as being 100 percent with that percentage of the American people who want Social Security exempted in the balanced budget amendment. Let us protect and preserve and defend that social contract with them and let us protect, preserve, and defend the Constitution of the United States of America. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. HATCH addressed the Chair.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise to give my strong support to the right-to-know amendment. The American people have a right to know what a balanced budget means. If a balanced budget amendment is added to the U.S. Constitution without a plan for how to balance the budget, we will leave the American people in the dark. Mr. President, I will not defend every line item in the Federal budget. I believe we must look at the mission of programs. If a program achieves its mission and helps people, it should continue. If not, it should be scrapped. However, before we adopt a balanced budget amendment, we should know exactly what it is that we are doing. We need to know just how these programs are going to be affected. What cuts are going to be taken. How deep. What programs. And most importantly what the consequences will be to the health, safety, and security of the American people. My first question is how a balanced budget amendment will affect Medicare. Achieving a balanced budget in 2002 will require cuts of between 20 and 30 percent in Medicare--between $75 and $100 billion in 2002. What will this mean for seniors? Medicare already pays less than half of older Americans' health costs. In the year 2002, older Americans are expected to spend more than $4,600 on health care premiums and other out of pocket health costs. But a balanced budget amendment could make seniors pay $1,300 more. What will that $1,300 mean? It could mean forcing older Americans to choose between health care and eating, or between health care and heat. Could a balanced budget amendment restrict access to health care providers? We do not know. If the cuts are taken out of payments to providers, those providers may decide not to see Medicare patients. This could leave millions with no access to health care, especially in rural areas. We have a right to know. Could a balanced budget amendment mean raising the eligibility age for Medicare up to age 70? We do not know. Unemployed individuals in their fifties and sixties already find it difficult to obtain health insurance. Many struggle with no insurance, hoping they will not get sick before they reach age 65, when they will at least have access to Medicare. If we raise the Medicare eligibility age, many more seniors could be forced into poverty, unable to pay their medical bills. We have a right to know. Will the balanced budget amendment force elderly Americans into managed care plans so they are no longer able to choose their physicians? We do not know. We--and they--have a right to know. There are many other agencies and many other programs that the American people depend upon to protect their health, their safety, their economic security. Law enforcement, traffic safety, education-- now will they be affected? What is the plan? Do we not owe it to the people we represent to explain to them how they will be affected by the balanced budget amendment? I applaud this effort by my colleague Senator Daschle, the Democratic leader. His amendment would satisfy the American people's right to know. I am proud to cosponsor and vote for this amendment, and I urge each of my colleagues to join me. I yield the floor.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, today I introduce S. 362, the Metropolitan Washington Airports Act Amendment of 1995. In light of the Supreme Court's decision last month which compels congressional action, I am sponsoring this legislation which finally eliminates congressional oversight over the Airports Authority Board of Directors, and makes this Board more accountable to the communities it serves. Similar legislation was introduced in the House of Representatives by my colleague, Mrs. Morella of Maryland. This legislation will amend the Metropolitan Washington Airport Act of 1986 by reorganizing the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority and providing for greater local involvement in the management of Dulles and Washington National Airports. I believe in strong local involvement in the management of our airports. The Airports Authority Board structure which was struck down recently by the Supreme Court did not adequately incorporate representation of local communities. The legislation will restore the involvement of communities in this region into the management of the Washington area airports by reorganizing the Airports Authority Board of Directors into 11 members who reside in the Washington, DC, region. These board members will be appointed by the chief executives of Virginia, Maryland, and the District of Columbia, the Virginia State legislature, or by the local council of governments. The legislation also ensures local involvement in any decision by the Washington Metropolitan Airports Authority Board of Directors which could result in a change in aircraft noise in the vicinity our local airports. The legislation mandates that a local group of citizens, the committee on noise abatement, be notified by the Board of any decision affecting noise abatement so that they have the opportunity to review the proposed action. In the interest of the citizens most affected by aircraft noise, I feel that local oversight is important in any airport authority decision involving the serious issue of noise abatement. I hope my colleagues will agree with me that airports should be accountable to the communities they serve, and I hope we will see enactment of this legislation during the 104th Congress. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, perhaps more than any other word, Auschwitz is synonymous with evil. Fifty years ago today, Russian soldiers liberated Auschwitz. The horrors of Auschwitz are incomprehensible and undescribable. Over 1 million people lost their lives at Auschwitz--the largest of the Nazi death camps. Ninety percent were Jews. Hundreds of thousands were children. Auschwitz represented the German's campaign to exterminate a people-- the Jews. They almost succeeded--killing two out of three Jews in Europe. As a Polish-American, I carry the images of Auschwitz in my heart. race. After Poland was conquered, German authorities expelled much of the native Polish population from regions of the newly annexed territories. Polish cities were given German names and German settlers were colonized on Polish land. In occupied Poland, the Nazi governor, Hans Frank, proclaimed: ``Poles will become slaves in the German Reich.'' The Nazis set out to destroy Polish culture. Thousands of Polish teachers, politicians, university professors, and artists were executed or sent to Nazi concentration camps. Catholic priests were among the main targets of Nazi mass murder in Poland. In fact, Auschwitz was created as an internment camp for Polish dissidents. And thousands of Poles were murdered alongside the Jews in Auschwitz. Many Poles risked their lives to save Jews: Irena Sendler was a young social worker in Warsaw. She used her position to smuggle 200 Jewish children out of the ghetto to safe houses. In 1943, Sendler was arrested by the gestapo, brutally tortured and condemned to death. On the day of her execution, she was freed with the help of the Jewish underground. Irena Adamowicz, a Polish Catholic, aided in establishing contacts between the Jewish Underground and the main Polish resistance organization. Jan Karksi, who, while working for the Polish Government in exile, was one of the few outsiders to visit the Warsaw Ghetto. He appealed to the allies to do something. These are just a few examples. But as a Polish-American, it pains me to know that these brave patriots were a minority. The majority of Poles, like the majority of Europeans, were neither killers nor victims. Most merely stood by, neither collaborating, nor coming to the aid of the victims. This passivity amounted to acquiescence. Elie Weisel, a survivor of Auschwitz, visited Auschwitz 25 years after the liberation. He wrote: I hadn't realized how near the village was. I had thought of it as worlds distant from the camp. But the villagers could see what was happening behind the barbed wire, could hear the music as the labor details trudged to work and back again. How did they manage to sleep at night? How could they go to mass on Sunday, attend weddings, laugh with their children, while a few paces away human beings despaired of the human race. Many years later, Eli Weisel was awarded the Nobel Prize. This week he led the American delegation to Auschwitz. As a Polish-American, I traveled to Poland in the late 1970's. I was a Congresswoman. And I wanted to see my heritage. I went to the small village where my family came from. It was a very moving and historic experience. But I also wanted to see the dark side of my history, and I went to Auschwitz. In touring Auschwitz, it was an incredibly moving experience to go through the gate, to see the sign, to go to see the chambers. I went to a cell that had been occupied by Father Kolbe, a Catholic priest, who gave his life for a Jewish man there. And then, for those of you who don't know, I'm a social worker, I've been a child abuse worker and I don't flinch. But then I got half way through that tour and I came to a point in that tour where I saw the bins with glasses and the children's shoes, and this 40-something year old Congresswoman could not go on. I became unglued. I had to remove myself from the small tour, go off into a private place in Auschwitz, cry in a way that shook my very soul. And when I left there, I thought, now I really know why we need an Israel. And that is why I will fight so hard to ensure the survival of Israel. I know its importance. I know why it exists. I also know why it is so important for us educate our young people-- about the effects of hatred, about the importance of history. Several years ago. I helped my friend Mark Talisman to create a living memorial to the Jews of Poland--called Project Judaica. Through its cultural center, its international education programs, and its rescue of Jewish artifacts, Project Judaica seeks to educate people about the rich history of the Polish Jews. Project Judaica's Center for Jewish History and Culture is in Krakow, near the village my family is from. In closing, I would like to read the words of Eli Weisel: Never shall I forget that night, the first night in camp, which has turned my life into one long night, seven times cursed and seven times sealed. Never shall I forget that smoke. Never shall I forget the faces of the children, whose bodies I saw turned into wreathes of smoke beneath a silent blue sky. Never shall I forget those flames which consumed my faith forever. Never shall I forget that nocturnal silence which deprived me, for all eternity, of the desire to live. Never shall I forget those moments which murdered my God and my soul and turned my dreams to dust. Never shall I forget these things, even if I am condemned to live as long as God himself. Mr. President, 50 years after the liberation of Auschwitz, let us pledge never to forget. And let us honor those who died in the holocaust by fighting against bigotry, hate crimes, and intolerance.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, to whose time is the time being charged for the quorum?

