Barbara Mikulski

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this colloquy be extended for another 5 minutes.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, first, I compliment our two colleagues from New York on their advocacy for veterans and the attempt to work to form a bipartisan coalition and for being concerned about mental health services and long-term care, as well as the rural needs. I say to my two colleagues, we on the VA Committee have to be concerned that we are in the veterans health care business and not in the veterans health real estate business. So we want to advocate for services, not for buildings. I think the Senator is also aware that we just had to work very hard to forage to come up with the $1.3 billion to meet the compelling needs for our veterans. I ask the Senator from New York, with her very strong advocacy and the support of a bipartisan list of cosponsors, would she consider a different approach--that, perhaps, report language be in the bill acknowledging the validity of the concerns raised by her, Senator Enzi, and others, talking about the need for long-term care, and pay attention to this as well as the rural health care? I say to my dear and esteemed colleague, the CARES project or process is due December 3. To make these recommendations, some of which are quite excellent--inclusion, participation, et cetera--would derail CARES. It could affect our spinal injury programs or more outpatient clinics. I know it could have unintended consequences. Would the Senator consider an alternative other than having the vote on the amendment?

Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, I thank Senator Bond and Senator Stevens for working very closely with us to ensure that promises made to veterans are promises kept. This $1.3 billion is a dire need. I am ready to give my consent to this amendment, and the veterans of America will be happy because of it.

