Barbara Mikulski

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise today on the nomination of Dr. Condoleezza Rice to serve as Secretary of State. I have three criteria I use to evaluate all executive branch nominees: competence, integrity and commitment to the core mission of the Department. On the basis of those criteria, I will vote to confirm Dr. Rice. Yet I do have concerns. This vote is not an endorsement of President Bush's foreign and defense policy as we saw it during Dr. Rice's tenure as National Security Advisor. I have serious concerns with the way we went to war with Iraq: With the overblown assertions of the threat to the United States; with the deeply flawed intelligence analysis from a few biased sources presented as facts; with the failure to build a strong international coalition; with the failure to prepare and send sufficient forces to deal with the aftermath of removing Saddam from power; and with the failure to prepare by providing our own troops the protective equipment they needed to carry out their missions and come home safe. I know a lot of the responsibility for those failures rests with the Secretary of Defense. I hope that Dr. Rice's service as Secretary of State will be historic not only because she will be the first African American woman to hold that office. I hope that Dr. Rice will make history by exercising true leadership at the State Department: Rebuilding our tattered international relationships and alliances; seeking to achieve lasting peace in the Middle East and other conflicts; mobilizing the world to meet humanitarian and development needs; and serving as an effective CEO of the State Department to ensure that our dedicated public servants have safe embassies and the resources they need to effectively formulate policy and represent the United States around the world.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, today I rise to discuss an issue that Congress tried to address after the 2000 election nightmare. Frankly, I am stunned to be standing before you 4 years later to take up the same issues of voting irregularities and uncounted votes. And I thank my colleague from California for bringing this important issue before the Senate for debate. Her opposition serves as a call upon the Congress to take action this year to address the ongoing problems in our electoral system. Today, I will vote to certify the result, but once again we see that the election system in the United States does not work to provide absolute confidence in the results. Today, I am voting to certify the results because I do not believe that the voting problems changed the outcome of the election. Certification should not be delayed further under such circumstances. I believe the majority of voters in Ohio have spoken and that result should be certified. But while I do not question the result, I rise today to call attention to what went wrong, to the disenfranchised voters, the broken machines and problems people had casting their ballots on election day. This should not be happening in the United States of America. When we vote for President, we should all have total confidence that every vote counts and that every vote is counted. There simply should be no questions or problems when we vote for the President of the United States. But, here we are, again, talking about voting problems and talking about lost or uncounted votes. Like many Americans, I was shocked in 2000 to see how outdated the voting systems in America were. I was also shocked to see how easy it was to manipulate those voting systems and how easy it was for votes to be lost or go uncounted. It was literally unbelievable. I asked myself, how could such things happen here in the United States? In 2000, we all learned that many ballots, many people's votes, were thrown out, lost, misplaced, or miscounted. We saw election officials who did not know the rules and some who appeared to ignore the rules. We witnessed innocent mistakes, machine mistakes, ballot mistakes and mistakes that were not so innocent. The result was that many votes simply did not count. The Presidential election of 2000 was an eyeopener. Our election systems in this country, the World's oldest democracy, were broken and needed to be fixed. Republicans and Democrats agreed this had to be done. It was important. It was vital. And we did something. We passed the Help America Vote Act. We set standards. We authorized money for the states to help them get new machines, new technology and fix their electoral systems. We provided for provisional ballot systems so that if there was a question about a voters registration they could still cast a ballot. We thought that our voting systems were well on their way to being fixed. We thought that we would never have another election like 2000. We thought that all votes were going to count and all votes were going to be counted. We were wrong. We now see, in 2004, 4 years after the 2000 election debacle, we have people standing in lines for hours because polling places could not handle the turnout, people being given the wrong information, machines breaking down, too few machines in some precincts, ballots being lost or misplaced, and voters being told to go to the wrong place to vote. That is simply not right. It is not clear if these problems by accident or intended, but the result was that again people were not able to cast their votes or their votes simply were not counted. That's just wrong. That is not suppose to happen in the United States. And where did much of this happen? In minority neighborhoods, in cities, in economically distressed areas, in primarily Democratic areas across the Nation. I ask myself, is this just a coincidence? Those communities do not think so. And it is critical that we let them know that we take their concerns seriously. What happened in the last election is less important than making sure that it never happens again. These communities need to know that the Congress is taking action to meet their concerns and will work to correct the abuses that were documented in many States in 2004. This is not a Republican or a Democratic issue. Ensuring that every registered voter who wants to vote can vote is not a partisan issue. It is an issue of what it means to be an American. In 2004, everyone should agree that every vote should count and we have to do whatever is necessary to make sure that happens. I call on the Congress to renew its efforts to ensure that there is true electoral reform that every American who casts their ballot can be sure it is counted and that every American who wants to cast their ballot has that opportunity. This Congress should take three steps: We should fully fund the Help American Vote Act so that all States have the resources that they need to truly reform their electoral systems. We need to pass legislation to ensure that there is a voter verified paper trail on electronic machines so voters can verify that they cast their ballot and who they cast it for. We need to re-examine the issue of electoral reform to see what steps the Congress needs to take to ensure that the voting rights of all Americans are protected. So that we have uniform standards. So that provisional ballots work, people do not have to wait in long lines, machines are operative and voters can get to the polls on election day. And, we must do it now, before this issue fades from view again. The media will move on to other issues. We will move on to other issues. There are many important issues that this Congress will address this year, but as we look forward, and this year celebrate the 40th Anniversary of the Voting Rights Act, we must make this a priority issue. We must act to protect those vital rights and protect our democracy. There is no better way to honor this historic Act than to ensure that we fix the problems in our electoral system that continue disenfranchise voters. I thank my colleague, Senator Boxer, from California for giving us the opportunity to debate these important points and focusing the spotlight on the voting problems still facing our democracy. And while I vote today to certify the election, I do not certify how our electoral system works in the United States and on that front we must now act. I look forward to working on this with other members of the Senate. But, we must not be here in 2006 or 2008 talking about how shocked we are to see yet again votes not counted, ballots missing, lost and misplaced, and confused election officials. We must act this year, while the spotlight is still on, to do more to ensure that all voters will have confidence in our electoral system.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise in support of the National Security Intelligence Reform Act. I am proud to cast my vote in favor of the first major reform of the intelligence community. Intelligence reform will make our Nation safer and stronger, and ensure we use our resources smarter. We have created a framework that works to prevent a predatory attack on the United States, supports our troops, and provides good intelligence to policymakers so we can guard and guide the Nation. I am excited that we are going to pass such fundamental reform of our intelligence agencies. I have been fighting for intelligence reform for years. It is overdue and greatly needed. Now is the time. This is a very good and important bill. This bill will make the American people safer by reforming our intelligence community for the 21st Century, by improving protection of our homeland, and by unifying and strengthening our efforts to combat terrorism. The reforms will help prevent another 9/11 attack and help ensure we never go to war again on dated and dubious information. These reforms will make highest and best use of the talent in our intelligence agencies, who will have a framework to be able to protect the Nation and speak truth to power. I have fought for reform of our intelligence community for years. I have been a member of the Intelligence Committee since before 9/11 to be an advocate for reform, particularly regarding signals intelligence. Since I joined the intelligence committee we have also investigated two serious intelligence failures: Why couldn't we prevent the 9/11 attacks on America? Why did we think Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction? The House and Senate intelligence committees had a joint inquiry into intelligence relating to 9/11. We found insufficient information, missed opportunities, and failures to share information. So many talented and highly skilled people in our intelligence community worked so hard and so effectively, but our intelligence agencies did not serve them or us well. These investigations convinced me that our intelligence agencies needed fundamental reforms. I recommended the creation of a Director of National Intelligence to unify and lead the intelligence community and many other important intelligence reforms. I am pleased that many of the reforms I have been advocating are part of this bill. The National Security Intelligence Reform Act also builds on the work of the 9/11 Commission. I want to thank Senator Collins and Senator Lieberman for their work on this bill in Committee, in the Senate, and holding the line in conference with the House. The result is broad, deep and authentic reform. The bill gives the intelligence community one leader, a Director of National Intelligence, with real authority over the National Intelligence Program budget and personnel, to manage and unify and oversee the intelligence community. The bill creates a National Counterterrorism Center to unify our Nation's intelligence information and planning to fight terrorism more effectively. The bill creates a National Counterproliferation Center to provide the same unity of effort and effectiveness