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

Ms. MIKULSKI. On the time of the Senator from Oklahoma.

Ms. MIKULSKI. I see. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor and, Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. MIKULSKI. I thank the Chair. I thank Senator Boxer for yielding me time. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in favor of the Boxer sense-of- the-Senate resolution. I join Senator Boxer and the other cosponsors in expressing our outrage at the recent killings of clinic workers in Massachusetts. I wish to thank my colleague from California for offering this sense- of-the-Senate resolution. I am only sorry that we were not able to bring this to the floor in a more timely fashion. But her steadfastness in pursuing our right to speak up, speak out, and vote on this issue is really to be a source of kudos to her. When we come to the content of this resolution, we have to say that, sadly, this is not the first time we have come to the floor to express our outrage at senseless killing of health care providers. That is what we are talking about--health care providers. We came to the floor when the antiabortion extremist Paul Hill shot and killed Dr. Gunn. We were here when Dr. John Britton and Lt. Col. James Barrett were brutally murdered in Pensacola. And we are here again tonight to decry the deaths of Shannon Lowney and Leanne Nichols and the five other individuals who were seriously injured earlier this month. The killing must stop, and it must stop now. It is no longer simply a protest against abortion. Peaceful protests have given away to extremism. Protest has turned to violence. This is not the American way. The United States of America, through its Constitution, provides people the opportunity to speak out, to have dissenting views, and to do it in an atmosphere that is protected by law. But, unfortunately, that is not where we are now. For those physicians and other people who work at the Planned Parenthood clinics, doctors are being forced to wear bulletproof vests. This is the United States of America. A doctor, instead of putting on a white lab coat, must put on a bulletproof vest to meet the compelling needs of his patients; clinics are being forced to build fortresses to protect their staff; patients are being forced to use escorts to get into the clinics. And even with all of these precautions, the killings continue. I cannot tell you how saddened I am by this. Women in this country are being sent a message that they risk their lives if they seek reproductive health care. Let me repeat that. In the United States of America, women risk their lives if they seek reproductive health care. That is an injustice. Last year, this body adopted a rule of law--it was called the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act--to put an end to this violence. But the success of this law now rests with the Attorney General. I believe she has taken important steps to enforce this bill. But the Attorney General must take all necessary steps to ensure that not one more health care worker loses his or her life in a facility that happens to perform abortions. The Attorney General must do all that can be done to see that no more individuals are injured, maimed or murdered. She must enforce the law so that individuals are protected from violent attack. Every effort must be made to stop the terrorism that reproductive health clinics and their staffs endure. The message must be clear: That these attacks will be met with the harshest response. And the message must be clear to the opponents of the freedom to choose, that this type of extremism will not be tolerated, and it is not American. The violence has gone too far. It is time to return to civility, to decency, to the principles on which this country were founded. A woman should not be at risk of losing her life to get the health care she needs. Let me say this about protests. In the United States of America people can protest. When we passed the Freedom of Access to Clinic legislation, we ensured that nonviolent peaceful protests be allowed to occur. Mr. President, I am in politics because I was a protester, a nonviolent protester who organized her community out of the basement of St. Stanislaus Church to protest the highway, a 16-lane highway, that was going to sweep through my neighborhood, taking the homes of older European ethnics, and the first black home ownership neighborhood in Baltimore. So I know what it is like to be a nonviolent protester, to organize people in a way that is joyful, exciting, creative. Know what we did? We did not go out and beat a mayor up. We did not bomb the Secretary of Transportation. We held a festival. We held a festival to show what our neighborhoods were. And in that neighborhood where I now live and commute from Baltimore every day, stands the neighborhood that I helped save. And by being a protester the people did not punish me. They rewarded me and sent me to the Baltimore City Council, from there, the House of Representatives, and then to be here in the U.S. Senate. For everyone in the United States of America whose views I either agree or disagree with, I want to guarantee them the right of continued nonviolent protest. So the words of Gandhi, Martin Luther King, and that methodology is there. We are acting like these are the Bull Connors of reproductive freedom. In the old days those who were against civil rights bombed churches, killed children; Bull Connor turns the fire hoses on them. This is the same thing. So, now, we have to stop that. We have to stop it with the law. Why do women go to these clinics? Who goes? They are ordinary women, many of whom who have no health insurance. They have bad backs, they have varicose veins, and they want to see a doctor. And their GYN is their primary care physician. That is what they want to go there for, general primary care, information about reproductive freedom, and some, because of either medical necessity or medical appropriateness, will have an abortion. That is why they go. I call upon the religious leaders of this country to speak out against this. I call upon the Attorney General of the United States to enforce the law. Tonight I call upon the U.S. Senate to pass the Boxer resolution. Let us make sure that America is the land of the free.