Ms. MIKULSKI. I move to reconsider the vote.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I am here to stand up for our troops. I am going to vote for the Defense Authorization Act because it will give our troops the tools they need to fight the battles today and in the future. Every day our soldiers are fighting a war on many fronts, including in Iraq and Afghanistan. In Iraq soldiers are risking their lives every day, while their loved ones at home are praying for their safe return. Our troops are making grave sacrifices, some losing their lives in service to our Nation. Their families, their husbands and wives, parents and children, are also making sacrifices. It is the responsibility of Congress to provide the weapons, vehicles, and tools that our soldiers need to be an effective fighting force. But I also stand up for those who are protecting the United States of America--our brave, our gallant Federal employees who are out there every day on the front line. I am here to defend the rights of hard- working civilian employees in the Department of Defense. When I stand up for America, I want to be able to stand up for what America believes in. And that includes basic rights for workers. I think it is terrible that the DOD is using it's budget, which is so vital for our troops, as a cover for undermining the basic rights of dedicated employees. This bill creates a completely new--and completely unfair--personnel system for civilian Defense Department employees. The new system undermines the collective bargaining rights of civilian personnel. It weakens the rights of DOD employees to appeal personnel decisions to an independent body. It rejects the current salary system, and seeks to replace it with one that will leave workers vulnerable to the whims of their supervisors. It even takes away the guarantee of overtime, weekend, holiday, and hazardous duty pay. We should not put a system in place that distracts Federal employees from doing their jobs and requires them to play office politics. This new civilian personnel system will seriously undermine morale, and opens the door to cronyism and political patronage. I am tired of the attempts by this administration to replace our effective civil service system with one that rejects the rights of workers. The thousands of civilian Federal employees at the Department of Defense are concerned about the security of our country, and work hard every day to ensure that our fighting forces are the best in the world. Many have served on the front line in the war on terrorism, and have lost their lives in the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. I am ashamed that the Defense Department wants to take away their basic rights as workers. I think it is terrible that I must choose between supporting our troops and supporting our civilian Federal employees. I am tired of the cynical manipulation of this process. I feel like I am being set up-- that if we stand up for the workers, we are somehow or another getting in the way of national security. I am going to support the 2004 Department of Defense Authorization because it is important to our Armed Forces. You can count on me to continue to fight for everyone who is making sacrifices for our Nation. Our troops and our civilian Federal employees deserve no less.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. I thank the Chair. Madam President, I thank Senator Bond and the distinguished Senator from California for her graciousness as we proceed on both the bill and an amendment of Senator Bond and her advocacy in behalf of the State of California. Her advocacy on the issue is well known, but I know she also has pragmatic solutions. I also appreciate that she did not object to bringing this bill forward. We thank her very much. The veterans need this bill. We need it to protect America's environment. We need it to empower communities, and we need to invest in science and technology that helps us come up with new ideas for the new products that are going to lead to new jobs right here in the United States of America. The Presiding Officer knows about the loss of jobs in our country and the way we are going to not only have the jobs today, but also the jobs of tomorrow, is by coming up with these new products. We know we win the Nobel Prizes, but now we have to start winning the markets. I am so pleased to bring the VA-HUD bill to the Senate floor with my dear colleague, Senator Bond. This is truly a bipartisan bill. I thank Senator Bond for his cooperation and collegiality in developing the framework for this legislation, as well as Senator Stevens and Senator Byrd who worked with us as we tried to deal with a very spartan and frugal allocation in these tough economic times. We really appreciate Senator Stevens trying to problem-solve with us on how we can meet the compelling needs that are in this legislation. One of the most compelling needs is VA. During the August recess, I traveled to VA clinics all over Maryland, from the rural parts of my State all the way up to metropolitan areas, meeting with doctors and nurses, but also with veterans. What did I see? Outpatient clinics at capacity, waits to see specialists, and, at times, driving long distances to travel in rural areas. Everywhere I went, they all said they were being swamped by new veterans seeking care. They are anticipating the return of the Iraqi war veterans, not only Jessica Lynch, but others who come back bearing the permanent wounds of war knowing that they are going to need the permanent help of the VA. We want to be on their side to stand up for that help. We also saw that many people who had health care but lost their jobs or were forced into early retirement turning to the VA. When we took a look at the VA budget, we found that the President's request was about $1.5 billion under what we needed to deal with the waiting lines, the new Iraqi vets coming back, and also the fact that we need to take care of those category 7 veterans, those World War II veterans. So we need more money in VA. We tried to take care of this on the Iraqi supplemental, but that was not the time nor the place, and we count on working with the leadership, under Senator Stevens, to solve this problem. We have come a long way in this VA-HUD budget in dealing with this issue. While we stand up for our veterans, we also want to stand up for our communities. This is why the HUD budget offers promise to the area of housing and community development. We continue our commitment to core housing programs. We particularly are enthusiastic about the Community Development Block Grant Program because it goes to local communities; it is flexible funding where the local community decides where the public investment needs to go to leverage jobs or to rebuild communities. This is why we like CDBG, whether it goes to North Carolina, to those small rural communities in Alaska, or to a big city such as Baltimore. Because of what we have done, we have helped retain over 100,000 jobs nationwide. It is also the same for a program called HOME, which has created in the past 10 years over 700,000 affordable housing units. We are going to continue in this bill the longstanding commitment to renew all section 8 vouchers and also to keep the HOPE VI program going. So we are looking out for building housing, building hope, and providing access to the American dream. We are also in this bill fighting to protect our environment. We are helping EPA by providing the right funds to clean up brownfields, improve air quality, and fix water and sewer systems. I am particularly proud of the way we have continued on a bipartisan basis to fully fund the Chesapeake Bay Program. Where we would like to do more is in the water and sewer program. Every Senator has come to us, along with every Governor, to say: Increase water and sewer money. The communities need it to protect public health and the environment, but we also need it, say the Governors and the local officials, because this will also create jobs. We are under so many EPA-unfunded mandates that essentially this will push problems onto the local ratepayer. We have funded water and sewer projects, but I am going to be offering an amendment to increase it even by $3 billion more. We also have to have very strong enforcement of environmental laws. So we must not skimp on enforcement, and I will be supporting an amendment by Senator Lautenberg on this issue. Then we go to national service. This bill also empowers communities through national service. Working with Senator Bond, we cleaned up a terrible accounting mess. The President has responded and given us new leadership, but right now we are working to increase the volunteer program. We continue to need additional funds and better management. At the same time, we are working on NASA to return our space program to flight, but we want to ensure, as always, the safety of our astronauts, and we are absolutely committed to implementing the Gay-Min commission report so that when we go back to space, our astronauts will be safe. Space science: This is where we look at big breakthroughs, whether it is Earth science, work at NASA Goddard, or the Hubbard telescope, but also Senator Bond and I worked to increase funding of aeronautics by $50 million. In 1980, the U.S. had 90 percent of the commercial aviation market. Now we are down to 50 percent. This is unacceptable. We have to make sure we make airplanes in this country, and we come up with the best ideas and the breakthrough technology, not only for smart weapons of war, but where this is translated into the commercial airline business where we can fly and ensure that passengers are safe, but also maintain this manufacturing base. So Senator Bond and I put in $50 million for increased aeronautical research. At the same time, we have put money into the National Science Foundation to make sure we have that farm team of the next generation of scientists and engineers, but also in breakthrough technologies, investment in biotech, infotech, and a marvelous new field called nanotech that could create thousands of new jobs. Imagine that wonderful wedding ring the Chair has on, that our former colleague Senator Dole gave. As she looks at that ring, just know that that is the size of a supercomputer when we move our nanotechnology further ahead, that the entire Library of Congress will be in something less than the size of my earring. Is this not phenomenal? There will come a day when someone will be able to take one little pill-like item a day, or even a month, and that nanotechnology will be an ongoing monitor for the diabetic, for the high blood pressure person, for the stroke-prone person and be able to send alerts to a doctor's office. This is what lies ahead. We will not only be saving lives or collecting information, but what we will be doing is winning the Nobel Prizes and winning the markets and these products will be manufactured in this country and will revolutionize the world. This is what VA-HUD is all about, standing up for our veterans, rebuilding communities, protecting the environment, answering a call to national service, making public investments in science and technology. So I am pleased to support this bill, along with my colleague, the chairman of the subcommittee, Senator Bond. This is a bipartisan bill. This is not a Democratic bill or a Republican bill. This is a red, white, and blue bill. We hope it moves expeditiously through the Senate with a few of the amendments we are proposing. I yield the floor. Amendment No. 2150