in the effort to prevent the spread of weapons of mass destruction. The bill provides for diversity of opinion in intelligence analysis and protects the independence of analysis from policy and political pressures, by using red-teaming to test assumptions and avoiding group- think by ensuring that alternative views are presented to policy- makers. The bill requires better sharing of intelligence information, both within the intelligence community and with first responders in our States and communities who have a need to know. The bill provides protections for the rights of Americans by creating a Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board and making officials in each agency responsible for protecting civil liberties and privacy rights. The bill will also unify and streamline the standards for granting security clearances and require that a clearance granted by one agency is accepted by other agencies. This bill goes beyond intelligence reform to address many of the other 9/11 Commission recommendations: to improve aviation security, including air cargo inspections, to improve maritime security, to strengthen border enforcement, and to strengthen criminal laws on terrorism, building weapons of mass destruction, and financing terrorist groups. I have been fighting for many of these reforms and am very pleased that this bill includes them. They are going to make America safer, stronger and smarter. This is not a perfect bill; no bill is. There are some provisions in this bill that raise questions or concerns. You can count on me to be vigorous and rigorous in oversight, to make sure we have real reform to protect America and protect the freedoms that America stands for. Thanks to the dedication, commitment and persistence of the 9/11 families and the Congress, we had an independent commission to investigate 9/11. The 9/11 Commission brought into the sunshine what many of us knew from our classified hearings. The 9/11 Commission report was not just riveting reading--it was a good blueprint for intelligence reform. Senators Collins and Lieberman picked up that blueprint and ran with it. The Senate produced a bipartisan bill that is a shining example of what can be done around here when we work together, not as blue State Democrats, not as red State Republicans, but as Americans--as members of the red, white and blue party, working together for America and the American people. As a proud member of the red, white and blue party, I enthusiastically support the National Security Intelligence Reform Act.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, this is the toughest VA/HUD bill we have ever faced. In putting this bill together, we were told by the Republican leadership that we had to do two things. First, we had to fund veterans medical care $1.2 billion above the President's budget request. Second, we had to fund NASA at the President's budget request of $16.2 billion. In addition, we had to provide enough money to renew Section 8 housing vouchers. Even though this was not a priority for the President, it was a priority for us. I agree with these priorities. I have fought for these priorities. But in order to fund these priorities, we had to cut $3 billion from other programs. This is a shell game. The Republican leadership gave us an allocation for conference that is $3 billion less than we had for our Senate bill. With the exception of VA medical care, Section 8 and NASA, we had to cut all other programs an average of 4 percent below last year. For the first time in history, we had to cut essential programs to pay for these priorities. These are real cuts to programs that help people and communities. This is the illusion of being compassionate. We were forced to do this because of the budget caps that we are forced to live under by the Republican leadership. These spending caps put a stranglehold on essential programs. The Republican leadership created this situation and unfortunately, the American people will pay the price. Our No. 1 priority has always been our veterans. Senator Bond and I will always make veterans the number one priority in this bill. We have increased veterans medical care by $1.5 billion over last year, and $1.2 billion more than the President requested in his budget. We eliminated the President's proposal to increase deductibles and co-pays for veterans. It is wrong to ask veterans to pay more for their medical care, especially when we are fighting a war. We created a new prosthetics and holistic care program to find new ways to treat and care for veterans, especially for our veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan. For this reason alone, we had to produce a bill, even under these circumstances. If we didn't produce a bill this year, we would not have enough money to care for our veterans, particularly our veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan. We have increased funding for NASA to help fund the repairs to the Space Shuttle so we can return to flight next year and fix the Hubble Space Telescope. Returning the Shuttle safely to flight is our top NASA priority. We are fully committed to implementing the recommendations of the Gehman Commission, and we have given NASA sufficient funding to accomplish this goal. We have provided the full budget request, $4.3 billion, to fund the Space Shuttle and we have provided NASA with unprecedented flexibility to add more funds for the Space Shuttle, if they need it. We added $300 million to NASA's budget to fund a servicing mission to the Hubble Space Telescope, the most successful scientific instrument since Galileo's telescope. I have fought to save Hubble and I am proud that my colleagues have joined me in this fight by providing an additional $300 million to fund a servicing mission in 2007. We also made a down payment on the President's Exploration Initiative so we can begin a new era in space exploration and we protected NASA's critical science programs such as Living With A Star and Earth science applications to help us better understand the Earth's environment. For National Service, the overall budget was cut by over $3 million compared to last year but we were able to fund AmeriCorps at a level that supports 70,000 new volunteers, despite the cut in funding. This will allow us to maintain the momentum we started last year. However, these increases come at a price. To provide these needed increases for veterans and NASA, we had to cut essential programs, ``including housing programs. Senator Bond and I have a responsibility to fund the renewals of Section 8 vouchers. We added funding for Section 8 renewals, but we had to cut other programs to pay for it. We were forced to cut housing for the elderly by $26 million. Housing for the disabled is cut by $10 million. The Community Development Block Grant Program, one of our most popular programs in this bill, and one of the most important programs for State and local governments, is cut by $200 million compared to last year. We should not have to be forced to shift funding from one essential program to another. For EPA, we were forced to make cuts because of the budget cuts imposed on us by the Republican leadership. The clean water State revolving fund was cut by $250 million compared to last year. That means every State will get less money for sewer construction. EPA's successful science and technology programs--the programs looking at innovative and cost effective solutions for environmental protection--are cut by $40 million compared to last year. Overall, EPA is cut by over $300 million compared to last year. Thanks to the Republican budget cuts, we are shifting the burden of environmental protection to State and local governments. I am opposed to this and fought it every step of the way. For NSF, Senator Bond and I have fought to incease funding for science and technology by fighting to double NSF's budget over 5 years. Yet, the budget cuts imposed on us forced us to cut $60 million from NSF's budget compared to last year. Fortunately, we were able to increase funding for our historically black colleges and universities and maintain graduate stipends at $30,000 per year--two of my top priorities. But we will not be able to maintain our leadership in science and technology if we are forced to cut NSF funding. We will not be able to produce the new technologies that lead to the new jobs if we have to cut basic research funding. This is not a sound policy. Senator Bond and I have done the best we could do under the circumstances. We had no choice but to produce a bill. A CR would have been worse for our veterans and we could not let that happen. We have soldiers returning from Iraq and Afghanistan. Without an increase in VA medical care, we would not be able to care for them once they return and enter the VA system. Senator Bond and I would never let that happen, but it is wrong to have to cut other important programs to pay for it. I hope that we will not face this situation next year.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I am pleased that we are finally reauthorizing this important legislation, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. I thank Senator Kennedy, Senator Gregg, Congressman Boehner, and Congressman Miller. I know how hard you worked on this bill. You tackled complicated issues and found common ground. I appreciate your efforts. Overall, I think this is a good bill. It's not perfect. I know there are Marylanders who will be disappointed. I've heard from parents who are concerned that this bill rolls back the guarantee of a quality education for their children. And I've heard from teachers, principals, and school superintendents who want to know where the resources will come from, because this bill doesn't fully fund IDEA. But I'm going to vote for it because we can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. This bill takes important steps towards improving special education for students, families, and schools. It sets a clear path for fully funding IDEA. It protects the rights of students. It simplifies complicated rules and makes it easier for schools and parents to navigate--not litigate. And it allows schools to help students who need special attention, but not necessarily special education. I've talked to Marylanders about this, like the women of Delta Sigma Theta Sorority. They see their children being racially sidelined-- pushed into special education when what they really need is special attention. I'm so pleased that we are doing something in this bill to stop racial sidelining. My top priority in this reauthorization was full funding. I think it's a shame that the bill doesn't fully fund IDEA. But I'm pleased it takes the first step towards full funding by authorizing specific funding levels for each year, until we get to full funding in 2008. Why is this important? The Federal Government is supposed to pay 40 percent of the cost of educating children with disabilities, yet it has never paid more than 18 percent. That means local districts must make up the difference by skimping on special ed, cutting from other education programs, or raising taxes. I don't want to force States and local school districts to forage for funds, cut back on teacher training, or delay school repairs because the Federal Government has failed to live up to its commitment to special education. As a member of the Appropriations Committee I will fight to put this money in the Federal checkbook so special education is not a hollow promise. Parents today are under a lot of stress, sometimes working two jobs just to make ends meet. They're trying to find day care for their kids and elder care for their own parents. The Federal Government shouldn't add to their worries by not living up to its obligations. With the Federal Government not paying its share of special ed these parents have a real question in their minds: Will my child will have a good teacher? Will the classes have up-to-date textbooks? Will they be learning what they need to know? Parents of disabled children face such a tough burden already. Caring for a disabled child can be exhausting. School should not be one of the many things they worry about, particularly when the laws are already on the books to guarantee their child a public school education. Special education has made such a huge difference in the lives of students with disabilities. It gives disabled children a chance to succeed in school and in life. I want to do what's best for families and schools. Parents and students need to be able to count on a quality education. That's why I'm voting for this legislation. But know that I will continue to fight for full funding of IDEA, because I don't want special education to be a hollow promise.