Barbara Mikulski

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce the National Great Black Americans Commemoration Act. I am proud to sponsor this legislation along with Senator Cardin. African Americans have a rich history that must be cherished and remembered. This bill will honor African American leaders from across the country by helping to preserve their names, faces, and stories for generations to come. This legislation will provide continued Federal assistance to expand exhibits and educational programs at the National Great Blacks in Wax Museum and Justice Learning Center in Baltimore, MD. Some of the memorialized figures are household names, like: Frederick Douglass, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and President Barack Obama. Yet many more are unfamiliar, like the 22 African Americans who served in Congress in the 1800s. It is time we give these pioneers the recognition they deserve. Maryland is proud to be home to so many important figures in African American history. From the dark days of slavery through the civil rights movement, Marylanders have led the way. The brilliant Frederick Douglass was the voice of the voiceless in the struggle against slavery. The courageous Harriet Tubman delivered 300 slaves to freedom on the Underground Railroad. The great Thurgood Marshall, a man who was no stranger to the restriction of educational opportunity, successfully argued the Brown v. Board of Education case before the Supreme Court, and later became a Supreme Court Justice himself. These three amazing individuals were Marylanders. It is fitting that the national Great Blacks in Wax Museum and Justice Learning Center also calls Baltimore home. The museum and learning center is a popular and respected African American history museum. Approximately 300,000 people a year from around the country and the world visit the museum. Many are school children, who can see historical figures come to life in the museum's exhibits. Expansion will allow the museum to teach even more visitors about the important contributions of African Americans. Private donors have contributed too. Now it is time for the Federal Government to reaffirm its commitment.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I am here today to speak on legislation on which we had a cloture vote last night, the Medicare Physician Fairness Act. I am here to express my disappointment and frustration that we did not vote through a parliamentary procedure so we could debate the issue of what is facing physicians who provide treatment to Medicare patients. Under the current situation, American doctors will face a 21.5- percent payment reduction in what they get from Medicare when they treat Medicare patients. I think this is outrageous. Right now, we have people who took TARP money and they are acting like twerps. What they did is take the money. They don't lend the money, but they sure give themselves money with lavish compensation and bonuses. At the same time, every single day, 24/7, there are doctors on the front line saving lives, improving lives, and having people count on them. I am very sorry they chose over a budget debate to vote to take it out on doctors. We have to treat our doctors fairly for what they do and the sacrifices they make to do the job they do. This is a 21.5-percent payment reduction. Imagine that. Imagine if we had to take a 21-percent pay cut. Do you think we would have not voted for cloture? I don't think so. We are forcing doctors to maybe close their doors to seniors, denying people access to the doctors they need and the doctors they should have. We cannot let this happen. Every day, we ask the doctors treating our Medicare population to be unstinting in what they do. Then, when it turns around, the government is stingy. I think that is a double standard. We ask the people who provide the hands-on services to be unstinting. Yet when it comes to paying them for what they do, we are pretty stingy. This is unacceptable. As I said, we ask so much of our doctors. They need to be skilled, smart, empathetic, and they need to be available 24/7. We ask them to have the scientific understanding of a Nobel Prize winner and the patience and compassion of Mother Teresa. Our doctors assume tremendous responsibility for life, the risk and accountability for making the right diagnosis, the right treatment, which is tailored for each unique patient. They follow us all the way through when something happens to us or comes up in our lives. Our doctors look out for the aging population in our country. When people get older, they have multiple problems, and sometimes the very treatments contradict each other, requiring tremendous scientific skill and collaboration. When they treat older people, they need to take time to tell their story, their narrative. They don't go in just with a list of complaints. I have heard my Medicare constituents say time and time again: I don't know what I would do without my doctor. Our doctors are always there for us, but are we there for them? Look at what they face. First of all, in many instances, they are the first responders. They are there dealing with disease, trauma, and even death. For all the work they do while they are trying to work with patients, they have to face a health care bureaucracy--public and private. What is the one thing the public and the private programs have in common? They have a bureaucracy. Doctors tell me when they came into medicine, it was to make a difference in patients' lives. But what do they run into? Hassle factors, complicated administrative forms, preapprovals, and skimpy and spartan reimbursements, whether it is from private insurance or Medicare. In this country, we need to start focusing on value care, not volume care. Patients are grateful to their doctors, but Medicare reimbursement is important. All this work and this training is not rewarded for what doctors have to do. They have to work with a whole team of nurses, social workers, pharmacists, and integrative health professionals. One of the things we should do is make sure they are paid fairly. For health professionals--that entire team I talked about--their career is their calling. Mr. President, I am going to share a personal anecdote on