Barbara Mikulski

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, the United States needs an energy plan that balances traditional sources of energy with alternative energy sources and conservation. The energy conference report is not a perfect bill, but it is the result of true bipartisan compromise that managed to put some of the most harmful provisions on the cutting room floor. On balance, I support this bill because it moves us towards a more stable, reliable electricity grid, protects our consumers, and includes much needed investments in renewable sources of energy. I am especially pleased that this bill strengthens the reliability of our electricity grid and protects ratepayers from market abuses, particularly in the wake of Enron and the massive blackouts that struck parts of the Midwest and Northeast 2 years ago. I am also pleased that the bill reauthorizes the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, LIHEAP. This program protects our most vulnerable citizens by assisting them with their heating and cooling bills. I am also pleased that the conference report does not contain many of the most harmful provisions that were included in this legislation in the past. The bill does not allow for drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, ANWR. The bill also does not include provisions that would shield producers of gasoline additives from lawsuits. I strongly opposed these provisions in the past and am pleased they are not included in this bill. Unfortunately, the bill does contain some questionable environmental provisions. I am also disappointed that the bill does not include important provisions I supported in the Senate bill, particularly the renewable portfolio standard, steps to deal with global warming, and requirements that would have lessened our dependence on foreign oil. In the end, this is not the bill that the Democrats would have written. It doesn't address the most pressing issues facing our country today: sky-high gas prices, global warming, and our growing dependence on foreign oil. But the bill does take important steps to strengthen the reliability of our electricity grid, protect consumers from market abuses, and move us towards greater use of renewable sources of energy. This is just the beginning of a serious debate that will continue in the halls of Congress and in communities all across the country in the days to come.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Enzi in introducing the Keeping Seniors Safe from Falls Act of 2005. Falls are a serious public health problem that affects millions of seniors each year. This bill expands research and education on elder falls to help keep seniors safe and in their own homes longer. The facts are staggering. One out of every three Americans over age 65 falls every year. In 2002, over 12,800 seniors died and approximately 1.6 million seniors visited an emergency department as a result of a fall. Falls are the leading cause of injury deaths among seniors. It is estimated that annually more than 80,000 individuals over 65 years of age sustain a traumatic brain injury as a result of a fall. Falls can be financially disastrous for families, and falls place a serious financial strain on our health care system. By 2020, senior falls are estimated to cost the health care system more than $32 billion. These facts do not begin to tell the story of what falls can mean for seniors and their loved ones. Falls don't discriminate. Many of us have friends or relatives who have fallen. A fall can have a devastating impact on a person's physical, emotional, and mental health. If an older woman loses her footing on her front porch steps, falls, and suffers a hip fracture, she would likely spend about two weeks in the hospital, and there is a 50 percent chance that she would not return home or live independently as a result of her injuries. With some help, there are simple ways that seniors can improve the safety of their homes and make a fall far less likely. Home modifications like hand rails in the bathroom, rubber mats on slippery tile floors, and cordless telephones that seniors can keep nearby can make a big difference. Well trained pharmacists can review medications to make sure that two drugs do not interact to cause dizziness and throw a senior off balance. That is why I teamed up with Senator Enzi to introduce this important bill. This legislation is about getting behind our Nation's seniors and giving help to those who practice self-help. This bill creates public education campaigns for seniors, their families, and health care providers about how to prevent falls. It expands research on elder falls to develop better ways to prevent falls and to improve the treatment and rehabilitation of elder falls victims. This legislation also requires an evaluation of the effect of falls on health care costs, ways we can reduce falls, and effective solutions that can be adopted that can help reduce health care costs associated with falls. Reducing the number of falls will help seniors live longer, healthier, more independent lives. This bill has the strong support of the National Safety Council, the Home Safety Council and the National Council on Aging, and has been supported in the past by over 30 national and local aging and safety organizations. I look forward to working with Senator Enzi and my colleagues on the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee to get this bill signed into law.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, today I rise on behalf of my constituents to oppose the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. It should be called the Special Interest Protection Act because it puts one industry's bottomline ahead of the families and victims of gun violence. It also slams closed the courthouse door to those seeking justice for victims of gun violence. Remember when--not to long ago--the citizens of Maryland, Virginia and the District of Columbia were terrorized by a sniper. Remember when 10 innocent people were killed while they were going about their daily routines, mowing the lawn or getting gas, shopping, and getting ready to drive a bus. Their families have experienced tremendous loss and the Nation mourned with them. Now, Congress is considering legislation that inflict further pain on families like those of the sniper victims. This legislation will literally slam the courthouse door on the families of gun violence victims and on all Americans who believe they were harmed by negligent actions related to guns. It gives gun dealers and manufacturers a free pass. And it will prevent families and survivors from holding irresponsible gun stores accountable, if they are negligent. It actually would prohibit families from going to court, from letting a jury of their peers decide if the gun store or manufacturer was negligent. If this legislation passes you could still go to court over a toy gun but not a real gun. That is wrong. Let me tell you about one of these families who have been victimized by gun violence. Conrad Johnson was the sniper's last victim. Do you remember hearing the news that he was shot at a bus stop in Montgomery County? Killed by the sniper getting ready for his route. He was beloved by his family, friends and community. Two thousand people attended his funeral. He worked hard as a bus driver. He drove 35 miles before dawn every day for work. He was known for his friendly smile and can-do attitude. And he loved his family--his Jamaican immigrant parents, his wife Denise--his high school sweetheart, his two sons and his big extended family. Over 30 members gathered at the hospital after he was shot. He was full of life. He was always finding ways to take care of his family and help his community. He was a volunteer coach for the boys and girls clubs of Fort Washington. He loved being a DJ for functions thrown by family and friends, and he was always washing the family car on the weekends. Conrad Johnson was the snipers last victim. Conrad's family is one of many Maryland families still grieving because of the snipers' reign of terror. Five Maryland families lost loved ones in the sniper's first 24 hours. Today, I stand here for the rights of families like those of the sniper victims to have their day in court, the rights of families like James Martin's. James was shot when he stopped to buy groceries for his church program. Or James ``Sonny'' Buchanan's family. Sonny, a landscape architect, who was engaged to be married, was shot with one bullet as he worked early one morning. Or the wife, son, and daughter of Premkumar Walekar. He was a taxicab driver, shot that same morning as he went about his normal fill up routine at a local gas station on Aspen Hill Road. Or the husband and 7 year old son of Sarah Ramos, who was shot just 25 minutes later, as she sat on a bench waiting for a ride to her babysitting job. And the family of Lori Ann Lewis Ramos, shot just a short time later, as she stopped at a gas station to clean her car. Today, I also stand here to protect all the victims who were and are severely injured by gun violence. They also deserve their day in court. There is the young boy who was a victim of the DC area sniper--Iran Brown, who was shot in the chest as he was dropped off at Benjamin Tasker Middle School in Bowie, Iran spent over a month in intensive care because of the gunshot to his chest or Rupinder ``Benny'' Oberoi, a young man who was shot in the back as he closed the store he worked at for the night. Benny needed 26 staples in his chest and extensive surgery to repair the damage caused by the bullet that pierced his back. These families have been through so much. They can never recover that tremendous loss. We owe it to them to make sure families all over American who are like them can have their day in court. That is why we need to oppose this legislation today. Now, there has been a lot of talk about language was added to S. 397 to protect this case or that case. The U.S. Congress should not be in the business of deciding which negligence actions should be allowed into a court. That is up to the courts to decide. That is what our civil justice system is all about. It gives these families the right to offer evidence to prove the gun shop was negligent. We need to reject this legislation and protect that right. We need to ensure that the families of victims and the victims themselves, who have faced such unprecedented tragedy, are not victimized again by having the courthouse doors slammed on them. We stood with law enforcement during the dark and dangerous days of the snipe; now today they stand with us. People feared for their lives. Thanks to the FBI, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, and local law enforcement they found the snipers. Thanks to brilliant forensic work they traced the weapon. This legislation makes a mockery of everything law enforcement tried to do. If this legislation passes, irresponsible dealers get off scot-free and victims of gun violence are left without the protection of our justice system. I believe families of victims of gun violence deserve their day in court, like the sniper victims' families had--like Conrad Johnson's family, and Sarah Ramos' family, and all the families. They may not win their case, but they have the right to make their case. The courts should decide based on the facts and the evidence. Let me be clear, I do not believe Congress should stand in the way by offering special protection, by offering blanket protections for the negligent actions of the gun dealers, sellers and manufacturers. It is my duty to my constituents to fight with them and to fight against passage of this bill. It would be irresponsible for the Congress not to allow these victims of terror to seek redress in the courts. Gun violence terrorizes our citizens and we owe them nothing less.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Enzi in introducing the Keeping Seniors Safe from Falls Act of 2005. Falls are a serious public health problem that affects millions of seniors each year. This bill expands research and education on elder falls to help keep seniors safe and in their own homes longer. The facts are staggering. One out of every three Americans over age 65 falls every year. In 2002, over 12,800 seniors died and approximately 1.6 million seniors visited an emergency department as a result of a fall. Falls are the leading cause of injury deaths among seniors. It is estimated that annually more than 80,000 individuals over 65 years of age sustain a traumatic brain injury as a result of a fall. Falls can be financially disastrous for families, and falls place a serious financial strain on our health care system. By 2020, senior falls are estimated to cost the health care system more than $32 billion. These facts do not begin to tell the story of what falls can mean for seniors and their loved ones. Falls don't discriminate. Many of us have friends or relatives who have fallen. A fall can have a devastating impact on a person's physical, emotional, and mental health. If an older woman loses her footing on her front porch steps, falls, and suffers a hip fracture, she would likely spend about two weeks in the hospital, and there is a 50 percent chance that she would not return home or live independently as a result of her injuries. With some help, there are simple ways that seniors can improve the safety of their homes and make a fall far less likely. Home modifications like hand rails in the bathroom, rubber mats on slippery tile floors, and cordless telephones that seniors can keep nearby can make a big difference. Well trained pharmacists can review medications to make sure that two drugs do not interact to cause dizziness and throw a senior off balance. That is why I teamed up with Senator Enzi to introduce this important bill. This legislation is about getting behind our Nation's seniors and giving help to those who practice self-help. This bill creates public education campaigns for seniors, their families, and health care providers about how to prevent falls. It expands research on elder falls to develop better ways to prevent falls and to improve the treatment and rehabilitation of elder falls victims. This legislation also requires an evaluation of the effect of falls on health care costs, ways we can reduce falls, and effective solutions that can be adopted that can help reduce health care costs associated with falls. Reducing the number of falls will help seniors live longer, healthier, more independent lives. This bill has the strong support of the National Safety Council, the Home Safety Council and the National Council on Aging, and has been supported in the past by over 30 national and local aging and safety organizations. I look forward to working with Senator Enzi and my colleagues on the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee to get this bill signed into law.