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, in the 2 minutes that are left I just want to thank my colleague for the spirited way he has tried to move this bill. We worked with energy. We had momentum. We had bipartisan support. With the 2 minutes left on this bill, I really must express my very keen disappointment that we were not allowed at least another hour or two to finish. I know the other side has the issues they want to raise on Federal judgeships, but this bill stands up for what America stands for--veterans, empowerment of communities, and housing. And for 2 hours, in a show of respect to them, we could finish this bill.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, what time is it?

Ms. MIKULSKI. I concur with my colleague.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Ms. MIKULSKI. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 2173 to Amendment No. 2150

Ms. MIKULSKI. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 2175 To Amendment No. 2150

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, this amendment is simple and straightforward. It does two things. It says the Corporation for National Community Service must change the rules. It protects the integrity of the grant process by preventing corporation officials from disclosing sensitive grant information and insists that any changes for rules for volunteer programs must have public comment. One of my guiding principles is that people have a right to know, to be heard and to be represented. The Mikulski-Bond amendment upholds this principle. It ensures that the public gets a meaningful chance to comment on decisions that affect their communities and the volunteers who serve them. Recently, National Service tried to change the rules for AmeriCorps. I was very troubled by the corporation's actions for two reasons: the process and the policy. My first concern was the process or actually the lack of a process. The corporation acted behind closed doors without input from Congress, volunteer advocates, or the communities they serve. States, communities, and advocates were told they had just 1 business day to review sweeping new rules, to ask questions about them, and to offer suggested changes. The corporation ``jackpotted'' advocates, volunteers, States, and local communities. My second concern is policy. The AmeriCorps rules changes would hurt communities who depend on volunteers by eliminating support for long- standing, successful volunteer programs and by increasing financial and administrative burdens on communities and volunteer organizations. I commend the board of directors for stepping in to stop the corporation. But it is clear that the corporation needs specific direction to ensure that the public has a right to be heard. The corporation doesn't have a Senate-confirmed CEO. We are working on a bipartisan basis to get David Eisner confirmed as the new CEO, but the staff must not make rule changes without leadership and public comment. This amendment is good process, and good policy. It makes sure that the public has an opportunity to comment on any changes to National Service programs. And the amendment protects the integrity of the National Service grant process. I thank Senator Bond for working with me on this amendment. I urge my colleagues to support it. I thank the Senator from Missouri for his strong efforts to reform the fiscal and sloppy practices that are at the corporation. The volunteers are terrific, and now with the new CEO, I think we will be able to move ahead.

Ms. MIKULSKI. I also thank the senior Senator from West Virginia, and I, too, will support his request for such a study during the conference negotiations. This is an important matter for the State of West Virginia and other coal-producing States. nasa

Mr. MIKULSKI

Mr. MIKULSKI. I would be happy to support the Senator.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. The Senator is correct. We were unable to provide additional funds for the NOAO due to our tight 302(b) allocation.

Ms. MIKULSKI. I share that understanding as well and thank my colleagues.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I have no objection except I am sorry we can't finish this bill.

Ms. MIKULSKI. No, I do not have an objection.

Ms. MIKULSKI. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I am an enthusiastic cosponsor of the Lautenberg amendment. He is absolutely right. This money is needed because it essentially restores funding for the environmental cops on the beat. We wanted to do this in our bill, but circumstances shackled us from doing so. This is a good amendment. We are happy to accept it. I thank the Senator for his longstanding advocacy in this area.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, there has been a review of the Senator's amendment.