why I feel so strongly about this--not only because I chair the Subcommittee on Aging, and not only because I have tried to be a champion for the older population throughout my public career. In July, I took a fall coming out of church after Mass. I broke my ankle in three places on that Sunday afternoon. I was in absolute shock. As I tried to figure out what I would do, some of the people from church came to my rescue, and I was able to contact my primary care doctor. I had an ambulance there pretty quickly and was taken to a downtown urban hospital--Mercy Hospital. It truly, in every way, exemplifies the quality of mercy that comes like a gentle drop. On my way there, and what happened to me as I went into the ER--that emergency room was like what we see on TV, only this was no miniseries; this was real life. The doctors at the hospital talked to me, and I spent time working with them as they treated me, got me through what I needed to do. I was met by the ER doctor. I had x-rays; there was a radiologist there. There was my primary care doctor on the phone. There was a gifted and talented orthopedic surgeon, who left his family at a cookout because the call of duty came, and he raced to be there. Was it for Senator Barb? No. The people in the ER were doing the same thing for everybody. As I waited a few days for the swelling to go down, I had surgery which involved the anesthesiologist. I could go on and on. When I look at all of the doctors who cared for me that day and in subsequent weeks--the ER doctor, the radiologist, the anesthesiologist, the orthopedic surgeon, my primary care doctor, and the cardiologist-- they were wonderful people at my side. They were people who graduated from college, who then had gone to medical school, at considerable stress and cost. They had gone through sophisticated residency programs, and some even fellowships. They also participate in ongoing continuing medical education requirements. But they do it not because it is required but because they want to be tops in their field. For all of that work and the responsibility they assume, we have to be able to reimburse them. Mr. President, I have seen the health care system from the wheelchair up. I have seen people who provide the health care, and I have been in rooms getting physical therapy with others who also need care. One of the things they are absolutely clear about is we need to look out for the people who take care of us as they look out for us. Today I am asking that we recognize the doctors for all that we ask of them--the knowledge they need, the risk they undertake, the high cost of their education, spending 12 years in training, being on call 24/7, often being rushed from their families when they want to spend time with them. I ask that we recognize those doctors by compensating them justly and fairly and not treating them like a commodity. We also need to do that for the nurses, social workers, physical and occupational therapists, integrative health people, and many others. If we don't pass this Medicare Physician Fairness Act, we have real problems. Failing to pass this bill is not an option. I think we need to do the right thing by the doctors, and I think we need to do the right thing by the people who need the doctors. Let's do the right thing and pass the Medicare Physician Fairness Act. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 7 minutes as in morning business.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I want to talk today about the Ryan White authorization. The Ryan White authorization passed last night by, really, unanimous approval. As many people know, the Ryan White legislation is one of the most important pieces of legislation to fund help for those people living with HIV and AIDS. I want to comment on the importance of the bill, but essentially, in today's world, remind people of where we were and how far we have come. I want to talk about the importance of the bill. I could cite statistics from my own State. I have a State with one of the largest numbers of surviving AIDS patients, for which we are so happy and grateful. I have over 34,000 Marylanders living today with HIV and AIDS. As I said, the passage was almost unanimous. The debate was noncontroversial. It was the same way in our Health, Education Committee. Our debate was quite civil. It was even policy wonkish. We were focusing on the details of funding, how to include more assistance for rural communities where there is a spike in the number of AIDS cases. It was actually quite civil and collegial--robust as it always is in the HELP Committee. But as I sat there and listened to my colleagues--and it was somewhat dull, the usual--I thought back to 1990 when it was not like that at all. I say that today as we take up health reform. We are gripped by fear, we are gripped by frenzy where all kinds of myths and misconceptions are out there. The debate is prickly. It is tense. We don't listen to each other. We are out there, hurtling, hurling accusations. I want to go back to a day in 1990, a day in the HELP Committee chaired by Senator Kennedy, when this young boy, Ryan White, came to testify. Ryan White was diagnosed with AIDS at age 13. He came to testify at the committee when we were trying to figure out what to do with this new disease that was gripping the land, where people in our urban communities were dying, adults who contracted it. Here was this little boy who came, who was so frail, who was so sick, and he wrenched our hearts that day as he talked about this new disease that he had gotten. He had gotten it through a blood transfusion. But what he also told us about was what he was going through. He testified that day, mustering every bit of energy he had, speaking with verve and pluck about his plight, he told us about what had happened to him--how he was shunned in the class, how he was locked in a room, how children were forbidden to play with him. He lived a life of isolation and a life of desolation. He was treated like a pariah. He wasn't the only one. Anyone who had AIDS in those days was greeted as if they were the untouchables. I remember it well. If you had AIDS, you were hated, you were vilified, you were viewed as a pariah. People were afraid to get near