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise before you today to discuss the nomination of Lester Crawford as Commissioner of the FDA. I first want to say that I love the FDA. FDA is in my home State of Maryland. It employs over 10,000 of my constituents. It is right down the road from the NIH. I am proud to have all that research at NIH, and then have FDA in Maryland standing up for the food safety of the American people, looking out to make sure that the drugs and the technologies that we use are safe. Over the years I have fought for the right facilities, the right resources, and now the right leadership at the FDA. But I tell you, today is a very sad day for me because I cannot bring myself to support Lester Crawford as the Commissioner, and it is because I am so enthusiastic about FDA. While I agree the agency has needed someone in charge, Dr. Crawford has not been in charge. His stewardship of the agency going back to 2002 has been both tepid and passive. For example, under Dr. Crawford's leadership, the drug Vioxx was found to have increased risk of heart attacks long before FDA took any action. FDA was slow to reveal the knowledge of increased rates of suicides among teenagers taking antidepressants. There was delay. There is the politicizing of science as exemplified by the endless dispute over emergency contraception. And then there has been a ``just say no'' attitude to imported drugs. And all of those people looking at homeland security tell us that our food supply is vulnerable to terrorist attacks. And what do we get from the FDA? We get passivity. I am particularly concerned about the issue of drug safety. The FDA has been and must remain the gold standard in maintaining drug safety. Yet today there is a crisis of confidence over drug safety in the public's mind. At Dr. Crawford's nomination hearing in the HELP Committee earlier this year, he suggested that the newly formed Drug Safety Board within the FDA will be a way to guarantee this safety. I asked him how he could guarantee this board--which will exist within the FDA--will be able to provide independent review. He gave me the bureaucratic answer and bureaucratic structure. I asked if he would be in charge of this important guarantee. He said ``no,'' he was going to delegate that to an Assistant Commissioner. I asked ``Why?'' He said: ``Because I would have to be involved in personnel and budgets.'' Well--that is his job, isn't it? That is exactly the kind of answer we are talking about. You cannot preside over FDA. You have to run FDA. The nations of the world that cannot afford it look to our FDA to be the gold standard. Physicians and other allied health people who are prescribing drugs or using technologies need to know that they have an FDA that they can count on. And also we, the patients of the United States of America, need to know that we can count on the FDA. And the pharmaceutical industry has to have an FDA that provides evenhanded regulatory authority. That is why I cannot support Lester Crawford as Commissioner. It is with great reluctance that I have come to this decision, but it is because I love FDA and its mission, and know that the people of America are counting on it. Whether you are a doctor, or whether you are a patient, we need the FDA, and we need strong leadership. Therefore, regretfully, and reluctantly, and sadly, I am going to vote ``nay''.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to commemorate the birth of one of the greatest democracy movements in the 20th century: the Polish Solidarity movement. I am proud to join my friend Senator Voinovich in submitting a sense of the Senate honoring the people of Poland on this special anniversary. On August 31 of this year, Poland will celebrate the 25th anniversary of the 1980 shipyard strikes in Gdansk and the creation of the Solidarity Trade Union, the first independent union established behind the Iron Curtain. This date has a special meaning for me, and for the thousands of Polish Americans, who danced in the streets when Solidarity won freedom for Poland after decades of war and oppression. The history of Poland has, at times, been a melancholy one. Every king, kaiser, czar or comrade who ever wanted to have a war in Europe always started by invading Poland. But we know that while Poland was occupied, the heart and soul of the Polish nation has never been occupied. Poland has always strived to be part of the West in terms of its values and its orientation. So in 1980, when an obscure electrician named Lech Walesa, working in the Gdansk shipyard, jumped over a wall proclaiming the Solidarity movement, he took the Polish people and the whole world with him, to bring down the Iron Curtain. At first, we had reason to hope. The fledgling Solidarity movement won a major victory in August 1980, forcing Poland's communist government to accept a list of demands from the striking workers. The government released political prisoners, promised to permit the broadcast of religious services, and agreed to permit the activities of independent trade unions. But just before Christmas 1980, our hopes were dashed that Poland would soon be free. The Soviets were worried that Solidarity's growing popularity threatened their tight grip on the people of eastern Europe. Under pressure from Moscow, Poland's communist government declared martial law. Thousands of Solidarity leaders were arrested and imprisoned, including Lech Walesa. The borders were sealed, airports were closed and a curfew was imposed. Through the dark days of martial law, Polish Americans stood by our cousins abroad, working to support the Solidarity movement. We found ourselves troubled and fearful for our friends and relatives in Poland, but we never doubted that Poland would one day regain its freedom. Polish peoples everywhere, whether we live here, as fully American citizens, or in Poland, know that the heart and soul of Poland lie with democracy and lie with freedom. Even though the Solidarity movement was driven underground, it continued to grow. Under Lech Walesa's leadership, and with the support of Poland's native son, Pope John Paul II, Solidarity grew from a trade union into a national movement demanding freedom and independence for Poland. In 1989, Solidarity won the right for the Polish people to hold elections for the National Assembly. They elected a majority in the Assembly supported by Solidarity and Poland's first non-communist Prime Minister in the post-war era. Poland's peaceful march to freedom offered a beacon of hope to all those in Europe suffering under communist rule. And in December 1989, just weeks after the fall of the Berlin Wall, Lech Walesa was elected President of Poland. Today, the United States and Poland are close partners and good friends. As Polish troops fight side-by-side with American troops in Afghanistan and Iraq, I hope our colleagues will join us in celebrating the birth of the Solidarity movement and honoring the people of Poland, whose heroic and peaceful resistance hastened the end of the Soviet Union and the emergence of one Europe, whole and free.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to commemorate the birth of one of the greatest democracy movements in the 20th century: the Polish Solidarity movement. I am proud to join my friend Senator Voinovich in submitting a sense of the Senate honoring the people of Poland on this special anniversary. On August 31 of this year, Poland will celebrate the 25th anniversary of the 1980 shipyard strikes in Gdansk and the creation of the Solidarity Trade Union, the first independent union established behind the Iron Curtain. This date has a special meaning for me, and for the thousands of Polish Americans, who danced in the streets when Solidarity won freedom for Poland after decades of war and oppression. The history of Poland has, at times, been a melancholy one. Every king, kaiser, czar or comrade who ever wanted to have a war in Europe always started by invading Poland. But we know that while Poland was occupied, the heart and soul of the Polish nation has never been occupied. Poland has always strived to be part of the West in terms of its values and its orientation. So in 1980, when an obscure electrician named Lech Walesa, working in the Gdansk shipyard, jumped over a wall proclaiming the Solidarity movement, he took the Polish people and the whole world with him, to bring down the Iron Curtain. At first, we had reason to hope. The fledgling Solidarity movement won a major victory in August 1980, forcing Poland's communist government to accept a list of demands from the striking workers. The government released political prisoners, promised to permit the broadcast of religious services, and agreed to permit the activities of independent trade unions. But just before Christmas 1980, our hopes were dashed that Poland would soon be free. The Soviets were worried that Solidarity's growing popularity threatened their tight grip on the people of eastern Europe. Under pressure from Moscow, Poland's communist government declared martial law. Thousands of Solidarity leaders were arrested and imprisoned, including Lech Walesa. The borders were sealed, airports were closed and a curfew was imposed. Through the dark days of martial law, Polish Americans stood by our cousins abroad, working to support the Solidarity movement. We found ourselves troubled and fearful for our friends and relatives in Poland, but we never doubted that Poland would one day regain its freedom. Polish peoples everywhere, whether we live here, as fully American citizens, or in Poland, know that the heart and soul of Poland lie with democracy and lie with freedom. Even though the Solidarity movement was driven underground, it continued to grow. Under Lech Walesa's leadership, and with the support of Poland's native son, Pope John Paul II, Solidarity grew from a trade union into a national movement demanding freedom and independence for Poland. In 1989, Solidarity won the right for the Polish people to hold elections for the National Assembly. They elected a majority in the Assembly supported by Solidarity and Poland's first non-communist Prime Minister in the post-war era. Poland's peaceful march to freedom offered a beacon of hope to all those in Europe suffering under communist rule. And in December 1989, just weeks after the fall of the Berlin Wall, Lech Walesa was elected President of Poland. Today, the United States and Poland are close partners and good friends. As Polish troops fight side-by-side with American troops in Afghanistan and Iraq, I hope our colleagues will join us in celebrating the birth of the Solidarity movement and honoring the people of Poland, whose heroic and peaceful resistance hastened the end of the Soviet Union and the emergence of one Europe, whole and free.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise before you today to discuss the nomination of Lester Crawford as Commissioner of the FDA. I first want to say that I love the FDA. FDA is in my home State of Maryland. It employs over 10,000 of my constituents. It is right down the road from the NIH. I am proud to have all that research at NIH, and then have FDA in Maryland standing up for the food safety of the American people, looking out to make sure that the drugs and the technologies that we use are safe. Over the years I have fought for the right facilities, the right resources, and now the right leadership at the FDA. But I tell you, today is a very sad day for me because I cannot bring myself to support Lester Crawford as the Commissioner, and it is because I am so enthusiastic about FDA. While I agree the agency has needed someone in charge, Dr. Crawford has not been in charge. His stewardship of the agency going back to 2002 has been both tepid and passive. For example, under Dr. Crawford's leadership, the drug Vioxx was found to have increased risk of heart attacks long before FDA took any action. FDA was slow to reveal the knowledge of increased rates of suicides among teenagers taking antidepressants. There was delay. There is the politicizing of science as exemplified by the endless dispute over emergency contraception. And then there has been a ``just say no'' attitude to imported drugs. And all of those people looking at homeland security tell us that our food supply is vulnerable to terrorist attacks. And what do we get from the FDA? We get passivity. I am particularly concerned about the issue of drug safety. The FDA has been and must remain the gold standard in maintaining drug safety. Yet today there is a crisis of confidence over drug safety in the public's mind. At Dr. Crawford's nomination hearing in the HELP Committee earlier this year, he suggested that the newly formed Drug Safety Board within the FDA will be a way to guarantee this safety. I asked him how he could guarantee this board--which will exist within the FDA--will be able to provide independent review. He gave me the bureaucratic answer and bureaucratic structure. I asked if he would be in charge of this important guarantee. He said ``no,'' he was going to delegate that to an Assistant Commissioner. I asked ``Why?'' He said: ``Because I would have to be involved in personnel and budgets.'' Well--that is his job, isn't it? That is exactly the kind of answer we are talking about. You cannot preside over FDA. You have to run FDA. The nations of the world that cannot afford it look to our FDA to be the gold standard. Physicians and other allied health people who are prescribing drugs or using technologies need to know that they have an FDA that they can count on. And also we, the patients of the United States of America, need to know that we can count on the FDA. And the pharmaceutical industry has to have an FDA that provides evenhanded regulatory authority. That is why I cannot support Lester Crawford as Commissioner. It is with great reluctance that I have come to this decision, but it is because I love FDA and its mission, and know that the people of America are counting on it. Whether you are a doctor, or whether you are a patient, we need the FDA, and we need strong leadership. Therefore, regretfully, and reluctantly, and sadly, I am going to vote ``nay''.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise to oppose the U.S.