Barbara Mikulski

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. I note the Senator from Florida is reviewing his materials with his staff. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Ms. MIKULSKI. I thank the Senator from North Carolina for bringing this project to the committee's attention. The subcommittee will give it every appropriate consideration as we move forward. state and tribal assistance grants

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I now ask for the yeas and nays.

Ms. MIKULSKI. I thank the Senator from New Jersey for his thoughts on this matter. mooresville, nc library project

Ms. MIKULSKI. The legislation is clear on its face that it is a permanent law and a permanent prohibition on funding these State- developed low-income housing units as public housing. In addition, to fund State-developed units as public housing, there must be an affirmative change in law, a change I cannot support. Frankly, it is not fair to other States to have their funding cut to pay for State-developed and supported housing in New York and Massachusetts.

Ms. MIKULSKI. First, an inquiry about the time. Did the Senator from Arizona consume the time to be allocated to the Senator from Illinois, Mr. Fitzgerald?

Ms. MIKULSKI. That is correct. That is my understanding.

Ms. MIKULSKI. As I understand, the distinguished ranking member has 10 minutes. I am sure he will be happy to yield. We will not preclude Senator Fitzgerald from offering a comment. We have debated the contents on this bill for a good part of the morning. I think it has been a very constructive debate and a civil debate, which we hope the Senate would be. I will talk about process for a minute. The Kyl amendment is legislating on appropriations. Ordinarily, I would offer a point of order exactly on that, to knock it down on the point of order under the rules of the Senate. Because of something the House did--and remember, we work off the House bill, as I understand it, and I believe the Senator's analysis is accurate. We are not able to do that, so this will be a straight up or down--it will not be straight up or down. Either Senator Bond and I have declared our intent to offer a motion to table, which I am not yet offering, but we really are legislating on appropriations. This is so complicated. Even with the good will from the standpoint of the Senator from Arizona, myself, and Senator Bond, the ranking member, where we tried to explain this formula over that formula or that survey, it shows how complex this is. In fairness, to make sure we have a formula that works for constituents, works for the communities, works for the taxpayer, we cannot deal with this formula on the Senate floor. This truly must be done through the authorizing process. I acknowledge the problems the Senator from Arizona has had when he says it has been 14 years and it is time to take a new look and a fresh look. Acknowledging the need for a new and fresh look, I also encourage the Senator in the most collegial tone possible, to also be in discussions with the very able administrator of EPA. I have found Administrator Whitman to be able, accessible, interested in hearing about specific issues and specific problems. We did bring the Senator's amendment to the EPA staff. They furnished a very competent analysis. In fact, it was through them that we identified the error in the drafting. I do not really recommend that this amendment be agreed to. We really do not know the consequences of the amendment. There is no way to evaluate the consequences of the amendment. It could have very dire effects. There is no latitude to offer a point of order. We will be offering a motion to table the amendment, but we do not want to table the problem. The problem is a real problem. This is why, again, with the encouragement of the authorizers, I really share with my colleagues, working with Administrator Whitman has been a very positive experience from this Senator's viewpoint. I suggest perhaps the Senator and colleagues who are so passionate about this issue, as they have expressed themselves on the floor, meet with her and get EPA to start working on the analysis of exactly the consequences, which we would need should we come to an authorizing hearing. Then, if the authorizing hearings do not quite get to it, we would have the benefit of their analysis and their thinking. Let's not table the problem. One of us will move to table this amendment. But, again, I do not want to table the problem. I know the time is growing short. We are awaiting Senator Fitzgerald. We know Senator Bond is temporarily off the floor at a meeting with some of his Republican colleagues. I believe the moderates are meeting. He is available. I will reserve my time for the end. I ask the Presiding Officer, how much time do I have?

Ms. MIKULSKI. I inquire of the Senator from Illinois how much time he will need.

Ms. MIKULSKI. I would be happy to accommodate my colleague from New Jersey.

Ms. MIKULSKI. I ask unanimous consent 5 minutes from the time of the minority be allocated to the Senator from Illinois.