you, afraid to use the water fountain. If you heard someone in our office had AIDS, you didn't want to use the same bathroom. Firefighters and emergency people were afraid to touch people bleeding at the site because they were concerned they could get it. Funeral homes would not bury people who had AIDS. I remember a little girl who died in my State who had AIDS, and only one funeral home in the Baltimore area would bury her. This is the way it was then. As that little boy spoke, we were gripped by tears and we were gripped by shame, we were so embarrassed at what was happening in our country. Both sides of the aisle were touched. The Senate stepped up and they did it on a bipartisan basis. I was so proud that day when Senator Ted Kennedy, whom we miss dearly, said: Tell me, young man, what can we do for you? And he said: Help the other kids. Help the other people who have AIDS. Ted said: I certainly will. And Senator Orrin Hatch immediately stepped up--sitting next to Kennedy--and said: I want to be involved. I want to work on that legislation. Ted Kennedy, Orrin Hatch, Chris Dodd, Tom Harkin, Barbara Mikulski, Nancy Kassebaum--we all came together. We worked on a bipartisan basis and we did move the Ryan White bill against the grain of many people in this country and in the face of the fear and frenzy. As Ryan White left with his mother that day, as he walked out in a very halting way, he was gripped by a media frenzy. The noise went on. They were pushing and shoving to try to get a picture of this poignant little lad. Senator Kennedy jumped up, built like the linebacker he once was in Harvard, and ran out and he said, ``Barb, come with me; Chris, get over there; Orrin, grab that chair.'' We all ran out and Ted Kennedy literally threw himself in front of Ryan White to protect him from being run over by TV cameras. Again, both sides of the aisle, we were there--Ted, calling this out--Chris, you go there; Barb, open the door; Orrin, stick with me, and Orrin stuck with him. They put their arms around him and got him into a safe haven in one of our offices. Ted Kennedy literally put himself on the line that day of fear and frenzy, and Republicans were right there with him, helping him out to get that young man to a safe room. Ted Kennedy protected that little boy that day, literally and figuratively, and he had the support of the committee. So as we move ahead today, as we reauthorize the Ryan White program for 4 more years, remembering that it is the largest source of Federal funding for HIV/AIDS programs, I want us to remember how we worked together, what it is like when we literally stand up for each other. Ted Kennedy literally protected that child 19 years ago. He stood up and protected the people who count on us to protect them every day. It was a moving day. It was a lesson to be learned today--Ted Kennedy leading the way, the ranking member by his side, all of us coming together. What I also remember that day was not only our bipartisanship and our compassion and our civility with this little boy and with each other, I remember the angry mob out there, worrying about people who had AIDS, finger pointing. I guess the lesson of today is don't listen to the mob. Don't be swayed by fear and frenzy. Let's get rid of misconceptions and stop accusing each other. Let's start to work together. Let's listen to each other. Maybe 20 years from now when we look back on the debate of health insurance reform, we will pass it and make it, and it will be so usual and customary, and we will be proud of what we did as we are proud of what we did today. Ryan White is no longer with us. But what he helped inspire a nation to do is. I thank him and his family and all who endured during that time. Now I call upon us again. Let's return to civility, bipartisanship. Let's stick to the facts. Let's stick with each other. I yield the floor.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, first, we acknowledge the need for the Commerce Department to clean up its act in terms of its spending. The Senator from Oklahoma has indeed identified the very programs that give me heartburn as well: the NOAA satellite program, which continually has cost overruns; the decennial census, until we intervened with Secretary Gutierrez, had become a techno boondoggle; the backlog at the Patent and Trademark Office is well known. However, he proposes to increase funds for the IG, even though the bill already meets the request for this office. This amendment is unnecessary because we provide $27 million for the Commerce inspector general. This matches what President Obama said he wanted to put in the Federal budget, and he thought it would do the job. In fiscal year 2009, the IG of Commerce received 25.8. So we puffed it up 1.2 million already. In addition to the stimulus package, just to be sure that money was going in the right direction, we in the subcommittee, working on a bipartisan basis with Senator Shelby, put in an additional $6 million to make sure we did have oversight and accountability. We have not received any indication from the IG that that IG needs more money. Unnecessary funding will not make those problems go away. What we want to do is be able to push them, advocate them, and stand sentry. The building restoration which this amendment proposes to do will only add to the Commerce Department's problems. It is called the Herbert C. Hoover Building. The building is in substandard condition. It really is in substandard condition. It is the only building over there that has not been upgraded in several years. Funding in this bill would begin to modernize it, particularly in much needed health and safety codes--heating, air conditioning, electricity, and plumbing. Funding in this covers the long partnership with GSA. I want the Senator from Oklahoma to know I agree that we have to stand sentry on Commerce. If you go over the bill, I have added some tough provisions with Senator Shelby on oversight--particularly on this NOAA satellite program. But taking from much needed repairs at Commerce to fund the much needed repairs in oversight I don't think cuts it. I will oppose the amendment of the Senator from Oklahoma, though I think he and I are on the same broadband about necessary stewardship.