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I am pleased to work on a bipartisan basis with my colleagues Senator Dodd and Senator Domenici to cosponsor and renew my commitment to reforming securities litigation. This bill addresses the problem of bounty hunters racing to the courthouse to be the first to file a lawsuit based on nothing more than a change in stock price--and then coerce innocent businesses to settle these lawsuits. This bill eliminates the payment of bonus awards or bounties to representative plaintiffs in class actions. It gives people who are harmed extra time to consider who really harmed them before they have to file their case at the courthouse, by extending the statute of limitations to 2 years after the violation was or should have been discovered, and 5 years after the violation occurred. It also puts the investor in the driver's seat to control the litigation and recover more of their damages. My constituents have told me that some attorneys are paying stock brokers and others a bounty in return for identifying who they should sue. High-technology companies, their accountants, and others are being lumped into these securities lawsuits that are filed at the courthouse just hours after a change in the stock price. I am opposed to the race-to-the courthouse mentality that ends up in needless lawsuits that have huge litigation costs for firms that should be focused on creating jobs. I want to see the courthouse door kept open for the little guy, but let's get this bounty hunter law under control. These needless lawsuits hit these firms through: expensive liability insurance premiums; disruption to the lives of those people who have been drawn into the suit--and is a tremendous distraction from the company's achieving its mission, contributing to the economy, and creating jobs. I am concerned about these costs to the private sector, and to communities across America--and especially the costs to the high- technology community who are our hope for jobs in the 21st century. I am hearing loud and clear that the current bounty hunter mentality is putting these jobs at risk. Rather than creating jobs, these high-technology jobs are having to put their efforts and their dollars into expensive litigation and insurance. I know how the system works with these lawsuits. It doesn't matter who's right or who's wrong. Both the guilty and the innocent end up settling at some big cost, even if just to avoid the risk and to get on with life. So, the good guys cut their losses and the bad guys get off the hook. I am pleased to work on a bipartisan basis with Senators Domenici and Dodd and support this legislation that helps take care of the good guys.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss S. 1, the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act. Mr. President, in traveling throughout the State of Maryland, I have heard complaints of needs of their community against compliance with Federal regulations. These local officials have raised valid concerns over the pressure to implement mandates imposed by Washington with no funds to back it up. I believe we need to work as a partner with our cities, towns, and counties--not as their adversary. I support the validity of their concerns. I am on their side. We need to have a better understanding about the costs of Federal mandates--on the public sector and private sector--and help our local partners meet those costs. I am glad the Senate has finally begun the debate on this important issue. I believe the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act takes an important step toward correcting many of the problems of the past. This legislation will make Congress estimate the costs of new legislation and regulations on State and local governments and the private sector, specify the means to pay for it, and reduce or eliminate a mandate if adequate funding is not provided. This bill applies only to new legislation. It does not effect any existing law or program. Furthermore, this legislation exempts any law or regulation that enforces constitutional rights, establishes or enforces laws that prohibit discrimination, provides emergency assistance to State and local governments, pertains to national security or treaty ratification and any bill designated as an emergency by the President and Congress. While I wholeheartedly support these exemptions, as well as the overall intent of this legislation, I have a number of questions regarding its impact and applicability. I am very concerned about this bill's impact on laws that are designed to protect public health and safety. Will this bill diminish the Government's ability to protect public health and provide essential public safety? I am concerned about how this bill defines public and private and how it impacts future laws and programs. Could a mandate exempt the public sector while applying to the private sector? Could public schools be exempt from a mandate while Catholic or other religious day schools would be forced to comply? Would future emissions standards apply to UPS trucks but not MTA buses? I am concerned about how Federal agencies will have to implement the complex provisions of this legislation. For example, will Federal agencies be forced to rewrite regulations every year if funding levels change? I am concerned about confusion this bill may generate to State and local governments and the private sector. I believe we need laws and regulations that are clear, enforceable, and universally applicable. I support the intent of this legislation and many of its provisions; at the same time I remain concerned over the issues I have outlined. I believe these questions need to be answered before the Senate adopts any unfunded mandates legislation. regarding relationship between unfunded mandates and sound risk regulation