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I am pleased that today the Senate will pass the Keeping Seniors Safe from Falls Act of 2004 (S. 1217) that Senator Enzi and I introduced. Falls are a serious public health problem that affects millions of seniors each year. This bill focuses on public education, research, and demonstration projects to help reduce falls by older adults. The facts are staggering. One out of every three Americans over age 65 falls every year. In 2000, over 10,200 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, accounting for 64,000 traumatic brain injuries and 340,000 hip fractures each year. Falls can be financially disastrous for families, and falls place a serious financial strain on our health care system. By 2020, falls by older adults 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 older adults and their loved ones. Falls don't discriminate. Kay Graham was the victim of a fall. 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. Two years ago, I chaired a hearing of the Subcommittee on Aging on the problem of falls among older adults. The subcommittee heard testimony from Lillie Marie Struchen, a 91-year-old woman who had recently fallen in her bathroom when she slipped on the tile. Lillie Marie could not reach the panic button in her apartment, and it took her some time before she could get to her feet and call for help. Lillie Marie was lucky. She recovered from her fall and returned to her normal routines. She shared with the subcommittee some steps that she and her family have taken to prevent future falls, knowing that she may not be so lucky next time. These falls, like the ones that Lillie Marie and thousands of others suffer from each year, can be prevented. 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's what 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 older adults, their families, and health care providers about how to prevent falls. It expands research on falls by older adults to develop better ways to prevent falls and to improve the treatment and rehabilitation of elder victims. This legislation also requires an evaluation of the effect of falls on health care costs, the potential for reducing falls, and the potential for reducing health care costs associated with falls. Reducing the number of falls will help seniors live longer, healthier, more independent lives. I want to acknowledge the leadership of the National Safety Council on this issue. I also thank Senator Enzi for working with me in such a bipartisan manner to move this bill forward. The support of Senator Gregg and Senator Kennedy was also vital in getting this bill through the Senate. I hope that our colleagues in the House will take swift action to pass this important bill this year.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I wish to pay tribute to the Calvert Alliance Against Substance Abuse, Inc., CAASA, a grassroots organization that has been dedicated to fighting alcohol and drug abuse in Calvert County since 1989. Since its inception fifteen years ago, CAASA has been working hard to establish a healthy, drug-free environment for the entire community. This grassroots organization meets the people where they are. CAASA encourages citizens to take an active role in preventing substance abuse through public awareness, education, treatment and law enforcement. Its programs benefit students in the classroom, families at home and individuals in the workplace. CAASA has consistently supported the expansion of school-based substance abuse prevention activities and programs to help abusers and their families achieve a drug-free lifestyle. It has also assisted businesses in promoting an alcohol and drug-free workplace. I believe that the best ideas come from the people. CAASA does just that--it awards grants to members of the community who approach them with new ideas. By working together with the people, CAASA is helping to strengthen our communities and fight the drug war right here in Maryland. Many of the programs that CAASA has sponsored have benefitted the youth of Calvert County, such as Project Graduation. Project Graduation is a drug-free and alcohol-free all night celebration for the graduating seniors from Calvert County's public high schools. Since the inception of this program, there have not been any drug or alcohol related motor vehicle incidents involving members of Calvert County's graduating classes on graduation night. This group has proven to be a critical part of our Nation's war on drugs by working locally in communities in Maryland. For this we owe them our graduate. I ask my Senate colleagues to join me today in recognizing the Calvert Alliance Against Substance Abuse, Inc. for showing the community how to ``choose life . . . not drugs.''

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the American Jobs Creation Act. This bill is known as the ``JOBS'' Act because it will bring American jobs home, it will protect American jobs here, and it will create more American jobs. I have been fighting for a patriotic tax code that closes tax loopholes. This bill is not perfect. I have some yellow flashing lights about provisions that were stripped out in this conference report, particularly those affecting our workers right to overtime and our National Guard and Reservists. Our middle class is hurting. They are worried about keeping their jobs, paying for health care, and sending their children to college. America is hemorrhaging jobs--2.7 million manufacturing jobs have disappeared since 2001. My State of Maryland has lost 21,000 manufacturing jobs since 2001. Where are these jobs going? They are going overseas. They are going on a slow boat to China or on the fast track to Mexico. These jobs are headed to dial 1-800 anywhere. Why are they going? These jobs are leaving because American companies are at a competitive disadvantage. Our American companies pay their workers a livable wage, pay their fair share of taxes, and provide health care and retirement benefits to their employees. I think it is wrong to give companies incentives to send millions of jobs to other countries when millions of Americans are losing their jobs. It is wrong to put companies who stay in America at a competitive disadvantage. They are at a competitive disadvantage because they have their business here at home, because their workers are here at home, because they pay their fair share of taxes, and because they provide health care to their employees. We should be rewarding these companies with good guy bonuses for hiring and building their businesses here in America. That is what I am fighting for in the U.S. Senate. But, this bill is not perfect which is why I fought to improve this bill during the Senate debate. Senator Dorgan and I offered an amendment to end tax subsidies to U.S. companies that send plants and U.S. jobs overseas. Our amendment would have required U.S. companies that open foreign plants or move plants overseas then export those goods made abroad back to the U.S. to pay taxes on the profits from these operations. Our amendment said the U.S. Tax Code can no longer be used to boost corporate rewards at the expense of American workers. We should be rewarding our American companies who hire and build their businesses right here in the United States with good guy tax breaks. We should be giving good guy bonuses to American businesses that are providing health care to their workers and to their retirees. I have fought to help make health insurance more affordable for self- employed individuals by allowing self-employed individuals to be able to fully deduct their health care premiums. I fought to provide workers and retirees who have lost health insurance due to trade with a tax credit of 65 percent for health care premiums, and I am still fighting to provide small businesses with a 50 percent tax credit for the cost of health insurance premiums for their workers. I am standing up for America by standing up for a strong economy right here at home. This bill would help American jobs in three ways. This bill will help reinvigorate the U.S. manufacturing sector by creating incentives to retain more U.S. manufacturing jobs here in the U.S. by lowering the cost of production. Next, this bill helps U.S. companies compete abroad by putting U.S. companies on a more equal footing with foreign competitors. Lastly, this bill will help put an end to the tariffs imposed by EU on U.S. exports by repealing the income tax preferences that have been ruled illegal by the World Trade Organization. If we don't pass this legislation, these tariffs would cost American businesses up to $4 billion per year. And that's not okay. When I consider any tax proposal, I apply three criteria. Does it create jobs? Are the tax cuts targeted or temporary? Does the proposal increase structural deficit? The JOBS bill meets all my criteria. This bill would provide nearly $137 billion in new business tax cuts. There are four major sections of this bill: a new domestic manufacturing tax break; international tax simplification; small business provisions; and, shutting down tax shelters and closing tax shelters. The JOBS bill would reduce taxes for many of our U.S based manufacturers, by reducing their overall tax rate by 3 percent. This would lower the cost of doing business in the U.S. for U.S. manufacturers, and would help U.S. manufacturers compete against low- cost manufacturing in other countries. The domestic manufacturing tax break is based on the amount of U.S.-based manufacturing profits. So companies can only get the tax break if they manufacture here at home. This bill also includes a very broad definition of manufacturing so it would help a broad range of companies. This bill also helps American companies working abroad to be more competitive with about $42.6 billion in tax breaks to U.S.-based multinationals. This legislation simplifies international tax rules, eliminates many redundant and complicated tax provisions, and reduces the double taxation of foreign-earned profits for U.S.