Ms. MIKULSKI. I want to make a comment about the status of the Commerce Department building. I will be very clear that the subcommittee, on a bipartisan basis, supports vigorous oversight. The Commerce Building has not been renovated in more than 20 years. Let me quote to you from the Washington Post in an article called ``NOAA's Ark.'' It says: When the Marine ecologist Jane Lubchenko was finally confirmed in March as the Under Secretary of Commerce in charge of NOAA, she went to check into her new digs on the fifth floor at the Commerce Department. It was a fine corner on 15th and Constitution, nothing fancy, but it overlooked the Washington Monument. But when she opened the door and she went to powder her nose, she found a massive Norwegian rat. The critter had come in through the derelict plumbing that was in her office. Now, she, with her typical good humor, laughed it off and said, as an ecologist, she found it biologically fascinating that sewer rats were able to come into the Commerce Department. We told her she couldn't have a grant to study it, but we wanted to do something about the renovation. That is what we are--we want the best and the brightest to work in our government agencies, and to come up with new ideas such as in NOAA, to save the planet, to do the necessary scientific research to save fisheries. In that case, it would have influenced the economy of my State tremendously. We cannot minimize the need to refurbish that building. Air pockets have been developing in the plumbing at the Department of Commerce, and in order to get rid of the rats, you have to have regular flushes. This is not a laughing matter. It sounds like a laughing matter, but I want to be able to go forward to modernize the Commerce Department, working with the Secretary, and continue our vigorous oversight. Let's modernize the building. I hope we can defeat that amendment. There is an amendment that the Senator from Oklahoma has offered that requires more transparency in our reports to Congress. I think that is a good idea. Again, discussing this with my colleague, Senator Shelby, we both think it is a good idea. If the Senator from Oklahoma will concur--because I am for transparency and I believe we cannot have enough of it so that the American people can see things and make up their own minds--in the interest of time, I would accept the amendment. If the Senator would be willing to do a voice vote, I would be more than willing to accommodate that. I think the amendment is excellent and I believe it improves the bill. I am happy to accept it, or have it voice voted, or have a recorded vote, whatever the Senator wants.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, for a point of clarification, the time of the Senator from Oklahoma has expired and how much time do I have?