-Dominican Republic, Central American-Free Trade Agreement, CAFTA. I support free trade when it is fair trade. Yet this agreement is not fair for workers in America or in Central America. The truth is, this agreement will not dramatically change the trade relationship between the United States and our neighbors in Central America. Thanks to existing agreements, like the Caribbean Basin Initiative, there are relatively few trade restrictions today between the U.S. and the nations of CAFTA. The small increases in trade of textiles and agriculture products that will result under CAFTA represent a very modest increase in U.S. revenue. According to the U.S. International Trade Commission, CAFTA will generate a net increase in U.S. revenues of just 0.01 percent per year. So this agreement is not going to do much to help the American economy. But it contains provisions on labor, the environment and sugar that could harm America's working men and women and their families. I think we have widespread agreement that workers in the CAFTA countries face very difficult conditions. In most countries, workers have a very hard time trying to unionize and bargain collectively. Intimidation of union organizers is not unusual. It often goes unpunished. There is even a significant amount of child labor in some sectors in these countries. So CAFTA is a prime example of a trade agreement that must have strong labor provisions if it is to guarantee trade that is not just free, but fair. But there is only one labor provision in this agreement that is enforceable through the regular dispute settlement procedures, and it is a weak one. It does nothing more than require a country to enforce its own trade laws, no matter how weak. And if a company is found in violation of its national trade laws, the government pays the fine--not the company. That is not much incentive to encourage employers to abide by the law and treat their workers with respect and dignity. Let me be very clear about one thing. I support trade. I encourage trade. Trade is very important to my State. Maryland workers can compete successfully in a global marketplace, if they're given a level playing field. That's why I support expansion of fair trade. I have supported past trade agreements, like the Jordan Free Trade Agreement, that included strong, enforceable labor provisions. This agreement does not live up to those standards. CAFTA's weak labor provisions are a raw deal for American workers. They send a terrible message to the men and women in CAFTA nations who are trying to earn a fair wage to support their families. Our message to them is, we want to do business with the companies you work for, but we aren't concerned about how they treat you. That's not the message I want to send to our neighbors. On the environment, we also face some serious challenges in the CAFTA countries. As with the labor provisions, the environmental provisions in CAFTA are too weak. The one enforceable environmental provision simply requires countries to ``effectively enforce'' their own environmental laws. Again, I believe in free trade that is fair trade. And fair trade must include environmental protections. We need strong, enforceable environmental provisions to protect American jobs. We also need them to ensure that our neighbors have access to the same clean air and safe drinking water that we enjoy. Finally, Mr. President, I am very concerned that CAFTA unfairly exposes the American sugar industry without opening other markets for U.S. sugar. Even the administration recognizes that CAFTA as it was negotiated will unfairly target our sugar industry. That is why they have come up with a complicated scheme to pay CAFTA-nation governments and sugar producers not to export sugar to America. But this deal is no deal for the men and women of America's sugar industry. And it is no deal for the American taxpayer who, under this plan, would pay between $150 million and $200 million a year to foreign governments and companies. It makes no sense to negotiate an agreement that opens U.S. markets to foreign sugar and then pay foreign producers not to take advantage of that agreement. Even this flawed plan would not do enough to protect the U.S. sugar industry from unfair trade. It would expire after just two years, exposing the U.S. market to cheap, low quality imports. And it does nothing to open large, protected sugar markets in Europe that remain closed to U.S. sugar exports. I support the idea of developing stronger ties between the U.S. and our neighbors in Central America. These nations have made great strides toward democracy and openness. We should work more closely with them to support their recent gains in the rule of law and efforts to fight terrorism, organized crime and drug trafficking. But this trade agreement is seriously flawed. It does not do much to increase free trade, and it certainly does nothing to support fair trade. It is not fair to American workers and their families, and it is not fair to workers in Central America. I will vote no, against CAFTA.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Uterine Fibroid Research and Education Act of 2005. This bill would increase funding for research on uterine fibroids as well as create an education awareness campaign to make sure women and their doctors have the facts they need about this painful, chronic condition. I want to thank Representative Stephanie Tubbs Jones for introducing this legislation in the House of Representatives and Senators Clinton, Kennedy, Murray, Cantwell, Boxer, and Sarbanes for joining me as original cosponsors. Uterine fibroids are a major health issue for American women. It is estimated that three in every four women have uterine fibroids. Although many women with fibroids have few or no symptoms, it is projected that one in every four women seeks medical care for the heavy bleeding, pain, infertility, or miscarriage that uterine fibroids cause. Despite their prevalence, little is known about uterine fibroids, and few good treatment options are available to women who suffer from them. In fact, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality at the Department of Health and Human Services found ``a remarkable lack of high quality evidence supporting the effectiveness of most interventions for symptomatic fibroids. More than 200,000 women undergo a hysterectomy each year to treat their uterine fibroids. Women deserve better. That's why I am introducing the Uterine Fibroid Research and Education Act--to find new and better ways to treat or even cure uterine fibroids. This bill does three things. First, it expands research at the National Institutes of Health, NIH, by doubling funding for uterine fibroids from $15 million to $30 million. This funding will provide the investment needed to jumpstart basic research, and lay the groundwork to find a cure. This additional funding will help researchers find out why so many women get uterine fibroids, why African American women are disproportionately affected, what steps women can take to prevent uterine fibroids, and what the best ways to treat them are. Second, this legislation coordinates research on uterine fibroids through the Office of Research on Women's Health, ORWH. More than a decade ago, I fought to create this Office at NIH to give women a seat at the table when decisions were made about funding priorities. This bill directs this Office to lead the Federal Government's research effort on uterine fibroids. A coordinated research effort is needed to make the best use of limited resources and to give women a one-stop shop to find out what the federal government is doing to combat uterine fibroids. Finally, this bill creates education campaigns for patients and health care providers. A recent survey conducted by the Society for Women's Health Research, cited as many as one-third of women who have hysterectomies do so without discussing potential alternatives with their doctors. This bill will make sure women can count on their doctors for information about the best possible treatment for uterine fibroids. It will also give women the facts they need to make good health care decisions and take control of their health. Since my first days in Congress, I have been fighting to make sure women don't get left out or left behind when it comes to their health. From women's inclusion in clinical trials to quality standards for mammograms, I have led the way to make sure women's health needs are treated fairly and taken seriously. This legislation builds on these past successes to address this silent epidemic among American women. The Uterine Fibroid Research and Education Act is supported by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the Society for Women's Health Research, and the Black Women's Health Imparitive. I look forward to working with these advocates and my colleagues to get this bill signed into law.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Uterine Fibroid Research and Education Act of 2005. This bill would increase funding for research on uterine fibroids as well as create an education awareness campaign to make sure women and their doctors have the facts they need about this painful, chronic condition. I want to thank Representative Stephanie Tubbs Jones for introducing this legislation in the House of Representatives and Senators Clinton, Kennedy, Murray, Cantwell, Boxer, and Sarbanes for joining me as original cosponsors. Uterine fibroids are a major health issue for American women. It is estimated that three in every four women have uterine fibroids. Although many women with fibroids have few or no symptoms, it is projected that one in every four women seeks medical care for the heavy bleeding, pain, infertility, or miscarriage that uterine fibroids cause. Despite their prevalence, little is known about uterine fibroids, and few good treatment options are available to women who suffer from them. In fact, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality at the Department of Health and Human Services found ``a remarkable lack of high quality evidence supporting the effectiveness of most interventions for symptomatic fibroids. More than 200,000 women undergo a hysterectomy each year to treat their uterine fibroids. Women deserve better. That's why I am introducing the Uterine Fibroid Research and Education Act--to find new and better ways to treat or even cure uterine fibroids. This bill does three things. First, it expands research at the National Institutes of Health, NIH, by doubling funding for uterine fibroids from $15 million to $30 million. This funding will provide the investment needed to jumpstart basic research, and lay the groundwork to find a cure. This additional funding will help researchers find out why so many women get uterine fibroids, why African American women are disproportionately affected, what steps women can take to prevent uterine fibroids, and what the best ways to treat them are. Second, this legislation coordinates research on uterine fibroids through the Office of Research on Women's Health, ORWH. More than a decade ago, I fought to create this Office at NIH to give women a seat at the table when decisions were made about funding priorities. This bill directs this Office to lead the Federal Government's research effort on uterine fibroids. A coordinated research effort is needed to make the best use of limited resources and to give women a one-stop shop to find out what the federal government is doing to combat uterine fibroids. Finally, this bill creates education campaigns for patients and health care providers. A recent survey conducted by the Society for Women's Health Research, cited as many as one-third of women who have hysterectomies do so without discussing potential alternatives with their doctors. This bill will make sure women can count on their doctors for information about the best possible treatment for uterine fibroids. It will also give women the facts they need to make good health care decisions and take control of their health. Since my first days in Congress, I have been fighting to make sure women don't get left out or left behind when it comes to their health. From women's inclusion in clinical trials to quality standards for mammograms, I have led the way to make sure women's health needs are treated fairly and taken seriously. This legislation builds on these past successes to address this silent epidemic among American women. The Uterine Fibroid Research and Education Act is supported by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the Society for Women's Health Research, and the Black Women's Health Imparitive. I look forward to working with these advocates and my colleagues to get this bill signed into law.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, today the Senate acknowledges the dark side of our history. We apologize for a terrible wrong--the Senate's repeated failure to adopt anti-lynching legislation. This legislation is long, long overdue. I join my colleagues in offering this resolution as a way of saying how profoundly sorry we are that the Senate did not act decades earlier--when action might have saved lives. We also recommit ourselves to ensuring that this will never happen again. The horrific practice of lynching is a stain on our Nation--and on our souls. There were over 4,700 documented lynchings in the United States. There were 29 documented lynchings in Maryland. These lynchings were public events, with members of the community colluding--either directly or indirectly--in this horrifying practice. It was no accident that they made them public--they were sending a message to other African Americans in the community. These crimes left thousands of people dead and families and communities scarred. Yet 99 percent of these murderers were never arrested or tried for their crimes. For many in Maryland, the history of lynchings is not an abstraction--it is the history of their family or their community. The Washington Post reported about a 1906 lynching in Annapolis, where Henry Davis was lynched on a bluff near College Creek just days before Christmas. There was George Armwood, who was lynched and burned by a mob in Princess Anne's County, and King Davis--who was lynched in Brooklyn, MD on Christmas Day in 1911. Many institutions throughout the Nation have tried to document the extent of this racial violence--but so many incidents went unreported that we will never have a true account of how many African Americans were murdered. Billie Holiday, a Baltimore native, tried to capture the despicable practice of lynching in her 1939 song ``Strange Fruit.'' Her career suffered because of the painful honesty of this song. Her record label refused to record it, and some of her concerts were cancelled. Yet Holiday's perseverance turned ``Strange Fruit'' into one of the ``most influential protest songs ever written'' and an inspiration for those fighting for racial justice. The Senate tried several times to put an end to this monstrous practice by outlawing it, but each time the measure died. This is a horrific failure that cost American lives. This failure will always be a scar on the record of the United States Senate. Today we apologize for this tragedy, though no action now can right this wrong. Although we acknowledge this dark side of our history, we cannot and should not want to erase it. We must ensure that it serves as a lesson about a time when we failed to protect individual rights and preserve freedom. This legislation is important to recognizing the evil of lynching and the failure of government to protect its citizens. It also stands as a symbol of our commitment to move our Nation forward so we can truly be a symbol of democracy. Next week in Baltimore, we will open the Reginald Lewis Museum of African American History and Culture. It will be a proud day--the celebration of a strong and proud history that has made our Nation great. This museum documents the courageous journeys toward freedom and self-determination for African Americans in Maryland and in America. Yet history must also acknowledge this dark side of our history. We must educate the next generations about the proud history, and mighty struggle that African Americans have endured in the United States. Today, this resolution stands as a painful reminder of that history. Yet it should also stand as a guiding principle--that we must always fight to protect the rights of all Americans. This resolution acknowledges that the Senate was wrong when it failed to enact anti- lynching laws. But it also empowers us to move forward to do all that we can to strengthen opportunity for all Americans, to fight discrimination in every form and to ensure that we vigorously protect the rights of all Americans.