-based companies. If our American companies are strong at home and abroad, our American economy will be strong. And that's what I'm fighting for. I know how important small businesses are to the health of the economy and to the communities that they serve. This legislation includes about $7.1 billion in tax breaks for small businesses in two important ways. First, this bill will provide tax breaks for restaurant owners and certain real estate developers so that they can write off the cost of improving their facilities faster, saving thousands of dollars. This legislation also extends the small business tax breaks from 2003 bill which allows small businesses to write off up to $100,000 for the purchase of new equipment. If we do not pass this legislation, our small businesses will only be able to write off $25,000 for investments in new equipment. This legislation funds tax breaks for our good guys by shutting down the types of tax loopholes used by Enron, cracking down abusive shelters, closing tax loopholes for companies and individuals who hide assets in tax havens to avoid paying U.S. taxes, and ending certain leasing arrangements for public infrastructure projects. I don't believe that the American taxpayer should be subsidizing the Paris metro. I say let's keep those dollars here at home. Though I am supporting today's bill, I also believe there are problems with it. I introduced an amendment with my colleague from Louisiana--Senator Mary Landrieu. Though this amendment passed unanimously in the Senate, it is nowhere to be found in this conference report. Senator Landrieu and I introduced an amendment that provides benefits to our good guy employers who pay their employees the difference between their National Guard salary and their civilian job. This important provision would have provided a 50 percent tax credit to employers who continue to pay their activated Guard and Reserve employees their civilian wages. This provision would also have provided a $6,000 tax credit to help small business owners hire temporary workers and provided a $10,000 tax credit for small manufacturers to hire temporary workers when their National Guard employees have been deployed. I wish that these provisions were included in the bill that we passed today. Our National Guardsmen are often our first responders. They are our policemen and firemen in times of crisis. They are ``Our Active Duty Americans''--on duty in times of peace and war. When our National Guardsmen and women are sent to Iraq, Afghanistan, or called to protect our critical military installations here in the U.S., they shouldn't have to worry about paying their bills here at home. It's just wrong that this provision was not included in the final JOBS bill. I am happy that we were able to reach a compromise and pass a bill, H.R. 1779, which would provide a 50 percent tax credit to small businesses who continue to pay their activated Guard and Reserve employees their civilian wages, and provide a $6,000 tax credit to help small business owners hire temporary workers. But, the bill we passed today leaves out our First Responders. It also leaves out the extra help for our manufacturers. Now that we have done our job here in the Senate, we have to hope that the House takes action on this bill when we return. Well, we all know what that means. I am going to continue to fight for this provision when we come back. I am also going to fight to do the same thing for our federal government employees with the Durbin- Mikulski Pay Security Act. I have another problem with the legislation we are discussing today. I am so disappointed that the amendment to protect overtime pay was again stripped out in conference. Once again, the White House got its way even though Congress and the American public are opposed to the new overtime rules. Millions of Americans depend on overtime pay to pay their bills and to make ends meet. I thought that in this country the best social program was a job. Yet, up to 6 million workers have lost overtime protection under the new overtime rules. Workers should receive overtime pay for working overtime. It's just that simple. This isn't complicated--it's fair and right. The JOBS bill makes good things happen by helping U.S. companies. The JOBS bill also stops bad things from happening by going after tax cheats. But, the conference report is not near the bill that was passed by the Senate. I will vote for this legislation because I think it helps create a patriotic Tax Code, provides good guy bonuses to American manufacturing companies that keep jobs here, creates a level playing field for U.S. companies competing abroad, and cracks down on tax cheats and closing tax loopholes. I call on my colleagues to think about where America is going in the 21st century. Where are we going to be? Are we going to create more opportunity? Are we going to create more jobs that pay a living wage and have a decent benefit structure? I really want to have a patriotic Tax Code that brings our jobs back home, helps us compete overseas, and stands up for America. I urge my colleagues to pass this important bill.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I am pleased that today the Senate will pass the Mammography Quality Standards Reauthorization Act of 2004, H.R. 4555. It is fitting that Congress is reauthorizing the Mammography Quality Standards Act, MQSA, during Breast Cancer Awareness Month. This important bill is about saving lives. That is what the MQSA does. Accurate mammograms detect breast cancer early, so women can get treatment and be survivors. Mammography is not perfect, but it is the best screening tool we have now. I authored MQSA 12 years ago to improve the quality of mammograms so that they are safe and accurate. Before MQSA became law, there was an uneven and conflicting patchwork of standards for mammography in this country. There were no national quality standards for personnel or equipment. Image quality of mammograms and patient exposure to radiation levels varied widely. The quality of mammography equipment was poor. Physicians and technologists were poorly trained. Inspections were lacking. MQSA set Federal safety and quality assurance standards for mammography facilities for: personnel, including doctors who interpret mammograms; equipment; and operating procedures. By creating national standards, Congress helped make mammograms a more reliable tool for detecting breast cancer. In 1998, Congress improved MQSA by giving information on test results directly to the women being tested, so no woman falls through the cracks because she never learns about a suspicious finding on her mammogram. Now Congress is renewing MQSA through 2007 and laying the foundation to improve it even more in the future. Next year, the Institute of Medicine, IOM, and the General Accountability Office, GAO, will release studies examining a number of issues relating to MQSA and mammography. These issues include ways to improve physicians' interpretations of mammograms, ways to ensure that sufficient numbers of adequately trained personnel are recruited and retained at all levels, and access to mammography. I look forward to receiving these IOM and GAO recommendations and considering them in the next MQSA reauthorization. This legislation that the Senate passed today was passed by the House of Representatives earlier this week and now heads to the President for his signature. I acknowledge and thank Congressman Dingell for his longstanding leadership and work on MQSA, and appreciate the work of the House Energy and Commerce Committee on this issue. I thank Senators Gregg and Kennedy for working with me to make sure that the Senate made MQSA a priority in this Congress and that we reauthorized it this year. I also want to acknowledge Senator Ensign for his important work on MQSA. Senator Ensign joined me in introducing our MQSA reauthorization bill, S. 1879, that passed the Senate earlier this year. I thank the Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation, American Cancer Society, National Alliance of Breast Cancer Organizations, American College of Radiology Association, Y-ME National Breast Cancer Organization, and the National Breast Cancer Coalition for their input and advice during this reauthorization of MQSA. This year about 216,000 cases of breast cancer are expected to be diagnosed and over 40,000 women are expected to die of breast cancer in this country. MQSA saves lives. That is why it is so important that Congress is renewing and working to strengthen MQSA.

Ms. MIKULSKI. It was a little chaotic. I wanted to be quickly complimentary.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Literally, we are going to ensure the safety and security of our mammograms. I just finished the Race for the Cure in Baltimore. I did more of a ``walk for the cure'' this morning. But when you look at the survivors and you know what early detection from mammograms has meant, we really have done a good job. I thank the Senator.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from New Hampshire. He is right, we have just passed very important legislation, one of which is to reauthorize our mammogram quality standards. We have worked very hard on a bipartisan basis. I would like to thank him for his collegiality and cooperation. I see him smiling. Did I interrupt?

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Common Sense Automobile Affordability Act Of 2004''. My colleagues from Maryland introduced a similar bill in the House. I believe in energy conservation. I also believe in job conservation. We can improve the fuel efficiency of our cars without sticking a knife through the hearts of our Nation's auto workers. That is what I am going to keep standing up for in the U.S. Senate. When I consider any energy proposal, I apply four criteria. First, the proposal must achieve real savings in oil consumption. Secondly, the proposal also must preserve U.S. jobs. Next, the proposal must be realizable and achievable. And, lastly, it must create incentives to help companies achieve these goals. I agree with the goals of energy efficient vehicle tax breaks--fuel efficiency and energy conservation. I believe we need to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. The U.S. imports about twenty million barrels of oil a day, roughly 40 percent of that goes to fuel cars and light trucks. Half of our oil is imported and a quarter of our oil is imported from the Persian Gulf. Reducing our dependence on foreign oil would make us more flexible in the war against terror. That's why I support the provisions of the energy bill that provide incentives for energy efficiency and fuel conservation. But, we need to be more fuel efficient in a way that doesn't cost American jobs. Our current tax breaks for energy efficient vehicles provides more help for foreign car manufacturers than U.S. car manufacturers. Small cars receive more tax breaks, and small cars are often made by foreign auto companies. Our current tax breaks penalize U.S. automakers, because current tax incentives are not geared toward the SUV's or light trucks that American consumers want and American companies make. Our domestic automakers have been weakened by the current recession. And, we can't rely on foreign manufacturers to provide American jobs. The United Auto Workers (UAW) has seen its membership drop significantly from 1980 through 2000 from 1.4 million members in 1980 down to 670,000 today. That means that our auto workers are being left behind. I have seen it in Baltimore. Over 1,000 workers were recently laid off at the GM plant, and the plant went through another shutdown after slow sales. This is not just happening in Maryland. GM shut down fourteen of its twenty-nine North American assembly plans for at least a week last year. American workers are being laid off because, while automobile imports are rising, and our domestic auto share is falling, only 64 percent of cars bought in America are built in America. That's down from 73.9 percent in 1994. We need common sense tax breaks that provide Americans with good jobs, reduce our dependence on foreign oil and help clean up the environment. That's why I'm introducing legislation that would repeal the sunsets on existing clean vehicle tax breaks and replace the existing clean fuels tax breaks after 2006 with a comprehensive set of new tax credits of up to $4,000. These tax breaks could be used to buy energy efficient vehicles, including hybrid vehicles, fuel cell vehicles, diesel ``lean burn'' vehicles, and alternative fuel vehicles. There are also additional bonuses for increased fuel conservation and fuel efficiency. My bill includes incentives for all the major clean fuel technologies. There are larger credits for trucks and transit buses that are often American made. I also support the Hydrogen Fuel Cell Act introduced by my colleague from North Dakota. This bill would provide research money for a hydrogen fuel cell vehicle tax research and development programs. We can have both energy conservation and job conservation. That's what I'm fighting for. It will take innovative solutions, improved technology, and the setting of realistic, achievable goals. That's what my legislation encourages. With the right incentives to increase demand for cutting edge technologies, to increase U.S. manufacturing capacity of fuel efficient vehicles, and to provide good paying jobs for Americans. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting these goals and this bill. I ask unanimous consent that the text of my bill be inserted in the Record.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Common Sense Automobile Affordability Act Of 2004''. My colleagues from Maryland introduced a similar bill in the House. I believe in energy conservation. I also believe in job conservation. We can improve the fuel efficiency of our cars without sticking a knife through the hearts of our Nation's auto workers. That is what I am going to keep standing up for in the U.S. Senate. When I consider any energy proposal, I apply four criteria. First, the proposal must achieve real savings in oil consumption. Secondly, the proposal also must preserve U.S. jobs. Next, the proposal must be realizable and achievable. And, lastly, it must create incentives to help companies achieve these goals. I agree with the goals of energy efficient vehicle tax breaks--fuel efficiency and energy conservation. I believe we need to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. The U.S. imports about twenty million barrels of oil a day, roughly 40 percent of that goes to fuel cars and light trucks. Half of our oil is imported and a quarter of our oil is imported from the Persian Gulf. Reducing our dependence on foreign oil would make us more flexible in the war against terror. That's why I support the provisions of the energy bill that provide incentives for energy efficiency and fuel conservation. But, we need to be more fuel efficient in a way that doesn't cost American jobs. Our current tax breaks for energy efficient vehicles provides more help for foreign car manufacturers than U.S. car manufacturers. Small cars receive more tax breaks, and small cars are often made by foreign auto companies. Our current tax breaks penalize U.S. automakers, because current tax incentives are not geared toward the SUV's or light trucks that American consumers want and American companies make. Our domestic automakers have been weakened by the current recession. And, we can't rely on foreign manufacturers to provide American jobs. The United Auto Workers (UAW) has seen its membership drop significantly from 1980 through 2000 from 1.4 million members in 1980 down to 670,000 today. That means that our auto workers are being left behind. I have seen it in Baltimore. Over 1,000 workers were recently laid off at the GM plant, and the plant went through another shutdown after slow sales. This is not just happening in Maryland. GM shut down fourteen of its twenty-nine North American assembly plans for at least a week last year. American workers are being laid off because, while automobile imports are rising, and our domestic auto share is falling, only 64 percent of cars bought in America are built in America. That's down from 73.9 percent in 1994. We need common sense tax breaks that provide Americans with good jobs, reduce our dependence on foreign oil and help clean up the environment. That's why I'm introducing legislation that would repeal the sunsets on existing clean vehicle tax breaks and replace the existing clean fuels tax breaks after 2006 with a comprehensive set of new tax credits of up to $4,000. These tax breaks could be used to buy energy efficient vehicles, including hybrid vehicles, fuel cell vehicles, diesel ``lean burn'' vehicles, and alternative fuel vehicles. There are also additional bonuses for increased fuel conservation and fuel efficiency. My bill includes incentives for all the major clean fuel technologies. There are larger credits for trucks and transit buses that are often American made. I also support the Hydrogen Fuel Cell Act introduced by my colleague from North Dakota. This bill would provide research money for a hydrogen fuel cell vehicle tax research and development programs. We can have both energy conservation and job conservation. That's what I'm fighting for. It will take innovative solutions, improved technology, and the setting of realistic, achievable goals. That's what my legislation encourages. With the right incentives to increase demand for cutting edge technologies, to increase U.S. manufacturing capacity of fuel efficient vehicles, and to provide good paying jobs for Americans. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting these goals and this bill. I ask unanimous consent that the text of my bill be inserted in the Record.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I support the proposed reform to strengthen our oversight of the intelligence community. We just passed sweeping, historic legislation to reform America's entire intelligence community. It was a very good bill that will greatly strengthen our ability to develop good intelligence and fight terrorism. The National Intelligence Reform Act fulfills what I consider the priorities for intelligence reform, including many reforms I have been fighting for: A strong National Intelligence Director to lead and manage the intelligence community. A National Counter Terrorism Center so we have unity of effort to combat terrorism. Information sharing so analysts can connect the dots. An Inspector General for the entire intelligence community. Strong alternative analysis or red-teaming. An ombudsman so our intelligence professionals can speak truth to power. And protection for civil liberties and privacy. But reform of our intelligence community is only half the job. We must also reform our oversight of the intelligence community. As the 9/ 11 Commissioners said, reforming intelligence without reforming oversight is like one hand clapping. The 9/11 Commission report says that, ``Of all our recommendations, strengthening congressional oversight may be among the most difficult and important.'' Our leaders gave this ``most difficult and important'' task to two of our most esteemed colleagues: Senator Reid and Senator McConnell. I thank them for their leadership. And thank the entire bipartisan working group. I thank them for their creativity, cooperation and consideration to develop the substance of the proposal now before the Senate. I support all three key recommendations of the bipartisan working group: to create an appropriations subcommittee for Intelligence; to strengthen the Select Committee on Intelligence; and to create a Homeland Security Committee. Let me talk about each of these recommendations. The bipartisan working group proposal, and the rule we are now considering, will create an appropriations subcommittee for Intelligence. I believe this is one of the most important reforms we can make to strengthen Congressional oversight of the intelligence budget. That's why I wrote to Senator McConnell and Senator Reid urging them to do this. Some of my colleagues point out that the 9/11 Commission recommended creating a combined authorization and appropriations committee for intelligence. But that was just one option mentioned in the 9/11 Commission Report. The 9/11 Commission Report also included two provisions supporting an Intelligence Appropriations subcommittee: The 9/11 Commission, on page 410 of its report, criticized the intelligence appropriations process, noting that ``the final budget review is handled in the Defense Subcommittee of the Appropriations Committees. Those committees have no subcommittees just for intelligence, and only a few members and staff review the requests.'' The 9/11 Commission included the following recommendation on page 416 of its report: ``Congress should pass a separate appropriations act for intelligence. . . .'' Governor Tom Kean, Chairman of the 9/11 Commission, supports creating an Intelligence Appropriations subcommittee. In the September 7, 2004 Intelligence Committee hearing, I asked him directly what he thought of my idea of an Intelligence Appropriations subcommittee. Chairman Kean said, ``I think that would be very much in my mind within the spirit of our recommendations.'' Creating an Intelligence Appropriations subcommittee is the best way to strengthen oversight of the intelligence budget. Appropriations subcommittees conduct rigorous oversight of the agencies they fund. Senator Bond and I certainly do for the agencies funded by our VA/HUD bill. An Intelligence subcommittee will make the Appropriations Committee's oversight stronger: intelligence will have the attention of a full subcommittee, and that subcommittee will have sufficient staff for real oversight of intelligence funding. I hope my colleagues will join me in strong support of the proposal to create an Intelligence Appropriations subcommittee. The working group also recommends strengthening the existing Select Committee on Intelligence. I am proud to serve on the Intelligence Committee. I take that responsibility very seriously. Senator Daschle appointed me to the Committee in 2001, before the September 11th attacks. I have always used my role to push for reform and modernization so that we have the best possible intelligence for our decisionmakers and our troops. The bipartisan working group proposal maintains many of the good things about the way the Intelligence Committee is organized: Including members of the Armed Services, Appropriations, Foreign Relations and Judiciary Committees. Ensuring the majority has only a 1-vote advantage. Having subpoena authority. Having a core nonpartisan professional staff. The rule would also strengthen the committee: Elevating it to an ``A'' Committee. Creating at least one subcommittee to strengthen oversight. Giving the committee a stronger role in reviewing civilian intelligence nominees. Creating designated staff positions for each member of the committee. So I really think this resolution will help the Intelligence Committee to be more effective. The third reform proposed by the bipartisan working group is to create a Homeland Security Committee. We know that our colleagues on the Government Affairs Committee did a good job with the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, so it's only logical that the current Governmental Affairs Committee would take on responsibility for homeland security. I believe it's important to make sure that other functions within the jurisdiction of Governmental Affairs do not lose out in this reform. I am thinking in particular of the Committee's work on government management and the Federal workforce, to ensure that we support our federal employees who serve the American people in so many ways. Having an authorizing committee for homeland security should be a real help in the unfinished business of making the Department of Homeland Security an effective agency, to work with our States, counties, cities and towns, as well as other Federal agencies, to protect the American people. The three reforms proposed by the McConnell-Reid working group, and codified as changes to the Senate Rules in this resolution, meet the challenge of the 9/11 Commission and our obligation to the American people to strengthen congressional oversight. That's why I intend to support the Resolution, and urge my colleagues to support it as well.