Ms. MIKULSKI. The subcommittee recognizes that increased funding for VA healthcare is very important to keeping our promises to our nation's veterans. Within our allocation, which was very tight, we were able to provide $21.4 billion for VA medical care. This is $1.1 billion above the fiscal year 2001 level, $400 million above the President's request, and $100 million above the House. The VA also retains copayments from veterans and third-party health insurance. CBO estimates that these will provide an additional $900 million for VA medical care in fiscal year 2002. VA will also carry over $882 million in unobligated medical care funding from fiscal year 2001 to fiscal year 2002. This level of funding will allow VA to open at least 33 more community based outpatient clinics, and improve waiting times for veterans to receive care. We also provide $390 million for VA medical and prosthetic research. This is $40 million above the fiscal year 2001 level, and $30 million above the President's request. This funding is critical to making more progress in: One, recruiting and retaining high quality medical professionals; two, the treatment of chronic diseases; three, diagnosis and treatment of degenerative brain diseases like Alzheimers and Parkinsons; and four, research involving special populations, especially those who suffer from spinal cord injury, stroke, nervous system diseases, and post traumatic stress disorder. So within our tight allocation, the subcommittee was able to keep our promises to our nation's veterans. But we recognize that there is always more we can do. So I assure Senator Rockefeller that within our available resources we will continue to do all we can to meet the needs of our Nation's veterans, and keep the promises we made to them. Establishment of an Outpatient Clinic in Passaic County, NJ

Ms. MIKULSKI. I agree with my colleague from Missouri. The key to developing and maintaining a national registry will be the collaboration between the various federal agencies. I also support collaboration between the CDC and the Veterans Administration to further conduct outreach education initiatives to ensure that all of the 3,000 eligible families receive benefits as designated under the Agent Orange Benefits Act. I thank the Senators from Kansas and Missouri for their support of this bipartisan effort to begin to establish the groundwork for improving the quality of life for individuals affected by Spina Bifida. NSF EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM TO STIMULATE COMPETITIVE RESEARCH (EPSCoR)

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, let's be clear. This amendment totally changes the water formula--totally. New York loses $14 million, Maryland loses $2 million. There are winners and there are losers. Under what I am suggesting, we table this and end this debate but we encourage the authorizers to really face the problem of water infrastructure needs and to ask the Administrator of the EPA to evaluate these formulas, taking into consideration the needs of our communities, the new census data, and that we act in a prudent and measured way. This is not the place to do this legislation. It is absolutely not the place to do this legislation. I yield the floor and ask how much time I have remaining.

Ms. MIKULSKI. I reserve that time.

Ms. MIKULSKI. I yield the time.

Ms. MIKULSKI. No. I wish to make some comments.

Ms. MIKULSKI. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 1231

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, this is a very contentious amendment. The Senator from Idaho is entitled to be heard.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Does the Senator wish to speak in behalf of the McCain amendment?

Ms. MIKULSKI. Does that clarify it?

Ms. MIKULSKI. Let me advise the Senator what my staff told me. I might also need a moment for additional clarification. As I understand the legislation, there is currently an option. What the Schumer amendment does is do a setaside, am I correct?