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, in honor of Older Americans' Mental Health Week, I rise today to introduce the Clinical Social Work Medicare Equity Act of 2005. I am proud to sponsor this legislation that will ensure that clinical social workers can receive Medicare reimbursements for the mental health services they provide in skilled nursing facilities. Under the current system, social workers may not be paid for services they provide. Psychologists and psychiatrists, who provide similar counseling, are able to separately bill Medicare for their services. Congressmen Stark and Leach are introducing a companion bill today in the House of Representatives. Since my first days in Congress, I have been fighting to protect and strengthen the safety of our Nation's seniors. Making sure that seniors have access to quality, affordable mental health care is an important part of this fight. I know that millions of seniors do not have access to, or are not receiving, the mental health services they urgently need. Nearly 6 million seniors are affected by depression, but only one-tenth ever gets treated. According to the American Psychiatric Association, up to 25 percent of the elderly population in the United States suffers from significant symptoms of mental illness and among nursing home residents the prevalence is as high as 80 percent. These mental disorders, which include severe depression and debilitating anxiety, interfere with the person's ability to carryout activities of daily living and adversely affect their quality of life. Furthermore, older people have a 20 percent suicide rate, the highest of any age group. Every year nearly 6,000 older Americans kill themselves. This is unacceptable and must be addressed. As a former social worker, I understand the role that social workers play in the overall care of patients and seniors. This bill protects patients across the country and ensures that seniors living in underserved urban and rural areas, where clinical social workers are often the only available option for mental health care, continue to receive the treatment they need. Clinical social workers, much like psychologists and psychiatrists, treat and diagnose mental illnesses. In fact, clinical social workers are the primary mental health providers for nursing home residents and also seniors residing in rural environments. But unlike other mental health providers, clinical social workers cannot bill directly for the important services they provide to their patients. Protecting seniors' access to clinical social workers can help make sure that our most vulnerable citizens get the quality, affordable mental health care they need and deserve. This bill will correct this inequity and make sure clinical social workers get the payments and respect they deserve. Before the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, clinical social workers billed Medicare Part B directly for mental health services provided in nursing facilities to each patient they served. Under the Prospective Payment System, services provided by clinical social workers are lumped, or ``bundled,'' along with the services of other health care providers for the purposes of billing and payments. Psychologists and psychiatrists, who provide similar counseling, were exempted from this system and continue to bill Medicare directly. This bill would exempt clinical social workers, like their mental health colleagues, from the prospective payment system, and would make sure that clinical social workers are paid for the services they provide to patients in skilled nursing facilities. The Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP Benefits Improvement and Protection Act addressed some of these concerns, but this legislation would remove the final barrier to ensuring that clinical social workers are treated fairly and equitably for the care they provide. This bill is about more than paperwork and payment procedures. This billis about equal access to Medicare payments for the equal and important work done by clinical social workers. It is about making sure our Nation's most vulnerable citizens have access to quality, affordable mental health care. The overarching goal we should be striving to achieve for our seniors is an overall improved quality of life. Without clinical social workers, many nursing home residents may never get the counseling they need when faced with a life threatening illness or the loss of a loved one. I think we can do better by our Nation's seniors, and I'm fighting to make sure we do. The Clinical Social Work Medicare Equity Act of 2005 is strongly supported by the National Association of Social Workers and the Association for Geriatric Psychiatry. I also want to thank Senators Stabenow, Bingaman, Murray, Corzine, Johnson, and Inouye for their cosponsorship of this bill. I look forward to working with my colleagues to enact this important legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and letters of support be printed in the Record.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on the nomination of John Bolton to be the United States Representative to the United Nations. I have three criteria I use to evaluate all executive branch nominees: competence, integrity, and commitment to the core mission of the department. Mr. Bolton has had wide-ranging experience and is competent. I do not agree with many of Mr. Bolton's past statements about the U.N. However, his statements during the confirmation process indicate he is now committed to the mission of the U.N. I will give him the benefit of the doubt on this one. But I cannot be so flexible when it comes to the very serious questions about Mr. Bolton's integrity. I rise today as the Senator from Maryland and as a long-time member of the Senate Intelligence Committee. I have been working on reforming our intelligence community since I first became a member of the Intelligence Committee before the tragedy of September 11. I served on the 2002 joint inquiry about what happened on that terrible day. I served on the Intelligence Committee's 2003 review of Iraq intelligence. I worked on the 2004 reform legislation that built on the work of the 9/11 Commission and that we passed last year. We looked for ways to prevent what happened on September 11 from ever happening again. We looked for ways to make sure that what happened with Iraq--where we thought there were weapons that weren't there--will never happen again. We looked for ways to get the right information to policy makers. Throughout all that work over the years, I have kept the many talented, hard working, dedicated, and patriotic Americans working throughout the world for our intelligence agencies foremost in my mind. One of my central concerns has been to try to ensure that they have the right and ability to do their jobs: to get the facts and speak truth to power. Speaking truth to power means telling the boss what he or she should hear rather than just what they want to hear. This is absolutely critical to the security of our Nation. That is why I am opposing John Bolton's nomination to be America's Representative to the United Nations. It is clear to me that he does not respect the truth or the hard working experts that labor day in and day out to provide policy makers with the best information and their best judgments. I have carefully reviewed the report prepared by the Foreign Relations Committee. It is evident to me, from reading the minority views of the committee's report, that Mr. Bolton is a bully, but not just any bully. He is a bully with a purpose: to browbeat intelligence professionals to disregard the facts, and to send a message to all the other intelligence professionals that they speak the truth at their peril. His purpose seems clear: to intimidate. His actions seem clear: to retaliate. Mr. Bolton retaliated against those who disagreed with him. He claims not to have sought to have anyone fired. He said he merely ``lost confidence'' in them. But, that's just a polite way to say a person is unqualified and should be fired. It's a distinction without a difference. When a senior policy maker has lost confidence in you, I think we can all agree that your career is effectively over. Playing with words cannot obscure the fact that Mr. Bolton went after intelligence professionals for doing their jobs, for telling the truth, for speaking truth to power. He was the power, the boss, the senior official and he had no use for truth. According to the investigation by the Foreign Relations Committee, Mr. Bolton tried to fire an analyst with the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research. The intelligence professional disagreed about language regarding biological weapons that Mr. Bolton wanted to include in a speech. Mr. Bolton also asked that the National Intelligence Officer for Latin America be reassigned, because he told Mr. Bolton that the language on biological weapons did not reflect the intelligence community's assessment. Mr. Bolton also appears to have abused his access to intelligence. The Senate Intelligence Committee recently investigated charges that Mr. Bolton shared classified information that he received from the NSA. The minority view of that investigation concluded that Mr. Bolton did share classified information, after being specifically instructed by NSA not to do so. Even more troubling, it appears that the reason Mr. Bolton gave the NSA to justify his ``need to know'' was not the real reason he sought out the information. This is yet another example of John Bolton using and misusing intelligence to suit his own purposes. It is also clear that Mr. Bolton bullied a number of others who dared to disagree with him, including others in the intelligence community. My colleagues--Senator Biden, Senator Voinovich and others--have detailed these charges well, and I will not repeat that here. Mr. Bolton's intolerant attitude and conduct must not be rewarded. It inevitably results in chilling truth and facts. It is an attitude hostile to the very concept of speaking truth to power. We need the world to understand that the United States getting Iraq wrong was an aberration, a one-time, never-to-be-repeated mistake. The world must believe, and it must be true, that facts and truth are what inform our policies and actions at home and abroad. They must also believe our leaders and policy makers when they speak. When we speak about intelligence, people cannot be wondering, is that American lying to me, misleading me, telling me half the truth. The stakes are too high: war and peace; life and death; weapons of mass destruction; Iran; North Korea; terrorism. These are the stakes we are talking about. America cannot afford to send someone to the U.N. that many people already believe does not respect the truth. We already have a huge credibility gap at the U.N. and in the world. The U.N. was where our respected Secretary of State laid out our case for going to war with Iraq. We disclosed extensive intelligence information to demonstrate that Iraq had WMD, that it was a threat to the region, our country and the world. We now know, through no fault of our Secretary of State, that much of that information was wrong. Many of us have worked tirelessly to make sure that something like that never happens again. Building on the work of the 9/11 Commission, we worked for much of last year to pass dramatic and broad based reform of our intelligence community. We fought hard to make sure that a single person would be in charge of the entire intelligence community, to mandate alternative or red team analysis to always make sure that we policymakers have the best information available. We are now working to make that reform a reality. Just last month, I voted with 97 of my colleagues to confirm the country's first Director of National Intelligence and his deputy. We have done much, but there is much to do. We are building a new foundation for our entire intelligence community. It is a work in progress. Every step is important. But one of the most important steps is ensuring that our intelligence professionals understand and believe that their work is valued. That truth and facts are important. That they can and must speak truth to power. That we are on their side. That the Senate of the United States takes these matters seriously. That is why at the confirmation hearing of our nation's first nominee for Director of National Intelligence, I asked Mr. Negroponte if he agreed that the professionals in the intelligence community must be free to ``speak truth to power.'' He said, ``Truth to power is crucial. And we've got to assure the objectivity and integrity of our intelligence analysts.'' I also asked him if he will create a tone where there will be no retaliation for people who attempt to speak the truth. Mr. Negroponte said, ``Yes. I think the short answer to you is a categorical yes.'' I asked those questions of the nominee, who was under oath and at an open hearing, for two very important reasons. First, I wanted the world to hear what he had to say. Second, I wanted all of our intelligence professionals throughout the World to hear what he had to say. I wanted our intelligence professionals to know that they were authorized, indeed, obligated to seek the truth and speak the truth. And, I wanted them to know that our most senior intelligence professional, the Director of National Intelligence, would not tolerate retaliation for speaking truth to power. Mr. Negroponte's statements stand on their own. I believe it would be wrong to confirm Mr. Bolton as the United States representative to the United Nations. He has disregarded the truth. He has sought to punish intelligence professionals for speaking the truth. He has tried to intimidate intelligence professionals into agreeing with him regardless of the facts. To confirm Mr. Bolton would send a terrible message to our intelligence professionals. It would be a terrible signal for our intelligence reform efforts. It would undermine our efforts to restore our credibility in the world and to do the hard work of reforming the United Nations.