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues in introducing the Affordability in Medicare Premiums Act of 2004. This bill would protect seniors against the outrageous increases in their Medicare costs. It does this by preventing HMOs from taking money out of the pockets of seniors. Health care costs are skyrocketing, and seniors are paying a greater share out of their pockets each year. Medicare premiums are on the rise. Prescription drug costs are shooting through the roof. Seniors are facing higher co-pays and deductibles for doctor visits, and hospital and skilled nursing home visits. While seniors are paying more and more, the administration has just announced the largest increase in Medicare premiums in the history of Medicare. Just last year this administration supported a Medicare benefit that provides seniors only a hollow promise for a prescription drug benefit. This new benefit will force over 2 million seniors to lose their drug coverage, coerce seniors into HMOs, while doing nothing to stop the soaring cost of prescription drugs. Now this administration announces a 17.4 percent increase in Part B premiums. That's an extra $11.60 out of a seniors pocket each month. Seniors are falling further and further behind, while their Medicare premiums are getting larger, and their Social Security barely keeps up with inflation. Our seniors are struggling to buy the basics like food, clothing and other simple necessities. And that's not okay. I ran the numbers and here's what I found. Medicare Part B insurance premiums are rising faster and faster every year. In 2003, they rose 8.7 percent. This year, Medicare Part B premiums rose by 13.5 percent. Next year these premiums will rise by 17.4 percent, which is the biggest increase in Medicare history. In contrast, Social Security cost of living adjustments (COLA's) rose by a mere 1.4 percent in 2003; and 2.1 percent in 2004; and are projected to rise only about 3 percent for 2005. So, there's less and less of a senior's Social Security check to make ends meet. Medicare provides health insurance coverage to 41 million seniors and disabled. Roughly 570,000 Marylanders rely on Medicare. These benefits need to be stable and secure. That's what I'm fighting for. I believe honor thy mother and father is not just a good commandment to live by, it is good public policy to govern by. This bill would eliminate the 17.4 percent increase in premiums, which saves seniors $11.60/month. This bill would also lower premiums paid by seniors below today's rate of $66.00/per month by using the savings from stopping subsidies to HMO's. My bill is fully paid for by stopping the overpayments to HMOs. I do not believe that HMO's should not get higher reimbursements to serve seniors than traditional Medicare. My bill would also eliminate the $10 billion HMO slush fund for insurance companies to participate in the new Medicare drug plan. This would save a senior at least $115 next year to a senior on a fixed income. This is a small fortune. This bill is not an answer to skyrocketing health care costs, but it is a stopgap measure. It will give seniors a little breathing room. I am working hard on several bills to fix the Prescription Drug Benefit that was passed last year, including legislation that protects seniors Social Security COLA's; legislation that provides a real drug benefit for seniors; and, legislation that allow the government to negotiate with drug companies to lower the cost of prescription drugs. I am fighting to end the giveaways to insurance companies, and use those savings to improve Medicare. Congress created Medicare to provide a safety net for seniors. It is time to stop putting money in the pockets of HMOs and use that money to provide quality care for seniors. This bill is a good first step down that road, but a you can see, it is not the only step. Seniors cannot afford 17 percent increases in their Medicare premiums. I urge my colleagues to join me in expressing support for this bill.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues in introducing the Affordability in Medicare Premiums Act of 2004. This bill would protect seniors against the outrageous increases in their Medicare costs. It does this by preventing HMOs from taking money out of the pockets of seniors. Health care costs are skyrocketing, and seniors are paying a greater share out of their pockets each year. Medicare premiums are on the rise. Prescription drug costs are shooting through the roof. Seniors are facing higher co-pays and deductibles for doctor visits, and hospital and skilled nursing home visits. While seniors are paying more and more, the administration has just announced the largest increase in Medicare premiums in the history of Medicare. Just last year this administration supported a Medicare benefit that provides seniors only a hollow promise for a prescription drug benefit. This new benefit will force over 2 million seniors to lose their drug coverage, coerce seniors into HMOs, while doing nothing to stop the soaring cost of prescription drugs. Now this administration announces a 17.4 percent increase in Part B premiums. That's an extra $11.60 out of a seniors pocket each month. Seniors are falling further and further behind, while their Medicare premiums are getting larger, and their Social Security barely keeps up with inflation. Our seniors are struggling to buy the basics like food, clothing and other simple necessities. And that's not okay. I ran the numbers and here's what I found. Medicare Part B insurance premiums are rising faster and faster every year. In 2003, they rose 8.7 percent. This year, Medicare Part B premiums rose by 13.5 percent. Next year these premiums will rise by 17.4 percent, which is the biggest increase in Medicare history. In contrast, Social Security cost of living adjustments (COLA's) rose by a mere 1.4 percent in 2003; and 2.1 percent in 2004; and are projected to rise only about 3 percent for 2005. So, there's less and less of a senior's Social Security check to make ends meet. Medicare provides health insurance coverage to 41 million seniors and disabled. Roughly 570,000 Marylanders rely on Medicare. These benefits need to be stable and secure. That's what I'm fighting for. I believe honor thy mother and father is not just a good commandment to live by, it is good public policy to govern by. This bill would eliminate the 17.4 percent increase in premiums, which saves seniors $11.60/month. This bill would also lower premiums paid by seniors below today's rate of $66.00/per month by using the savings from stopping subsidies to HMO's. My bill is fully paid for by stopping the overpayments to HMOs. I do not believe that HMO's should not get higher reimbursements to serve seniors than traditional Medicare. My bill would also eliminate the $10 billion HMO slush fund for insurance companies to participate in the new Medicare drug plan. This would save a senior at least $115 next year to a senior on a fixed income. This is a small fortune. This bill is not an answer to skyrocketing health care costs, but it is a stopgap measure. It will give seniors a little breathing room. I am working hard on several bills to fix the Prescription Drug Benefit that was passed last year, including legislation that protects seniors Social Security COLA's; legislation that provides a real drug benefit for seniors; and, legislation that allow the government to negotiate with drug companies to lower the cost of prescription drugs. I am fighting to end the giveaways to insurance companies, and use those savings to improve Medicare. Congress created Medicare to provide a safety net for seniors. It is time to stop putting money in the pockets of HMOs and use that money to provide quality care for seniors. This bill is a good first step down that road, but a you can see, it is not the only step. Seniors cannot afford 17 percent increases in their Medicare premiums. I urge my colleagues to join me in expressing support for this bill.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I want to take this opportunity as the Senate resumes this afternoon's debate to rise in very strong support of the National Intelligence Reform Act of 2004. I am proud to join with Senator Collins and Senator Joe Lieberman as a cosponsor of this bill. It is an excellent bill, and I want to support my two colleagues, Senators Collins and Lieberman, for working so hard and to go at it in a way that is not only bipartisan but nonpartisan following the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. I am excited about this bill because I think it reforms our intelligence to be able to make sure that we prevent any more 9/11s affecting the United States; that we reform the intelligence so that we never go to war again on dubious information; that we make the highest and best use of the talent in our intelligence agencies, and that they have the framework to be able to protect the Nation, as well as be able to speak truth to power. Mr. President, I am no stranger to reform. I am on the Intelligence Committee. I came on the committee before 9/11 to be an advocate for reform, particularly in the area of signals intelligence. As I worked on the committee and served on the joint inquiry about what occurred on 9/11, I became deeply committed to other issues related to reform: to have a national intelligence director, to create an inspector general, to mandate alternative or red team analysis, to always make sure that we policymakers have the best information, and that our troops and our homeland security officials get the best intelligence they need to be able to protect the Nation. Following the 9/11 Commission report, but also with the wonderful work of Senators Collins and Lieberman, we now have intelligence legislation that will give us a single empowered leader for our intelligence community, a strong inspector general, and a definite alternative analysis to make sure that all views are heard. This reform is broad, deep, and also authentic. I think that is what the Nation wants of us. Mr. President, 3,000 people died on September 11. They died at the World Trade Center, they died at the Pentagon, and they died on a field in Pennsylvania. At least 60 Marylanders died. We remember that they came from all walks of life. We must remember those we lost that day. The way we honor their memory is to take actions to do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again. That is what the families have asked us to do. That is what the Nation has asked us to do. I am so pleased that we will act on this legislation before we recess. We need to do this, and we need to do this now. In joining the Intelligence Committee, and also after those terrible acts, like many others, I asked what could we have done to prevent the September 11 attacks on our country? Also, why did we think that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction? What kind of information does the President need before he sends troops into harm's way? What kinds of information do we need--we, the Members of Congress--to be able to provide the right response to a President's request? We reviewed a lot of this information, and now we know we have the kind of reform in this legislation that will help us. The 9/11 Commission built on the 9/11 joint inquiry of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees. We did that in a classified way. Then, the 9/11 Commission was organized, and I am happy to say I voted for it. The Commission could bring into the sunshine what many of us knew privately because it was classified. We knew about missed opportunities, insufficient or unreliable information, the failure to share information, the shortcomings of watch lists. The legislation that we have before us will move