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I would like to speak on these amendments for as much time as I may consume, and then if there is some remaining time, perhaps we could, in the interest of comity, share some time. As I understand it, there is a vote scheduled at 5:30.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, before the Senator leaves, I wish to give him two punch lines. First of all, I know he doesn't think much of political science. He made that clear. But I wish to bring to his attention that Dr. Elinor Ostrom, who just won the Nobel Prize for Economics, is a political scientist. She received most of her funding through the National Science Foundation--28 grant awards since 1974. Those grants helped her lay the groundwork for winning the Nobel Prize. She is a political scientist, but she used that talent to win the prize. I will elaborate on that. I am a big fan of her work. The other point I wish to bring to the Senator's attention is that the National Science Foundation has an $8 million agreement with DOD in their Social Science Department on the social science dimensions of national security, conflicts, and cooperation. DOD, under its Minerva initiative, has joined with the National Science Foundation because they want academic researchers involved in studying authoritarian regimes, the strategic impact of religious and cultural change, terrorist organizations, and other new dimensions in social security. I will describe those grants in detail.

Ms. MIKULSKI. In a minute. What I wish to make clear is that the National Science Foundation has helped fund the work that laid the groundwork for a talented person to win not only the Nobel Prize but to come up with the kind of ideas where maybe we could win markets and jobs. The Department of Defense thought enough of the National Science Foundation's Social Science Department to come up with an $8 million-- and it is not a lot of money--but an $8 million agreement to fund 17 projects, where they are going to be studying things such as authoritarian regimes, terrorist organizations, the impact on religious and cultural change, and how maybe they could avoid us being blown up. If one of those studies helps one policymaker make one decision to save one marine, I think it is worth the 8 million bucks, and I am willing to put it in the Federal budget. I will be happy to yield for a question.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Will the Senator from Oklahoma agree that political science is one of the branches of social science?

Ms. MIKULSKI. Within these DOD grants, I am not sure which ones are sociology, anthropology or political science because it is in that one directorate.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I oppose, as you can see, the amendment of the Senator from Oklahoma. He wants to eliminate $9 million from the political science program at the National Science Foundation. I don't like targeting an individual science area. Today it might be political science. Another Senator might target biology. Remember how we stifled science under the gag rules and gag guidelines of stem cell research? Also, I don't like trivializing academic research and academics, that somehow or another there is worthwhile science and then there are others that can be minimized or trivialized. First, I remind everyone about the work of the National Science Foundation. The NSF has received bipartisan support, and in rising above the gathering storm, the National Academy of Sciences pointed out that the National Science Foundation is one of our lead agencies in promoting innovation through its research and its education programs. This bill also supports the funding for the Directorate for Social, Behavior and Economic Science. That is the one, which I talked about with the Senator from Oklahoma, which oversees the political science office. This directorate's mission is to use basic research to understand human and institutional behavior vital to rebuilding our national infrastructure and understanding how we operate as a society. This program began in 1962, and over the years, it has also included an open, transparent relationship with the Department of Defense. This is not black-box research. This is out-of-the-box research so maybe we could figure out our world better and deal with conflict resolution or when we are in a conflict, how we can work with other people around the world and build democratic societies and democratic institutions. In recent news, we also were awakened with great pride that two American women won the Nobel Prize. One is Dr. Greider, in my home State of Maryland at Johns Hopkins. I talked with Dr. Greider the other day. Wow, what a great American scientist. She answered her own phone. She was going to join her daughter at a soccer game right after she had gotten the call from Stockholm. As we talked about her groundbreaking research in microbiology, she said she was able to do her work because of the grants she had received through the National Institutes of Health. They had helped her get her education, and they had helped her do her research. They helped her to win the Nobel Prize. But for herself, she thought the prize would be a tribute to what her work was in microbiology that could lead to saving lives. We also had another woman win the Nobel Prize--Dr. Elinor Ostrom. Her training is in political science. She won the Nobel Prize for economics. She is the first woman ever to win the prize for economics-- an American woman. Although not in the Congress, she has received several political science grants from NSF because political science also looks at institutions which also have an impact on our economy. Since 1974, Dr. Ostrom has received over 20 grants, and these grants helped her do her fieldwork all over the world in relationship to the economic activity of people and communities. The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences thought enough of her work to award her the Nobel Prize. But long before they heard of her in Stockholm, the National Science Foundation had heard of her and helped her with her award-winning research. We have to keep this going. Our National Science Foundation and our other scientific institutions must go where no thought has gone before. That is the point of discovery. Discovery has led to innovation. Innovation leads to the new ideas that lead to the new jobs in our society. A society that doesn't innovate stagnates. And innovation comes not only in engineering, though much needed; it doesn't only come in physics, though much desired; it doesn't come only in medicine, in the biological research, though much revered; a lot of this is the basic social sciences. As I said to the Senator from Oklahoma, for the last 8 years there has been a relationship between DOD and the National Science Foundation--again, in open, transparent research. And here, I am quoting from the ``Federal Technology Watch,'' October 6, 2009. ``Federal Technology Watch'' is a weekly report on Federal technology, science, and policy areas. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the article from which I am going to quote.