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, in honor of Older Americans' Mental Health Week, I rise today to introduce the Clinical Social Work Medicare Equity Act of 2005. I am proud to sponsor this legislation that will ensure that clinical social workers can receive Medicare reimbursements for the mental health services they provide in skilled nursing facilities. Under the current system, social workers may not be paid for services they provide. Psychologists and psychiatrists, who provide similar counseling, are able to separately bill Medicare for their services. Congressmen Stark and Leach are introducing a companion bill today in the House of Representatives. Since my first days in Congress, I have been fighting to protect and strengthen the safety of our Nation's seniors. Making sure that seniors have access to quality, affordable mental health care is an important part of this fight. I know that millions of seniors do not have access to, or are not receiving, the mental health services they urgently need. Nearly 6 million seniors are affected by depression, but only one-tenth ever gets treated. According to the American Psychiatric Association, up to 25 percent of the elderly population in the United States suffers from significant symptoms of mental illness and among nursing home residents the prevalence is as high as 80 percent. These mental disorders, which include severe depression and debilitating anxiety, interfere with the person's ability to carryout activities of daily living and adversely affect their quality of life. Furthermore, older people have a 20 percent suicide rate, the highest of any age group. Every year nearly 6,000 older Americans kill themselves. This is unacceptable and must be addressed. As a former social worker, I understand the role that social workers play in the overall care of patients and seniors. This bill protects patients across the country and ensures that seniors living in underserved urban and rural areas, where clinical social workers are often the only available option for mental health care, continue to receive the treatment they need. Clinical social workers, much like psychologists and psychiatrists, treat and diagnose mental illnesses. In fact, clinical social workers are the primary mental health providers for nursing home residents and also seniors residing in rural environments. But unlike other mental health providers, clinical social workers cannot bill directly for the important services they provide to their patients. Protecting seniors' access to clinical social workers can help make sure that our most vulnerable citizens get the quality, affordable mental health care they need and deserve. This bill will correct this inequity and make sure clinical social workers get the payments and respect they deserve. Before the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, clinical social workers billed Medicare Part B directly for mental health services provided in nursing facilities to each patient they served. Under the Prospective Payment System, services provided by clinical social workers are lumped, or ``bundled,'' along with the services of other health care providers for the purposes of billing and payments. Psychologists and psychiatrists, who provide similar counseling, were exempted from this system and continue to bill Medicare directly. This bill would exempt clinical social workers, like their mental health colleagues, from the prospective payment system, and would make sure that clinical social workers are paid for the services they provide to patients in skilled nursing facilities. The Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP Benefits Improvement and Protection Act addressed some of these concerns, but this legislation would remove the final barrier to ensuring that clinical social workers are treated fairly and equitably for the care they provide. This bill is about more than paperwork and payment procedures. This billis about equal access to Medicare payments for the equal and important work done by clinical social workers. It is about making sure our Nation's most vulnerable citizens have access to quality, affordable mental health care. The overarching goal we should be striving to achieve for our seniors is an overall improved quality of life. Without clinical social workers, many nursing home residents may never get the counseling they need when faced with a life threatening illness or the loss of a loved one. I think we can do better by our Nation's seniors, and I'm fighting to make sure we do. The Clinical Social Work Medicare Equity Act of 2005 is strongly supported by the National Association of Social Workers and the Association for Geriatric Psychiatry. I also want to thank Senators Stabenow, Bingaman, Murray, Corzine, Johnson, and Inouye for their cosponsorship of this bill. I look forward to working with my colleagues to enact this important legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and letters of support be printed in the Record.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise to speak against this so-called nuclear option. This is a sad day for the Senate because I believe we are about to fracture 200 years of precedent and tradition. I think we are about to fracture what I had hoped would be a bipartisan approach to solving the compelling problems we face in the United States of America, and the Republicans are about to change the rules in the middle of the game. One of the hallmarks of the United States of America is always fair play. And fair play means a belief and respect for the rules because we are a nation that believes in rules and in the rule of law. Whenever we are in competitive situations, we believe in rules. You don't change the rules in the middle of the game. You don't change the rules in a game you are losing. But here especially there is no reason to change because the Bush administration is not losing. They have had more nominees confirmed than almost any other Administration in recent history. This is a manufactured crisis. There are those who say there is a crisis in terms of confirming judges. There is no crisis. George Bush is not losing. Right now, right this minute, we have confirmed 208 of the President's nominees for the bench. That is a 95-percent confirmation rate. I would think that getting 95% of what you want would make you declare victory. But, oh, no, that is not good enough. There is a desire to change the rules so that the President gets 100% and we cannot exercise our constitutional responsibility of advise and consent. Now I know that many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle don't want to change the Senate rules. They know the ebbs and flows of this institution one day you are in the majority and the next in the minority. And they know its not fair to change the rules in the middle of the game because doing so undermines century of tradition and the very essence of the Senate as the world's premier deliberative body. So I have come to the floor today to urge my colleagues to oppose this so-called nuclear option. I do this because I firmly believe in my heart of hearts that we must always have an independent judiciary and a judiciary that has been confirmed according to the traditional roles of the Senate. I know it is one of my foremost responsibilities as a member of the United States Senate to protect the independence and integrity of our federal courts. Because our courts are charged with safeguarding the very principles on which our nation was built--justice, equality and individual liberty. The courthouse door must always stay open. And when someone walks through that door, they must find an independent judiciary. In order to do that, we cannot turn the Senate into a rubberstamp for any administration. We must not compromise our constitutional checks and balances over 7 highly controversial judges. The American people deserve better and, and the Constitution requires it. When Alexander Hamilton and others were at the Constitutional Convention inventing America, they wanted checks and balances. They wanted no one to have absolute power, they wanted no individual to have absolute power, and they wanted no institution within our Government to have absolute power. That is why we have the system of checks and balances. That is why the greatest check and balance is the advice and consent role given to the Senate. The President nominates and the Senate has an important co-equal role to play in the confirmation process. So the Senate has a very real and critical role to play here. It can't rubber stamp nominees. It can't give consent without a thorough examination and it should not support nominees who don't respect basic judicial principles. When we are talking about this, we say, What does it mean? Who has been nominated? Who has been confirmed? Whom have we opposed? I have given the statistics. Since the President has been in office the Senate has confirmed 208 of his nominees and rejected only 10. That's 95 percent approval and those we have rejected have been among the most controversial and extreme nominees. Nominees who did not represent the mainstream of American legal thought. Nominees hostile to civil rights, women's rights, reproductive rights and working families. Let's talk about the 208. Let's talk about working on a bipartisan basis. Let's talk about Maryland. There were three openings on the Federal bench in Maryland for the district court. Governor Ehrlich sent forth three names of outstanding people of judicial competency. Senator Sarbanes and I moved them straightforward and ahead, even though one had been the chairman of the Republican Party. We did not care about that. Second, he had even run for attorney general. We did not care about that. What we cared about was that the Maryland Bar Association said he was qualified. No. 2, he had been a U.S. attorney and had done a stunning job, and he had extensive legal background in Maryland. We did not play politics. We moved Judge Bennett, Judge Quarles, and Judge Titus. Then came the court of appeals. Oh, my gosh, guess what came out of the Bush administration. They wanted to give us a guy who was not even a member of the Maryland bar. Sarbanes and Mikulski said no. That is one of the ones that did not even come up. Why? We think if you are going to represent Maryland on the court of appeals, you ought to be a member of the Maryland bar and have some significant ties to Maryland. We threatened a filibuster. This is the Maryland seat on the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. They wanted to give us someone from Virginia. We like Virginia, Senator Warner, Senator Allen. We like judges from Virginia, but not for the Maryland seat. And Senator Sarbanes and I said we would filibuster. So we stopped, prevent our state from losing its seat on the court of appeals because of the Senate rules. Though some of them never came forth as nominees, we knew we had the rules of the Senate to prevent this injustice to Maryland. We invited the White House to look at the thousands of lawyers in Maryland who are members of the bar, who have judicial competence and judicial temperament and commitment to basic constitutional principles. Maryland would recognize them. But we were ready to use these rules in the Senate to protect the Maryland seat and make sure whoever was on the court of appeals for the Maryland seat would at least be a member of the Maryland bar or at least be from Maryland and have significant ties there. Those are the rules. That is how you exercise advice and consent. We gave advice, they ignored it, so they were not going to get our consent. Hey, those are the rules. We do not want those rules changed, and it would be the same if there was a Democrat in the White House. We could look at the nominees President Bush has given us. Not only do we get people who are not members of a bar, but we get some who are outside the judicial mainstream. Judge Priscilla Owen is an example of someone who would turn our courts in the wrong direction. She has a history of being driven by ideology and not law. Her beliefs are far outside the mainstream of judicial thinking. She has an extreme ideological agenda on civil rights, women's rights and the right to privacy that we severely question and make her unsuitable to sit on this federal court. She is a judicial activist, that means she has a consistent pattern of putting ideology about the law and ignoring statutory language and substituting her own views. Something about which even officials in this White House have raised concern. Alberto Gonzales, now our Attorney General, who once served with her, called her dissent in a case ``unconscionable . . . judicial activism'' and in another case said her dissent would judicially amend the Texas statute. In other words, she was making law rather than interpreting law. Her opinions show a bias against consumers, victims and individuals. She has consistently ruled against workers, accident victims and victims of discrimination. Her decisions impair the rights of ordinary people to have access to the courts. On the Texas Supreme Court she has restricted a woman's right to choose by ignoring statute and creating additional barriers for women seeking to exercise reproductive choice. We could go through Owen, and we could go through others. Priscilla Owen stands among a handful of nominees who will turn back the clock on protecting important constitutional rights. We know through our examination of these nominees that they are outside the judicial mainstream, and we want to exercise our priority and our responsibility on advice and consent. And now Republicans want to focus on the jobs of 7 people who already have jobs when we have 7.7 million Americans who don't. They want the change the subject away from issue that Americans care about to a handful of extreme judicial nominees. They say there is a crisis but there are more federal judges now than at any other point in our nation's history. This is the lowest vacancy rate on the courts in a decade. Republicans have the wrong priorities. I had to explain what this nuclear option means to a head of state. Did you ever have to explain to someone who is a former head of a government in a European country, who himself fought for freedom and was a dissident and even in prison, what a nuclear option means? He thought we were talking about using nuclear weapons. I had to explain this to members of my family, the senior citizens in my family. ``Barb, what is this nuclear option? Are we thinking about using nuclear weapons?'' We use language here very glibly, and I think exaggerated. What I said was we are headed for a meltdown. We cannot let the Senate melt down, and we will melt down if we do not stop these proceedings from going forth. We need to have an institution that functions on a bipartisan basis. Some of the happiest and most distinguished accomplishments of my life have been accomplished because of working on a bipartisan basis. In the 1990s, I worked with the Senator from Colorado, Mr. Hank Brown, and we worked to bring Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic into NATO. We had to stand up to a Democrat such as Senator Moynihan and a Republican such as Senator Warner to get the Senate to consider it, but we worked on a bipartisan basis, and we extended NATO from old Europe to a new Europe. And right now, the people we brought into NATO are fighting with us side by side in Iraq and are part of the coalition of the willing. Bipartisan relationships did that. Because of our work in the Senate where the women get together at least once a month to have dinner for friendship and fellowship and to talk about an agenda, we have done a lot on women's health. We have increased mammogram funding research by 700 percent. We have increased funding for domestic violence. We have done all this when we worked together. My gosh, when we work together we work our best. Let us now stop this dangerous course. We should not continue further on this terrible down this path on which we are embarking. The American people want us to be standing up for jobs. They want us to be able to face straightforward the health care crisis, and they want to make sure we stabilize the pension crisis in the United States of America. Young people want to be able to afford college. They wonder what are we doing here. Republicans are spending all this time on the nuclear option and debating 7 controversial nominees instead of focusing on our national priorities. When all is said and done, is will be that more gets said than gets done? Let's put the nuclear arsenal option back into the missile silo. We must do so to preserve the constitutional role of the Senate to advise and consent and protect our checks and balances. Let's get back to doing the business of the people. The American people deserve that and they deserve a Senate that works for them. A Senate that governs best when it works together, and let's start putting the people first rather than politics. I yield the floor.