the priorities forward for intelligence reform. First of all, it gives the intelligence community one leader with authority, responsibility, and financial control. In Washington, if you cannot control people or you cannot control budgets, you cannot control the agency. Second, it provides for diversity of opinion in the analysis. It requires independent analysis. It also provides a framework for red teaming or a devil's advocate so that, again, the policymakers get the best information. It also strengthens information sharing. It provides the support to speak truth to power. And it also provides a unity of effort in the global war on terrorism. All of this is done with a delicate balance of protecting privacy and civil liberties. I salute my colleagues. While they were doing their homework this summer with the 9/11 report, I was doing mine--built on the experience that I had both as a member of the Intelligence Committee and the joint inquiry to investigate what went wrong on 9/11. I continued my homework over the summer. I read the riveting report of the 9/11 Commission. I attended hearings in the Intelligence Committee and Governmental Affairs. I consulted with officials of the FBI and others in homeland security in my State. I met with the Director of the National Security Agency. Having done that, I now conclude that this is the best legislation. We are at a turning point. This is a new century. It poses new threats to the Nation. Therefore, it requires a new framework to serve the Nation. That is what I believe this legislation will do. So I say to my colleagues that one of the best actions we can take now, in order to serve the Nation, is stand up for our troops, protect the homeland, and pass the Collins-Lieberman legislation, which I truly believe brings about the reform of the national intelligence community. I also salute the work of Senator Harry Reid and Senator Mitch McConnell, who were working on how we need to reform ourselves in Congress to be able to provide the best oversight of the intelligence community so we can have the best intelligence, yet the highest value for our dollar, and at the same time protect the Nation, finding the balance to protect our civil liberties. I believe the task force report saying the Senate needs to reform itself internally will come after this legislation. I think we have done a great job working on a bipartisan basis. I remember that fateful evening of 9/11 and that day when we gathered on the Capitol steps. America had lived through a lot. We didn't know what was yet to come. But joining with our House colleagues, we in the Senate, with our leadership, joined hands and sang ``God Bless America.'' We were not a Democratic Party. We were not a Republican Party. We were the red, white, and blue party, and that is what we need to be here today. We need to join hands, pass the reforms necessary to protect the Nation, and to truly ask God to bless the United States of America. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Ms. MIKULSKI

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

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the ``Community College Opportunity Act.'' Community colleges are the gateway to the future for first time students looking for an affordable college education, and for mid-career students looking to get ahead in the workplace. As college tuition at four-year colleges continues to rise, more and more students are turning to community colleges for the education they need to prepare for 21st century jobs. Yet soon we may not be able to count on our community colleges being available to everyone. The combination of budget cuts and increased enrollments is forcing community colleges to make tough choices between raising tuition and turning students away. This important legislation will help keep the doors of our community colleges open to increasing numbers of students without sending tuition through the roof. My bill authorizes $100 million for a competitive grant program to help community colleges serve more students. Community colleges could apply for a grant to help with the cost of constructing or renovating facilities, hiring faculty, purchasing new computers and scientific equipment, and investing in creative ways of addressing overcrowding-- like distance learning. Why is this important? Community colleges are one of the great American social inventions. I used to teach night school at Baltimore City Community College. I know firsthand the vital role they play in our communities. Their low cost, convenient location, and open door admissions policy have made them the key to the American dream for so many. Many generations of immigrants pursued the American dream by working all day and going to school at night. After World War II, the GI bill gave returning veterans a chance to get ahead by going to local junior colleges. Now, more than ever, it's important to invest in community colleges. In the next ten years, 40 percent of new jobs will require college education. At the same time, college tuition is on the rise. Tuition at the University of Maryland is up by as much as 21 percent. That's causing many students to take a second look at community colleges because they're more affordable. They're also leaders in training workers for 21st century jobs from nurses to computer techies, and even lab techs for new industries, like biotechnology. They're playing a key role in addressing shortages in nursing and teaching. In Maryland, community colleges train 55 percent of new nurses. Yet our community colleges are bursting at the seams. They're growing faster than 4-year colleges. Enrollment at Maryland's community colleges is expected to grow 30 percent in the next 10 years, while 4- year colleges will grow by 15 percent. Community colleges are holding classes from 7 in the morning to 10 at night, on weekends, and over the internet. In my own state of Maryland, they are starting to turn students away because there isn't enough room. As many as 2000 students were shut out of Montgomery College last year because they couldn't get into the classes they needed or they couldn't afford the cost. Last fall, Prince George's Community College had to turn away 630 prospective nursing students and 1,000 prospective education students. It's great that so many Americans are going to community colleges. For so many Americans, community colleges are the only way to get the education they need to be competitive for 21st century jobs. Yet the rapid increase of students is threatening the very mission of community colleges. If we want a world-class workforce, we need to invest in higher education. We need to make sure we have always institutions available to everyone who wants a college degree or just a couple of courses. That means investing in our community colleges, so they can continue to be affordable, accessible, and successful at training the next generation of nurses, teachers, and techies. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the ``Community College Opportunity Act.'' Community colleges are the gateway to the future for first time students looking for an affordable college education, and for mid-career students looking to get ahead in the workplace. As college tuition at four-year colleges continues to rise, more and more students are turning to community colleges for the education they need to prepare for 21st century jobs. Yet soon we may not be able to count on our community colleges being available to everyone. The combination of budget cuts and increased enrollments is forcing community colleges to make tough choices between raising tuition and turning students away. This important legislation will help keep the doors of our community colleges open to increasing numbers of students without sending tuition through the roof. My bill authorizes $100 million for a competitive grant program to help community colleges serve more students. Community colleges could apply for a grant to help with the cost of constructing or renovating facilities, hiring faculty, purchasing new computers and scientific equipment, and investing in creative ways of addressing overcrowding-- like distance learning. Why is this important? Community colleges are one of the great American social inventions. I used to teach night school at Baltimore City Community College. I know firsthand the vital role they play in our communities. Their low cost, convenient location, and open door admissions policy have made them the key to the American dream for so many. Many generations of immigrants pursued the American dream by working all day and going to school at night. After World War II, the GI bill gave returning veterans a chance to get ahead by going to local junior colleges. Now, more than ever, it's important to invest in community colleges. In the next ten years, 40 percent of new jobs will require college education. At the same time, college tuition is on the rise. Tuition at the University of Maryland is up by as much as 21 percent. That's causing many students to take a second look at community colleges because they're more affordable. They're also leaders in training workers for 21st century jobs from nurses to computer techies, and even lab techs for new industries, like biotechnology. They're playing a key role in addressing shortages in nursing and teaching. In Maryland, community colleges train 55 percent of new nurses. Yet our community colleges are bursting at the seams. They're growing faster than 4-year colleges. Enrollment at Maryland's community colleges is expected to grow 30 percent in the next 10 years, while 4- year colleges will grow by 15 percent. Community colleges are holding classes from 7 in the morning to 10 at night, on weekends, and over the internet. In my own state of Maryland, they are starting to turn students away because there isn't enough room. As many as 2000 students were shut out of Montgomery College last year because they couldn't get into the classes they needed or they couldn't afford the cost. Last fall, Prince George's Community College had to turn away 630 prospective nursing students and 1,000 prospective education students. It's great that so many Americans are going to community colleges. For so many Americans, community colleges are the only way to get the education they need to be competitive for 21st century jobs. Yet the rapid increase of students is threatening the very mission of community colleges. If we want a world-class workforce, we need to invest in higher education. We need to make sure we have always institutions available to everyone who wants a college degree or just a couple of courses. That means investing in our community colleges, so they can continue to be affordable, accessible, and successful at training the next generation of nurses, teachers, and techies. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, I rise today to salute the Polish Heritage Association of Maryland on the occasion of their thirtieth anniversary. In 1974, a hearty band of Polish-Americans in Maryland decided to make a difference by founding the Polish Heritage Association of Maryland. Founders, like Stan Ciesielski, came together to make outstanding contributions to America, future generations and Poland. The Polish Heritage Association shows that in America, it is possible to be both Polish and American; by promoting the rich legacy of our past and enriching our community for the future. The Polish Heritage Association does this through scholarships for young people: over $160,000 supporting more than 150 of Maryland's best and brightest students of Polish ancestry. The Polish Heritage Association has also been tireless in their humanitarian support for Poland. As the Polish people suffered under martial law, they created and organized Maryland Action for Poland, raising thousands of dollars and sending thousands of food packages to Poland. In 1995, the Polish Heritage Association raised over $300,000 to send medical supplies to Lodz, where Communist mismanagement had led to severe supply shortages. The Polish Heritage Association has forwarded Polish life with cultural and educational programs, such as lectures, concerts and exhibits. The Polish Heritage Association has shown that by organizing and cooperating with each other, we can make a real difference. I am proud to be the first Polish-American woman in Senate. Growing up in East Baltimore, I learned about our proud history. Poland's history is marked by strong, achieving women, from Queen Jadwiga, ushering in Poland's ``golden age,'' to Marie Sklodowski Curie, the first woman to win a Nobel Prize. I learned about Polish heroes like Copernicus, Chopin and General Pulaski and General Kosciuszko. I also learned that the history of Poland has been a sometimes melancholy one. Every king, Kaiser, czar or comrade who ever wanted to have a war in Europe always started by invading Poland. But while Poland was sometimes occupied, the heart and soul of the Polish nation was never occupied. In 1980, an obscure electrician, 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. I grew up with the values that our Polish community holds so dear. Values like patriotism, social justice, respect for others, hard work and loyalty. These are the values I carry with me on the floor of the Senate. I am proud of my record of standing up for Poland: from solidarity to the Senate floor. I fought to enlarge NATO and I am so proud that Poland is now a full, contributing member, playing an important role in every NATO action. Poland has stood with our American troops in Iraq, fighting alongside from day one. We know that Poland faces many challenges: its economy, growing international commitments and the pains from moving to a free market democracy. But I will continue to stand up for Poland, and so will the Polish Heritage Association. Just this week, I introduced legislation to extend the United States Visa Waiver Program to Poland. I joined with Lech Walesa to stand up for Polish citizens who want to travel to the U.S. for business or tourism so they can stay for up to 60 days without needing to stand in line to get a visa. I am fighting to remove barriers so the Pulaskis and Kosciuszkos and Marie Curies of today can visit our country, to keep the doors of friendship open. Immigrants built this country; we can't close the door behind us. I am proud to celebrate the thirtieth anniversary of the Polish Heritage Association of Maryland, and salute this organization on the floor of the United States Senate. So many things to celebrate: a thriving Polish Community in Baltimore and 30 years of contributions to family, country, and heritage.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I am here today to right a wrong in America's visa program. I am here to introduce a bill to extend the visa waiver program to Poland. The cold war is over. Poland is a free and democratic nation. Poland is a NATO ally and a member of the European Union. But America's visa policy still treats Poland as a second-class citizen. That is just wrong. Poland is a reliable ally, not just by treaty but in deeds. Two Polish ships participated in Desert Shield and Desert Storm during the 1990-91 gulf war. Poland sent troops to Bosnia as part of UNPROFOR and IFOR. Warsaw hosted an international conference on combating terrorism less than 2 months after the September 11 attacks. Poland sent troops as part of the international coalition in Afghanistan. And Polish troops fought alongside American and British and Australian troops from day one of the war in Iraq. They are still there, sharing the burden and the risk and the casualties. So why are Singapore and San Marino among the 27 countries in the visa waiver program, but Poland is not? This morning, we met with a hero of the cold war, Lech Walesa. When he jumped over the wall of the Gdansk shipyard, he took Poland and the whole world with him. He told us that the visa issue is a question of honor for Poland. We should once again stand in solidarity with the father of Solidarity, and extend the visa waiver program to Poland. President Kwasniewski raised this issue with President Bush in January. The President said this is a matter for Congress. It is about time for us to act. The bill Senator Santorum and I are introducing today will add Poland to the list of designated countries in the visa waiver program. That will allow Polish citizens to travel to the United States for business or tourism for up to 60 days without needing to stand in line to get a visa. That means it, will be easier for Poles to visit family and friends or do business in America. Should not we remove a barrier so the Pulaskis and Kosciuszkos and Marie Curies of today can visit our country? We know that our borders will be no less secure because of these Polish visitors to our country. But we know that the alliance will be more secure because of this Santorum-Mikulski legislation. I urge our colleagues to join us in support of this important bill, so that we can pass it and get it signed into law before we adjourn.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I am here today to right a wrong in America's visa program. I am here to introduce a bill to extend the visa waiver program to Poland. The cold war is over. Poland is a free and democratic nation. Poland is a NATO ally and a member of the European Union. But America's visa policy still treats Poland as a second-class citizen. That is just wrong. Poland is a reliable ally, not just by treaty but in deeds. Two Polish ships participated in Desert Shield and Desert Storm during the 1990-91 gulf war. Poland sent troops to Bosnia as part of UNPROFOR and IFOR. Warsaw hosted an international conference on combating terrorism less than 2 months after the September 11 attacks. Poland sent troops as part of the international coalition in Afghanistan. And Polish troops fought alongside American and British and Australian troops from day one of the war in Iraq. They are still there, sharing the burden and the risk and the casualties. So why are Singapore and San Marino among the 27 countries in the visa waiver program, but Poland is not? This morning, we met with a hero of the cold war, Lech Walesa. When he jumped over the wall of the Gdansk shipyard, he took Poland and the whole world with him. He told us that the visa issue is a question of honor for Poland. We should once again stand in solidarity with the father of Solidarity, and extend the visa waiver program to Poland. President Kwasniewski raised this issue with President Bush in January. The President said this is a matter for Congress. It is about time for us to act. The bill Senator Santorum and I are introducing today will add Poland to the list of designated countries in the visa waiver program. That will allow Polish citizens to travel to the United States for business or tourism for up to 60 days without needing to stand in line to get a visa. That means it, will be easier for Poles to visit family and friends or do business in America. Should not we remove a barrier so the Pulaskis and Kosciuszkos and Marie Curies of today can visit our country? We know that our borders will be no less secure because of these Polish visitors to our country. But we know that the alliance will be more secure because of this Santorum-Mikulski legislation. I urge our colleagues to join us in support of this important bill, so that we can pass it and get it signed into law before we adjourn.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Working Families Tax Relief Act of 2004. Working families deserve tax relief because the middle class is being squeezed from all directions. Our middle-class families are stressed and stretched. Families in my State of Maryland are worried. They are worried about their jobs. They are terrified of losing their healthcare, as health care costs keep ballooning. Many are holding down more than one job to make ends meet. They are racing from carpools to work and back again. And they want to know what we in the Senate are doing to help them. That is why I support a family friendly tax code. A tax code that helps families send their children to college. A tax code that helps families to care for their loved ones and helps small businesses provide health care for their employees. That is what I am going to keep standing up for in the U.S. Senate. The criteria I use for evaluating tax cuts is simple. Tax cuts should be targeted, temporary, and do not add to the deficit. This bill meets some of my criteria. It is targeted to the middle- class and that is why I will vote for it. It is temporary. This bill gives the middle-class immediate help, but only extends the middle- class tax cuts through 2010. I hope that when we come back to these tax cuts, we find a way to pay for them. This bill would provide much needed tax relief to working American families caught in the middle-class squeeze. There are three provisions to this bill that will most help alleviate the stress and strain on the middle class. This bill would extend the $1,000 per child tax credit for 5 years. If the child tax credit is not extended, families will only receive a credit of $700 per child in 2005, and the credit would not reach $1,000 again until 2010. Next, this bill would extend the marriage penalty relief passed in 2003 by making the standard deduction for married couples double the amount for individuals. That just makes sense. This bill also expands the 10 percent and 15 percent tax brackets, so that married couples can make more money and not be penalized with higher taxes. Unless the marriage penalty relief is extended, married couples could see their tax bill rise by as much as $1,165 in 2005. When so many Americans are feeling stretched and stressed, I think that is wrong. Lastly, this bill would extend the expanded 10 percent bracket which provides tax relief to millions of taxpayers. The 10 percent tax bracket was increased temporarily to give people a short term economic stimulus, but, if the middle class tax cuts are not extended, taxes for many will increase taxes by $50 per year for singles, and $100 for couples. But this bill also has major problems. This bill fails our military families by raising taxes in 2006 on active duty military, reservists, and National Guardsmen who have been deployed in combat. This bill provides tax cuts for middle class families for the next 5 years and I support that. But this bill only provides 2 years of tax relief for our lowest paid combat military personnel. Just as the War on Terror is ongoing, so must our support be for our troops. This bill only fixes this problem for two years. I support fixing this problem permanently. That is why I will work with my colleagues on a bill to fix this problem. This bill also fails one of my criteria for tax cuts. This bill would add nearly $150 billion to the deficit. We can have strong economic growth, low inflation, and low unemployment, but we must do so in a fiscally responsible way. I hope that next time we consider tax provisions to help our working families we get it right and find a way to pay for them. I will vote for this bill, but I do so with warning lights. I am concerned about the effect deficits will have on our ability to meet the promises of Social Security and Medicare. I am concerned about its impact on military families. The job of Congress is not only to provide tax relief for working families, but also to make sure that we pay for those tax cuts. Through fiscal responsibility, Congress can take care of working families today and in the future when they retire.