Ms. MIKULSKI. The quote is as follows: $8 million has been awarded to 17 projects by the NSF under a joint NSF/Department of Defense solicitation. The competition, Social and Behavioral Dimensions of National Security, Conflict and Cooperation, is focused on basic social and behavioral science of strategic importance to US national security policy. So again, the competition is in the social science directorate. And the four topic areas the DOD thought it was important to contract out, through the NSF, are in the following areas, according to this article: Authoritarian regimes, the strategic impact of religious and cultural change, terrorist organizations and idealogies, and new dimensions in national security. They awarded these 17 grants, and let me read what some of them are. One is experimental analysis of alternative models of conflict bargaining. Now, you might say: Ho-hum. But you know what, maybe some idea out of that will help us crack how we can bring peace to the Middle East. Another is mapping terrorist organizations. Well, that is a pretty good idea. Maybe some of that research will help us get out of Afghanistan. How about predicting the nature of conflict? Well, we kind of know what that is, but do we really? Because if we understand the nature of conflict, maybe we can learn to defang conflict. Let's look at another issue which I am very concerned about because of my worry about the planet--avoiding water wars: environmental security. These may be new threats to the United States. I could read every one of these, but what I want to say is that DOD has partnered with NSF--to quote from this article--``to reach the broadest range of academic, social and behavioral science, and this collaboration combines the insights of DOD with the peer review expertise of NSF in support of the agencies' desire to promote basic social and behavioral research in areas that will benefit the United States.'' ``Federal Technology Watch'' said it best. To take out $9 million is really penny-wise and pound-foolish. I am going to oppose the amendment of the Senator on that issue. I will oppose the amendment of the Senator on taking money from much-needed Commerce Department renovations and putting it in IG because we do fund the President's request in IG. I do, however, like the amendment of the Senator from Oklahoma on more transparency in government reports that are coming into the Commerce Department. I believe we could have passed that one by voice vote. I am sorry we have to go through the mechanics of a recorded vote. He is worried I would drop it in conference, but I could give him my word that we would maintain that amendment as best we could. But so be it, the Senator is entitled to that. So, Mr. President, as we conclude our conversation this afternoon, I want to be very clear. We oppose two of the Coburn amendments. I accept one that you will see down at the desk where I stand. I had hoped we could avoid a cloture vote. Senator Shelby and I have worked hard on a bipartisan bill, and I once again acknowledge the Senator from Alabama, my Republican colleague. We have an excellent bill that funds not only the Commerce Department but the Justice Department, and now we are facing the threat of a filibuster by amendment after amendment. I had hoped we could have reached some kind of agreement on a limited number of amendments, but since we can't, it looks as if we are going to have to go to cloture. I think we have had a good discussion, and I want to reiterate the three goals of the Commerce, Justice, Science Subcommittee. No. 1, we want to promote the security of the American people. We want to do it over there and we want to do it here. That is why we fund the Justice Department. We also want to promote innovation, and we have vigorous funding for our science agencies and innovation from the government that will also be on the side of those innovators. No. 3, where we do agree with the Senator from Oklahoma is on increased oversight, accountability, stewardship, and transparency. Mr. President, I know we are about 5 minutes from the vote, so I will now reserve the remainder of my time. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on October 13, 2009, at 10 a.m., in room 216 of the Hart Senate Office Building.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on October 13, 2009, at 2:30 p.m.

Ms. MIKULSKI

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

Ms. MIKULSKI. What is the pending order, Mr. President?

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Thank you very much, Mr. President. As the dean of the Democratic Women in the Senate, we wish to tell our colleagues and the American people that we want to join together as women of the Senate today to talk about the compelling issues facing the American people in terms of the need for health care reform. We are going to be speaking out and speaking up about the need for reform. I will be the wrap-up speaker. In order to kick it off, I am going to yield--how much time does the Senator from Minnesota need?

Ms. MIKULSKI. We have nine speakers.

Ms. MIKULSKI. I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Minnesota.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, we thank the Senator for her advocacy to end this driveby delivery and other punitive practices. I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from North Carolina.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I now yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Michigan.

Ms. MIKULSKI. I now yield 3 minutes to the Senator from California, Mrs. Boxer.