Ms. MIKULSKI. I say to the distinguished Democratic whip, I think we can do this in 2 hours. I think there are amendments that require more conversation and modification, that might not require votes.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, pursuant to section 502(c)(6) of H. Con. Res. 95, the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2004, I move to waive the 502(c) of that concurrent resolution for purposes of the pending amendment. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, here I am in the Chamber again exactly 24 hours 30 minutes from when I was gaveled down from trying to complete the VA-HUD bill. I was on the floor 24 hours 30 minutes ago, standing up for veterans, trying to protect the environment, and working very closely and enthusiastically on a bipartisan basis with the chairman of the subcommittee on appropriations for veterans, housing, the environment, and other independent agencies. We were only 2 hours and about five or six amendments from being gaveled to come to cloture on the bill. As I was gaveled down, I was just heartsick that we could not take 2 more hours to finish the bill. Instead, this went on for 30 hours, and I am puzzled what has been accomplished by it. I know what wasn't accomplished by it. We did not finish the appropriations bill yesterday. Because we didn't finish the appropriations bill yesterday, we essentially said to millions of American veterans that we are going to put you on hold. We said to those thousands of faith-based organizations that build housing for the elderly--oh, no, we have to worry about a filibuster for judges; oh, no, we cannot move the bill. For those people who are trying to bring criminal prosecutions on polluters in the environment, we said we cannot really fund that, even though you don't have the right computers and enough staff. We have to talk about four judges. Millions of veterans, housing to be built for the elderly, the environment to be protected, getting our astronauts back to space safely, investing in science and technology at the National Science Foundation--that is the stuff of the VA-HUD subcommittee. That is why I am so passionate about it. It is one of the greatest subcommittees in Appropriations because it meets compelling human needs and yet gets America ready for the future. But oh, no, we could not finish it yesterday, we could not take 2 hours--oh, no, we had to talk about four judges and a process. I am very disappointed in that, and I have to express my gratitude for the way Senator Byrd pushed for completion of the bill. I also express my gratitude to Senator Ted Stevens, who obviously worked out something where tomorrow we can come back and attempt to finish the VA- HUD bill. But this could have been done in the spirit of comity. We had momentum yesterday. It is the way the Senate ought to work. We had a bipartisan bill. We were forging bipartisan compromises, because when it comes to standing up for veterans, we cannot be the Republicans and Democrats, we have to be the red, white, and blue party. Today, I was at Walter Reed talking to Marylanders who will forever bear the permanent wounds of war. We were in wards with young men who have put themselves on the line. They didn't lose their lives, but they have lost a limb. You see their families. You say hi to a young lady who is a wife or to a mother of one of those wonderful soldiers getting great treatment at Walter Reed. You have a 22-year-old wife and a 42- year-old mother trying to be there with her husband and her child, the man they love, so he can get well and get back on his feet. They are doing a fabulous job at Walter Reed. We are going to do all we can to support them. Those men and women look so young, so fragile. They are so brave and they cannot wait to get back on their feet. Some want to get back to their unit. They are going to come back to the VA. We cannot abandon these soldiers, sailors, and marines who are coming back from Iraq either bearing permanent wounds of war or the permanent impressions of war on them. We have to have a VA. This is why we need to move our legislation forward promptly, expeditiously, on a bipartisan basis. I know, working with the distinguished Senator from Missouri, the chairman, we can do this. But oh, no, we could not do it last night. We had to put it aside. I didn't tell the guys at Walter Reed that we didn't fund veterans health care last night. It would have broken my heart to tell them we are going back to the Senate to argue about a filibuster, to argue about four people of questionable qualifications to sit on the Federal bench. I didn't say that to them, but I say this to you. We have to get serious about the agenda for the United States of America. We need the right priorities. Do we need a good judiciary? You bet we do. That is why we passed 168 judges already. With these four, with the qualifications that are so thin and troubling and these other issues, I don't think so. I want to talk about the priorities. Fortunately, again, because of the vigor of Senator Byrd and the cooperation of Senator Stevens, we are going to be in the Chamber tomorrow. We do have priorities. I spoke about veterans health care. You also know we have really significant issues in housing. Our communities need help. We are ready to move funds such as the community development block grant. This is money that goes into local communities, whether it is a big city such as New York or the small communities of Alaska, providing help to build childcare centers, rehabilitation of dilapidated properties. CDBG, last year, created over 100,000 jobs. When we asked for 2 hours, we were standing up for that. When we look at housing for the elderly, most of it is built and operated by faith-based organizations, such as the Associated Jewish Charities, Associated Catholic Charities, the Lutherans. It is