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I support our troops and their families. I am behind them 100 percent. They deserve our gratitude, not just with words, but with deeds. This emergency supplemental appropriations bill helps us do just that. The House and Senate have worked hard to respond to the President's request for additional funding to support our operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. We have provided more than $75 million in defense-related spending, including vital support to our soldiers and their families. We have also provided more than $6 billion in assistance to our friends and allies, including $681 million to aid in the recovery from last year's terrible tsunami in Indonesia. We have provided a total of $17.4 billion to speed up the Army's purchase of trucks, additional up-armored humvees, and upgrades to Abrams tanks. There is also $1 billion for additional purchases of Army and Marine Corps trucks, tactical vehicles like humvees, night vision and other important protective equipment to keep our soldiers as safe as possible on the battlefield. We have also preserved support for the C130J aircraft, so vital to transporting troops and materiel around the world. U.S. troops will stay in Iraq and Afghanistan long enough to ensure that those nations can defend themselves against chaos and terrorism. It is important that we provide training and equipment to prepare Iraqi and Afghan security forces to take over when American troops come home. To do this, we have provided $7.0 billion to train security forces in Afghanistan and Iraq. There is also $1.78 billion for Afghan reconstruction and counter-narcotics efforts. In addition to providing $7.7 million to support U.S. diplomatic and reconstruction efforts in Iraq, we have provided $20 million in assistance to Iraqi families who have been affected by coalition operations in Iraq. We must do everything we can to care for soldiers when they are injured. I am very proud that we have provided an additional $211 million for the Defense Health program. This funding also includes assistance to provide meal and telephone services for soldiers recuperating from injuries suffered in Iraq or Afghanistan. It also provides assistance for family members to travel to be with an injured service member recovering from combat injuries. To help soldiers with the enormous medical costs that can be associated with combat injuries, we have also made it possible for service members to get traumatic-injury protection as part of their military insurance package. This insurance rider can be worth as much as $100,000 to service members enrolled in the Servicemembers Group Life Insurance, SGLI, program. We have also made it available retroactively, to help out those soldiers and families already dealing with combat and combat- related injuries. Mr. President, more than 1,700 service men and women have made the ultimate sacrifice in Iraq and Afghanistan. Part of the debt of gratitude we owe the families they leave behind is to ensure that they do not have to face a financial crisis while they are dealing with the loss of a loved one. I am very proud that we have been able to help alleviate their burden, by increasing from $12,000 to $100,000 the fallen heroes compensation for family members of troops who make the ultimate sacrifice for our country. This benefit is applied retroactively, to include all service members who have died since the global war on terror began in October 2001. In addition, the family of a service member who has died will be allowed to remain in military housing for a year, rather than the six months currently allowed. We have also increased the life insurance benefit provided under the SGLI, from $250,000 to $400,000. This increase will also be applied retroactively to 2001. I am disappointed that the conferees did not accept the advice of the Senate--and of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff GEN Richard Myers--and provide the fallen heroes compensation to families of all service members who die on active duty. Instead, Congress has expanded all aspects of the current coverage to include those who die in designated combat zones and in combat-related activities, such as training. This is a good start, but I agree with General Myers that every family who loses a loved one on active duty deserves the gratitude of this nation and should benefit from the fallen heroes fund. We also need to make sure that families receive the full amount of this compensation. Working closely with Senator Grassley, I have taken steps to ensure that the full benefit will be tax free. Senator Grassley has assured me that this important correction will be added to the next tax bill considered in the Senate. We know that nearly 40 percent of the soldiers deployed today in Iraq and Afghanistan are citizen soldiers who come from the National Guard and Reserves. More than half of these will suffer a loss of income when they are mobilized, because their military pay is less than the pay from their civilian job. Many patriotic employers and state governments eliminate this pay gap by continuing to pay them the difference between their civilian and military pay. I am very disappointed that this conference report does not include the Reservist Pay Security Act, which would ensure that the U.S. government also makes up for this pay gap for Federal employees who are activated in the Guard and Reserves. This legislation has passed the Senate three times, and three times it has been stripped out of the conference report. I will continue to work with my colleagues in the House and Senate to build support for this important provision to help our National Guard and Reserves. Mr. President, Americans joined the world in mourning the loss of more than 150,000 victims of the Indian Ocean Tsunami last Christmas. Together, we prayed for the 7 million displaced survivors that God may give them the strength to persevere and overcome this, the largest natural disaster of our time. But expressions of sympathy are not enough. As I said at the time of this terrible disaster, the United States must set the example and lead the world in the humanitarian effort of recovery and rebuilding. Congress has provided $656 million for the tsunami recovery and reconstruction fund to support on-going and long-term relief efforts, including programs aimed specifically at women and children in the affected areas. We have also provided $25 million for U.S. tsunami warning programs to help prevent future human disasters on the scale we have seen in Asia. The people of Darfur continue to suffer the terrible effects of war in the Sudan. Congress has provided $248 million for humanitarian assistance to Darfur and $37 million for Sudan peace implementation assistance. We have also included $50 million to be made available to the African Union, for peacekeeping efforts in Darfur. Also, part of the $90 million provided for food aid and famine relief can be used to help improve conditions in Darfur. Because it is just as important to support our communities at home as it is to support our troops in the field, I will continue to fight for responsible military budgets. For that reason, I joined the Senate's efforts to insist that the President fund our operations in Iraq and Afghanistan through the regular budget and appropriations process. After three years in Afghanistan and two years in Iraq, we should not be funding these operations as if they were surprise emergencies. Unfortunately, because much of the funding included in this conference report has been designated as an ``emergency,'' it will not count against our budget limits and instead just gets added to our ever-growing national debt. This emergency supplemental is a Federal investment in supporting our troops and their families. We support out troops by getting them the best equipment and the best protection we can provide. We support them by getting them the best health care available when they are injured in service to our Nation. And we support them by ensuring that their families do not face a financial crisis at the moment when they are grieving the loss of a soldier who has sacrificed everything for our country. I am proud to vote yes for our troops and their families. I am also proud to vote yes because this bill contains important provisions to help small and seasonal businesses in the United States. The emergency supplemental contains language that provides real relief to small businesses that need temporary seasonal workers by the summer. This emergency supplemental contains the language I offered on the floor of the Senate to temporarily solve the H2B visa shortage. It passed this body by a overwhelming bipartisan vote of 96-4 and was adopted by both House and Senate conferees to be part of the final bill. I know that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle supported this amendment because it is a limited fix to the H2B worker shortage that many coastal states and resort states are facing. This solution is desperately and immediately needed by small and seasonal businesses throughout the country. My amendment helps us keep American jobs, keep American companies open, and yet retain control of our borders I am very proud that we were able to work together, House and Senate, Democrats and Republicans, to pass this measure. This bill was a simply fix, it was temporary and it does not get in the way of comprehensive reform The amendment and the Save our Small and Seasonal Businesses Act on which it is modeled will help small business by doing three things: No. 1, temporarily exempting good actor workers from the H2B cap, so employers apply for and name employees who have already been in U.S.; No. 2, protecting against fraud in the H2B program; and No. 3, providing a fair and balanced allocation system for H2B visas. This amendment first and foremost protects American jobs. It provides a short-term fix to the H2B visa cap which will only be in place through fiscal year 2006. It has four simple provisions: One, it exempts returning seasonal workers from the cap for this year and next. That means that people who have worked here before and who have gone back home are the only ones who would be eligible. The exemption works this way--an employer requests a visa and lists the name of the returning worker on his petition. The employer must provide supporting documentation to the Department of Homeland Security or the State Department that the worker is a returning worker who has come to the United States in one of the 3 prior years under the H2B program. This exemption does not exempt any new workers because employers must show that the worker was in the US previously in order for that worker to be exempt from the cap. Employers can petition for exempted workers at any time during the fiscal year--regardless of whether the cap on H- 2B visas has been met or not. The legislation explicitly states that exempted workers are outside the cap. The employer does not automatically get the exempted worker, they still must go through the whole DOL and DHS process before they can get exempted workers. That means that employers still must prove to the Department of Labor that they cannot find American workers to fill these jobs. Only then will DOL give them the ability to continue the application process and get the workers who they need through DHS and State. Employers will go through the whole process for new or returning workers. Returning workers will be exempt from but new workers will be subject to the cap. This provision is both forward looking and retroactive back to the beginning of the fiscal year, or October 2004. That means that DHS will have to determine how many returning workers were admitted prior to the passage of this Act and open up those spaces to new workers. That makes it fair so that summer employers have the same bite at the apple that winter employers had. DHS estimates that between 30,000 and 35,000 workers are returning workers and they will be able to use the information they have in their databases and in coordination with the Department of State to ensure that spots that were counted in the cap and used by exempted workers will now be opened up for new workers to use so that summer employers can get their fair share. This fix also has strong antifraud provisions to make sure that everyone is playing by the rules and that no one is misusing the program. And it gives DHS added teeth to prevent fraud and enforce our Nation's immigration laws. A $150 antifraud fee ensures that Government agencies processing the H-2B visas will get added resources to detect and prevent fraud. This money is added to an antifruad fund to give the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of State and the Department of Labor some added resources to train workers so that they can identify fraud in the program. We also add strong new sanctions to the law. These sanctions are permanent and further strengthen DHS's enforcement power by allowing sanctions against those who have a significant misrepresentation of facts on a petition. We increase fines and allow DHS to bar violating employers from the H-2B program for up to 5 years. This section also sends a strong message to employers--don't play games with U.S. jobs. Our bill reserves the highest penalties for employer actions which harm U.S. workers. We also make the system better by creating a fair allocation of visas. Under current law summer employers lose out because winter employers get all the visas. So our bill does two things: First, as I said above, we exempt returning workers from the cap, so returning