wonderful because they take small amounts of Federal dollars and leverage them with philanthropy. They not only run programs, they run them with great compassion. These are the things we should be spending hours on the floor advocating. That is why we also worked to have funds to protect the environment. I wanted to talk about the Chesapeake Bay. Last night, I didn't talk about how we needed to protect the bay because we were short of time. People wanted to stand up on how they want to protect something about these four judges in the filibuster. How about the National Science Foundation? That needed attention last night, too. This is the one that invests in groups such as biotechnology and infotech and nanotech. Nanotechnology is a whole new field of inventing subatomic particles. I said to the Senator from North Carolina yesterday when she was presiding, our earrings, Madam President, this will contain all the books in the Library of Congress 20 years from now. That is what nanotechnology means. Taking one pill-- you can take everything from your heart rate to your blood sugar, and also make new metal that is 10 times lighter than steel and 10 times stronger. I just lost thousands of steel jobs--thousands--and they are losing their pensions and their health care. Maybe with nanotechnology, we will have a new kind of metal mill and we can bring manufacturing back to our country. Instead, we are sending our jobs on a fast track to Mexico and a slow boat to China while we are slowing the Senate down in this 30-hour process and squandering time and not focusing on national priorities. I don't want to diminish what we are doing on judges. The judiciary is a separate and independent branch of Government. This is why we need to have the best of the best. Our courts are charged with safeguarding the very principles America stands for: justice, equality, individual liberty. That courthouse door must always be open, and when someone walks through that door they have to find an independent judiciary. I want to be sure when somebody walks through that courthouse door they not only get a fair trial and a fair hearing, but they know that person providing it is the best of the best. The Senate does have an important and coequal role in the confirmation of judges. There is an advise-and-consent clause. It doesn't say sit around and rubberstamp. There is nothing in the Constitution that talks about 180 deadlines. It says give advice and consent. We gave advice, but we do not give our consent on four individuals. When I look at judges, I have three categories: judicial competence, integrity, and commitment to the core constitutional principles. My senior colleague and I have just supported three Republican judges from Maryland. We did it with enthusiasm. One was Judge Titus, whom the Senate confirmed just a few days ago. He is a brilliant man, very esteemed, involved in the Maryland bar. He could go on the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. Another we backed in committee and on the floor was Judge William Quaries, an African-American jurist who I predict will go far. A scholar with a touch of the people. He has a unique touch. We also backed someone unique, a man who chaired the Republican Party in Maryland. He actually ran against a Democratic attorney general and Senator Sarbanes and I signed the blue slips with a flourish and appeared before the committee. Why would we do that? Because Judge Robert Bennet is a fantastic person and an excellent judge. He was fabulous as the U.S. Attorney. He brings legal ability, writings, et cetera. Look, we said, let bygones be bygones, he would make a great judge, and we are not going to stand on the party. This is the way Sarbanes and Mikulski have operated. But guess what. Now we get to the court of appeals. What a process this has been. First they sent us a gentleman who wasn't even a member of the Maryland bar. He lived in Maryland, but we don't think ZIP Codes are the only qualification. We think you have to be a member of the Maryland bar and participate in the Maryland legal community. So we rejected him. The next person they sent was on the staff of Judge Gonzalas. We felt that was a little--it was an excellent job for him, but a little thin for the court of appeals. Guess what. Now we have been sent a Virginian. You might say, Is there anything wrong with being from Virginia? No, as long as it is the Virginia seat. It is by tradition that there are geographic seats on the court of appeals and we want ours. My colleague Senator Sarbanes and I are going to fight that on the basis of geography. There are many other things about Mr. Allen that are troubling about his background, but right now our battle will be because this should be a Maryland seat. I have voted for Republican judges and I voted for Republican judges on the court of appeals in Maryland. There is Judge Niemeyer, an excellent judge. I supported him for the district court and now on the court of appeals. When Judge Dianna Motts went to the court of appeals I didn't even know what party she was. I didn't know. You know what, I didn't care. Here we are, arguing over a process. We are squandering our time, while pressing national needs are here. I would say, let's move on. Let's get back to the business America wants us to focus on. We can't have food fights and so on in the Senate. I have worked with so many of my colleagues on a bipartisan basis that I would like to get the momentum back for that type of action. Tomorrow when I get another chance at VA-HUD, I look forward once again to returning to work in the Senate that tries to move bipartisan legislation. When it comes particularly to national security and the people who defend America, we put party aside and we are the red, white, and blue party. Maybe we need to start acting like that in the Senate on every issue. I yield the floor.