workers don't count for the cap. But we also divide the cap between summer and winter. What that means is that of the 66,000 visas and we make 33,000 available from October thru March and 33,000 available from April thru September. Winter employers get half and summer employers get half. And we make this change permanent to make sure that even if comprehensive reform cannot be reached by 2006, then at least summer and winter employers are competing for the limited number of visas on a level playing field. Finally, we give the Department of Homeland Security the ability to implement this law now, without having to issue regulations. That means that employers get real relief now. DHS has a limited exemption from the Administrative Procedure Act to implement the exemption section, the antifraud fees and also the allocation of visas section. These exemptions are to prevent any barriers or delay to the immediate implementation of those provisions. So that is what this strong bipartisan legislation is all about. This is the language that 94 Senators in this body supported and that the House adopted into the emergency supplemental conference report. Now we want to make sure that DHS can start its implementation immediately so I want to make sure that they are very clear about what the congressional intent of this legislation is: Section 402 is intended to increase the number of H-2B admissions available for fiscal years 2005 and 2006. This legislation was drafted with the understanding that the preexisting USCIS method of implementing the H-2B limitation is based upon accepting for filing the number of petitions (only some of which name the specific workers) that is projected to result in the authorized number of admissions, with allowance made for an expected number of petitions that will be denied or revoked and of workers with approved petitions who will not apply for or qualify for visas or admission, based upon State Department information. Consistent with this general methodology, and with the fact that USCIS has already received sufficient petitions for fiscal year 2005 to fill the cap and has not required any information to be provided as to whether the petitions were filed for ``returning workers'', it is intended that USCIS to make its best estimate as to the number of previously filed petitions that likely were for returning workers, based on State Department information, and accordingly to free up numbers for fiscal year 2005 to be available to otherwise qualified H- 2B aliens, whether or not they are ``returning workers.'' In addition, H-2B workers will be available to petitioners identifying and certifying specific aliens to be returning workers. For fiscal year 2006, the number of new H-2B admissions available will be 66,000, plus any aliens for whom the certification and confirmation requirements of section 214(g)(9)(A), (B), and (C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended by this section, are met. Specifically, Section 405 provides that the 66,000 limitation on H-2B admissions for fiscal year 2006 and thereafter will be administered as two half-year limitations of 33,000 each applicable to aliens subject to the overall 66,000 limitation, i.e, not including ``returning workers.'' It is the intention of the supporters of the amendment that this provision be administered so as to give employers seeking workers for the second half of the year an opportunity to obtain them at least equivalent to that available to first semester employers. Finally, section 407, is intended to allow this law to be implemented expeditiously. The intent was to make sure that the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act, the Paperwork Reduction Act, and other laws relating to regulatory processes and forms--especially, but not limited to, any requirement to promulgate new rules--to the extent any such provisions might apply, should not pose a barrier in any way to the expeditious implementation of the provisions of this Act intended to give urgent and necessary relief to summer and seasonal employers and to apply the new fee provision in section 403. We therefore, provide the authority to the relevant departments to waive any such requirement that may otherwise delay such implementation. It is a quick and simple legislative remedy with strong bi-partisan support. It fixes the problem now and takes small steps to prevent this drastic shortage in the future. It is immediate and achievable because DHS will start implementation once it is signed by the President. And more importantly, it does not exacerbate our immigration problems. Mr. President, it is important that we continue to support the brave men and women who put their lives on the line both at home and abroad. But today, as I support funding for our troops I also stand opposed to the part of the emergency supplemental known as REAL ID. This controversial and overly-broad provision has no place in an emergency spending bill. The changes to our immigration laws and the policies on asylum proposed by this legislation are major modifications that are contentious on both sides of the aisle. As it is written, this bill undermines both due process and the principles of fundamental fairness on which our immigration laws are based. This legislation, plain and simple, is a drastic and unknown change. It is the type of change that both the House and the Senate should have deliberated on and given in-depth consideration to. The Senate has not had the opportunity to do that. Just look at what this legislation does: First, it increases the burdens on those seeking asylum in the United States and limits judicial review of some decisions. These are people who are often persecuted in their own countries and cannot produce the level of documentation or corroboration of their abuse that this bill requires. Next, it permits the Department of Homeland Security to waive ``all legal requirements'' that interfere with the construction of roads or barriers along our borders. That means that the Secretary of Homeland Security can waive any State or Federal environmental, health and safety, civil rights, labor, or criminal law. And there is very limited ability of anyone to challenge these decisions. That means the Secretary has a tremendous amount of discretion to override existing laws and step all over State's rights. It also limits judicial review of removal cases and discretionary decisions of agencies--that means an agency, not a judge, will have the final say. And most notably, it creates national standards for identification cards that States must enforce. That means that States now must not only verify the many forms of identification that are required, but they are also responsible for keeping track of a drivers license holder's immigration status. That creates a huge increase in expenses for States and it also means that State officials, who have no background in immigration law, will be forced to enforce these complicated provisions. That's an unfunded mandate on States that are already in fiscal crisis. Plain and simple REAL ID drastically changes immigration laws, limits access to the courts and due process, and places significant new costs and duties on local and State governments. The Senate should have had the ability to review, debate, and amend this provision before it became a permanent part of our Federal immigration law. Now, I am the first to agree that we need strong and comprehensive immigration reform. We need to look at all the problems with protecting our borders and ensuring our safety. We need to make sure that the programs that work are updated and continued. We need to make sure that the programs that don't work are fixed so that we do not have porous borders. But we need to use regular order to do so. The Senate must have the opportunity to consider comprehensive reform, not focus on piecemeal measures. And President Bush should lead the way in working with Congress and our allies for solutions that protect our borders. And for solutions that allow our rich history and tradition of immigration to continue. But these supposed solutions cannot come at the expense of our constitutional framework. REAL ID is an unfunded mandate that is punitive. We do not know if any of the provisions will actually make us safer--we just know that they override States rights and undermine civil rights and civil liberties. I believe that it is our duty, as Members of the Senate, to balance national security interests with due process and constitutional rights, yet because we have not had hearings or been able to evaluate this change to our immigration law we do not know the extent of its impact. REAL ID proposes several different and significant changes to our immigration laws, I believe that it is important for the Senate Judiciary Committee to have an opportunity to hold hearings and consider comprehensive legislation that looks at all areas of the law. Then the whole Senate should have the ability to fully debate the issue on the Senate floor. I am disappointed that this controversial measure was added to this must pass legislation. We should be passing an emergency supplemental bill without the harmful REAL ID provision. And then we should turn our attention to real reform and the Senate should proceed to a thoughtful and comprehensive debate on immigration reform that protects our borders and our constitutional mandate.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 7 minutes on the topic of the 15th anniversary of the Hubble telescope.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, this week marks the 15th anniversary of the launch of the Hubble space telescope. As we watched Hubble lift off 15 years ago, we had great hopes for the Hubble and great hopes for science. Guess what. We were not disappointed. Hubble ushered in a new era of astronomy and science. Hubble has exceeded all expectations. It is the greatest tool for studying the universe since Galileo himself invented the telescope. Because of the Hubble, we are now living in what astronomers call the ``golden age'' of astronomy and physics. How incredible, how spectacular. It has been America's gift to the world. It has been one of the greatest acts of public diplomacy in history. Hubble has become a symbol of America's generosity of spirit. Whatever the Hubble sees in the world, it downloads for the rest of the world to have access. Hubble even has its own Web site. It gets e-mails from people all over the world. Some of them from the children are the most touching. There are e-mails that say: Dear Mr. Hubble, did you see God today? Have you met an angel? Is there another universe? What does it look like? They actually talk to Hubble, and it has inspired their curiosity and their desire to engage in science. It is not surprising; just look at what it has accomplished. The Hubble telescope has accounted for 35 percent of all of NASA's discoveries for the past 30 years. It has seen farther and sharper than any telescope in history. It has observed more than 14,000 objects in space. It has been the No. 1 producer of science for NASA over the past 10 years. Over 2,600 scientific papers have been written on the Hubble results. It has dramatically improved our understanding of the atmosphere of planets; the size of galaxies; the birth, life, and death of stars; the existence of black holes; the age of the universe and how the universe expands. I have a photograph in my office of a swirling galaxy. They call it the ``eye of God'' because you literally see those spectacular pictures, and you feel in this one picture that God himself is staring down at us from the universe. Hubble has rewritten the science textbooks almost every year. It has exceeded our wildest expectations. But it didn't start that way. Fifteen years ago, I was chairing the subcommittee that finances NASA, and we were so excited when Hubble took off. But no sooner was it in space when we saw that the Hubble did not work. Something was wrong with its mirror. Hubble could not see. I immediately had a hearing and said, oh my gosh, Hubble has a cataract. It needs space surgery. It needs a space contact lens. Well, I never saw myself as a space ophthalmologist, but, quite frankly, working with my dear friend from the other side of the aisle, Senator Jake Garn, we took a risk to finance the fix for Hubble. Well, this country and this world, this big planet, was not disappointed. We took the risk because we believed in Hubble's potential. We believed in the engineers and the scientists at NASA to know how to fix it. We believed in our astronauts, that they could go to the Hubble and fix it and return safely to Earth. Thanks to those astronauts and engineers, Hubble was saved. We did fix it with a contact lens that has lasted now for many years. We have had to go back to space and give it new batteries. We have also had to give it new gyroscopes so it doesn't vibrate in space. We even improved its lens. Each year it gets better and better. From the brink of failure to extraordinary success, this has been the story of Hubble. Now we are once again going to have to come to the rescue of Hubble. Last year, the NASA Administrator announced that he was terminating the final servicing mission to give Hubble new batteries and extend its life. The Administrator rejected it, saying that the Hubble would shut down in 4 years when its battery runs out. The reason he gave was astronaut safety. I was troubled by that because astronaut safety has been my No. 1 priority as an appropriator for the space program. However, I was uncertain about that decision and, like any good scientist, I asked for a second opinion. First, I asked Admiral Gehman, who had done the study of what went wrong with Columbia, for his opinion. He said go to the National Academy of Sciences. I did that, and we found a study that concluded that a servicing mission was no more risky than going back to the space station. Once again, Mr. President, our shuttle is going to start flying again, and our hearts and prayers will go with Colonel Collins as she takes astronauts back into space and, God willing and with the help of our engineers, returns to Earth safely. The next mission needs to go up and fix the Hubble. I believe the American people want it. We have the will. Now we have to find the wallet. President George Bush, with poor advice from the NASA Administrator, canceled it out of the budget. I want the President to look at those NASA pictures. I want him to know what NASA has meant to the world and to America in space. I am going to work with him, on a bipartisan basis, to find the money to keep Hubble flying and seeing the universe. Who knows, maybe we will meet an angel and make some interesting new friends. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I would like to thank the chairman of the Finance Committee, Senator Grassley, and the ranking member, Senator Baucus, for their support of ensuring that death benefits paid to the families of those who give their lives for our country are tax- free. I appreciate their commitment to getting this done through appropriate tax legislation, if necessary, as soon as possible. And I appreciate the help of their staff on the Finance Committee, who worked with my staff on this issue. Given these commitments from Chairman Grassley and Senator Baucus, I will not proceed with my amendment on this critical supplemental appropriations bill to meet the needs of our troops. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise to speak on my amendment No. 497 to ensure that increased military death benefits are tax free. We know that more than 1,700 servicemen and women have made the ultimate sacrifice in Iraq and Afghanistan. We don't always focus on the families that have to live their lives without a husband or wife, without a son or daughter, without a father or mother, without a brother or sister. Already in March, Newsweek estimated that 1,043 American children had lost a parent in Iraq. The stories of these children trying to cope with the reality that a parent isn't coming home will break your heart. But the families of those who die for their country also have to struggle with more mundane challenges, like the loss of the main breadwinner. Staff Sargeant Kendell Waters-Bey was a 29-year-old Marine from Baltimore. He was one of the first American servicemembers to die in Iraq, among 12 people killed in a helicopter crash. Michael and Angela Waters-Bey lost their only son; that's hard enough. But 10-year-old Kenneth lost his father. My Maryland colleague in the House, Congressman Dutch Ruppersberger, helped to set up a trust fund to pay for Kenneth's college education. Another Marylander, Naval Reserve Lieutenant Kylan Jones-Huffman, was killed by small arms fire in Iraq. Lieutenant Jones-Huffman was a graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis, and he returned there to teach history before being deployed to Iraq. These are just two of the many families in Maryland and across the Nation that experience the sacrifices of this war every day. They deserve our gratitude--not just words, but deeds. I'm proud to be a member of the Appropriations Committee. We did what is right to support our troops by reporting out a strong emergency supplemental bill to meet the needs of our men and women in uniform in Iraq and Afghanistan and around the world. We did what is right by increasing the military death benefit immediately paid to the family of a member of our military who is killed. This bill will raise the military death benefit from just over $12,000 to $100,000. The supplemental bill also provides a benefit to make the increase retroactive to October 7, 2001, the start of the war in Afghanistan after the September 11 attacks. The Senate has also rightly adopted the Kerry amendment to ensure that the death benefit increase covers all soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines who die on active duty. I also appreciate the Senate's adoption of the Salazar amendment, to me the so-called death gratuity as fallen heroes compensation. While we understand that no compensation can make up for the loss of a family member, the new name adopted by the Senate recognizes that we are helping the families of our fallen heroes. I believe just about every Senator shares my view that the military death benefit should not be taxed. We need to make sure that the full amount is paid to the family of a service member who dies for our country. We are a grateful Nation, and this is one of the ways we express our gratitude. Under our tax law, the death benefit is excluded from gross income. That means families don't have to pay income tax on it. We don't want the family of a hero who died for our country to be handed the American flag from the casket in one hand, and get a bill from the IRS in the other. My amendment will make sure that the payments to make the death benefit increase retroactive are not taxed. I appreciate the support of the National Military Family Association for my amendment. I also appreciate the support of the Senator from New Jersey, Senator Corzine, who is a cosponsor of this amendment. I hope that the Senate will send a strong message that we intend the military death benefit to be tax-free.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I support our troops and their families. I am behind them 100 percent. They deserve our gratitude, not just with words but with deeds. We must do right by our troops and their families. This strong emergency supplemental appropriations bill helps us do just that. In this bill we have provided $5.4 billion to fix or replace equipment that has been damaged during combat operations. We have also added $3.3 billion to add armor to all convoy trucks, buy more armored vehicles and provide helicopter survivability systems. To help protect our troops from deadly improvised explosive devices, IEDs, I supported the addition of $60 million for the Army to purchase field jamming systems $213 million for the Army to purchase Up-Armored Humvees. We have preserved support for C130J aircraft, so vital to transporting troops and materiel around the world. To ensure that we do all we can to care for soldiers when they are injured, this bill includes an additional $275 million for the Defense Health program. It also eliminates a petty charge to some service members recuperating from combat injuries in military facilities who are being asked to pay for their own meals. More than 1,700 servicemen and -women have made the ultimate sacrifice in Iraq and Afghanistan. Part of the debt of gratitude we owe the families they leave behind is to ensure that they do not have to face a financial crisis at the same time that they are dealing with the loss of a loved one. To help alleviate their burden, we have increased from $12,000 to $100,000 the Fallen Heroes compensation for family members of those brave troops who make the ultimate sacrifice on behalf of our country. We have applied this increase retroactively, to include all those who have died since the beginning of operations in Afghanistan, and we have extended this compensation to apply to every service member who dies while on active duty, not just in a designated combat zone. We also need to make sure that families receive the full amount of this compensation. Working closely with Senator Grassley, I have taken steps to ensure that the full benefit is tax free. Senator Grassley has assured me that this important correction will be added to the next tax bill considered in the Senate. To further ease the strain for these families, we have allowed the family of a service member who dies to remain in military housing for a year, rather than the 6 months currently allowed. The veterans' health care system is stretched to the limit at a time when more and more veterans are turning to VA. That's why I supported an amendment by Senator Murray to increase veterans funding by $2 billion to meet the health care needs of soldiers returning from Iraq and Afghanistan and other war veterans. Although this amendment was defeated, I will continue to fight for adequate funding for veterans' health care, because the VA will continue to see more enrollment of veterans and a higher demand for care. We know that nearly 40 percent of the soldiers deployed today in Iraq and Afghanistan are citizen soldiers who come from the National Guard and Reserves. More than half of these will suffer a loss of income when they are mobilized, because their military pay is less than the pay from their civilian job. Many patriotic employers and state governments eliminate this pay gap by continuing to pay them the difference between their civilian and military pay. The Reservist Pay Security amendment, which I worked on with Senator Durbin, will ensure that the U.S. Government also makes up for this pay gap for Federal employees who are activated in the Guard and Reserves. Americans joined the world in mourning the loss of more than 150,000 victims of the Indian Ocean Tsunami last Christmas. Together, we prayed for the 7 million displaced survivors that God may give them the strength to persevere and overcome this, the largest natural disaster of our time. But expressions of sympathy are not enough. As I said at the time of this terrible disaster, the United States must set the example and lead the world in the humanitarian effort of recovery and rebuilding. So I am especially proud that this bill includes $907 million to help keep America's promise to tsunami victims. It provides $656 million for the Tsunami Recovery and Reconstruction fund to support on-going and long-term relief efforts. It also provides $25 million for U.S. tsunami warning programs to help prevent future human disasters on the scale we have seen in Asia. Because it is just as important to support our communities at home as it is to support our troops in the field, I will continue to fight for responsible military budgets. For that reason, I joined Senator Byrd's call for the President to fund our operations in Iraq and Afghanistan through the regular budget and appropriations process. After 3 years in Afghanistan and 2 years in Iraq, we should not be funding these operations as if they were surprise emergencies. I also joined Senator Byrd in his call for the President to provide Congress information on the costs so far of these operations and for an estimate of what we can expect them to cost in coming years. This bill is a Federal investment in supporting our troops and their families. We support out troops by getting them the best equipment and the best protection we can provide. We support them by making it easier for our citizen soldiers in the National Guard and Reserves to serve their country. And we support them by ensuring that their families do not face a financial crisis at the moment when they are grieving the loss of a soldier who has sacrificed everything for our country.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, one of my top priorities is the real reform of our Nation's intelligence. The Intelligence Reform Act of 2004 was a first step toward transforming the U.S. intelligence community. Information sharing will be strengthened, while diverse opinion and independent analysis will be protected. The single most important provision in the act was the creation of a Director of National Intelligence, who would have authority, responsibility, and financial control over the entire intelligence community. The President has nominated an experienced diplomat to be Director of National Intelligence. Ambassador John D. Negroponte has worked hard for his country and has made personal sacrifices. When his country called, he has exposed himself to hardship and danger most notably in Vietnam and in Iraq. He has also had extensive exposure to U.S. intelligence products and operations. He had intelligence coordination responsibilities in Washington on the National Security Council. He recently had responsibility for leading the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad during a time when intelligence on the Iraqi insurgency had the highest priority. Yet I have serious concerns with certain aspects of Ambassador Negroponte's record--particularly his actions while he was ambassador to Honduras. There is a serious discrepancy between his description of the Honduran government's human rights record during those years and that of the CIA Inspector General and nongovernmental organizations. He has yet to show complete candor in discussing U.S. activities there with the Congress. I believe that Ambassador Negroponte could have been more outspoken in reporting from his vantage point at the United Nations in the winter of 2003--when our country was on the verge of war. Despite these concerns, I will vote for the confirmation of Ambassador Negroponte. I am encouraged by his responses to my questions during hearings before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. In a very important exchange, he provided assurances that he will ``speak truth to power.'' In response to my questions, Ambassador Negroponte said he would make sure that reliability problems with sources are put before decisionmakers. He agreed to explore mechanisms like the State Department's Dissent Channel to encourage those who see yellow flashing lights to express their views to senior officials and to protect dissenters from political retaliation. And he said that he himself would be taking the ``unvarnished truth'' to the President. He also said that all organizations under his purview will obey the law and that there will be full accountability. These assurances are critical. My vote to confirm Ambassador Negroponte is based on them. As a member of the Senate Select Intelligence Committee, I will be watching closely to see that they are honored and will do what I can to contribute to Ambassador Negroponte's success as the first Director of National Intelligence.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I honor the life and legacy of Edward J. Moskal. Edward Moskal was a giant in the Polish-American community. He was President of the Polish American Congress and the Polish National Alliance. These are empowering organizations--rooted in heritage, history and philanthropy. Their members are humanitarians and patriots--dedicated to Polish history and culture, and to strengthening the historic links between America and Poland. Because of Ed Moskal's leadership, these organizations have flourished. The Polish American Congress and the Polish National Alliance were created during one of the darkest periods in Polish history. We know that the history of Poland has, at times, been a melancholy one. Every king, kaiser, czar or comrade who ever wanted to have a war in Europe always started by invading Poland. But we know that while Poland was occupied, the heart and soul of the Polish nation has never been occupied. The Polish American community never abandoned Poland. We supported them during the long, cold years of Soviet domination. And then in 1980, when an obscure electrician in the Gdansk Shipyard jumped over a wall proclaiming the Solidarity movement, he took the Polish people and the whole world with him, to bring down the Iron Curtain. Ed Moskal and the Polish American community played an important role--sending supplies to the strikers and their families and educating the world about what was going on in Poland. After the fall of the Iron Curtain, I worked with Mr. Moskal for NATO membership for Poland. Mr. Moskal and the Polish American community helped Poland take its rightful place as a member of the family of democratic nations. Poland is now a full, contributing member of NATO. Our Polish allies serve alongside Americans in Afghanistan and in Iraq. Now, after so many years of foreign domination, Poland has made the difficult transition to democracy and a free market. Poland is now a real democracy with a vibrant market economy, as well as a reliable NATO ally. And so, today, we in the Polish community mourn the loss of Ed Moskal. We send our thoughts and prayers to his wife, Wanda Sadlik, and to his family.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I yield whatever time I have remaining to the other Senator from Virginia.