Ms. MIKULSKI. It was my understanding we would follow the tradition of alternating.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, thank you very much. I thank the junior Senator from Arizona. Madam President, first of all, know that in talking about veterans and about the claims processing, not only wouldn't I argue with John McCain, but I wouldn't argue with all the history that we have had on this almost intractable problem. Cutting the time that a veteran must wait for a decision on claims processing has been one of my highest priorities since I originally chaired the committee in 1990. It seems as if we never get a handle on this issue. The items of concern that were listed by the Senator from Arizona are accurate. Those are exactly the same problems my distinguished colleague and ranking member, Senator Bond, and I had in an extensive discussion with Administrator Principi during our VA hearing. They are absolutely right. It takes too long for claims. It is absolutely wrong that our veterans who were willing to risk their lives and put their lives in the line of fire to defend the United States of America have to wait in line to find out about adjudication, particularly for a disability benefit. There is absolute agreement that it is wrong for veterans to have to wait 205 days or 7 months to get a decision on the claim. Having agreed on the problem, what my colleagues in the Senate need to know is, on a bipartisan basis, working with the executive branch we have attempted to solve this problem. First of all, for the VA-HUD bill, we put $1.1 billion in for the administration of benefits. That is $1 billion-plus for the administration of the benefits. We have also increased it by $132 million. Where did we get that number? We got that number from George Bush. We got that number from President Bush. This isn't Barbara Mikulski's number. This isn't Kit Bond's number. This isn't something that we pulled off a Ouija board. This came from President Bush. My colleague from Arizona says: I don't want to argue with you about what the veterans have to say. I don't want to dispute our veterans. But I have to believe that President Bush and Tony Principi, the Administrator of Veterans Affairs, knew what it would take to begin to really solve this problem this year, which has been a disaster for more than a decade. The money recommendation came from President George Bush. That is from where the $132 million come. Let's talk about our very able new Administrator of Veterans Affairs. I think the world of our new Administrator. I want to say this as a Democrat. I think President Bush has given us an outstanding Veterans Affairs Administrator. I am so excited about the possibility of working with Administrator Principi, a Vietnam vet himself, a former Under Secretary of VA during the Bush-Quayle administration, and with a substantial stint in the private sector picking up even more management skills. Secretary Principi brings to us the heart and soul of a veteran--and committed to it because he was a foxhole guy himself; all the way up now to the considerable experience he has had not only with VA but also with the private sector. I am telling you that Tony Principi and the President say we need $132 million. I am willing not only to take it to the bank, but I am willing to take it to the Federal checkbook. That is where we got the money. I believe that it will really make a substantial dent. We haven't been laggards, nor have we been deleterious, nor have we invented numbers out of the thin air. Let me tell you what we are going to buy with this new money. We are going to buy close to 900 new employees to handle the backlog, and also to handle the new cases triggered by legislation enacted last year. Forty-six million dollars of that will be to hire these processors to implement what they call ``duty to assist''--to actually help the veterans prepare their claims. One of the problems in doing claims is that our veterans often don't prepare them properly. It is through no fault of the veterans. Many of them have visual problems. They are old. They are not well. If you have a disability, you stand to be pretty sick. And also you are pretty sick of the bureaucracy and you are pretty sick of the paperwork. But some of these new people will actually help the veterans do it right so we can get it done in the right time. There is a new law to require the VA to review 98,000 cases--we have to go over the backlog--and another 244,000 that were pending when the legislation was enacted. By the way, the VA will be able to also carry out a new policy of adding type 2 diabetes to the list of presumptive disability conditions. Over 100,000 new claims are expected to be in this category, particularly from our Vietnam vets. Additionally, the fiscal year 2001 supplemental spending also gave the Veterans Affairs $19 million in this category. We have $132 million, and in the supplemental that we just passed there is another $19 million. I think that takes us to $151 million. That is not potato chips, but it will buy us a lot of microchips to try to move this backlog. I think we are keeping our promises to our veterans. We have not been laggards. We don't want to dump money on the problem, but we want to engage in solving the problem. That is why we ask the administration to give us the right amounts needed, and we will see that we step up and do that. That is where we come in on the money. That is why I am going to oppose the Senator's amendment. We are honoring President Bush's request, and we think if President Bush thinks it is adequate, the Senate ought to think it is adequate. The other issue I am going to take up is this question of earmarks. People use the term ``earmarks'' as if it is a Darth Vader stain on the bill. Let me tell you, we can look at these projects; we can analyze them; we can joke about them, and so on. But when you talk to colleagues the way I have, we often end up meeting very compelling community needs. I know the Presiding Officer has spoken to me about the desperate need in her community to help the Meals on Wheels community. As I understand, the ability to really meet that overwhelming caseload is tremendous. We are going to try to work with her. I do not know if you are on this hit list or not. But I do know that when we follow the earmark, it is not something that a Senator makes up out of thin air. My distinguished colleague and I wanted to weed out the pork. We established criteria that is within the framework of the community development block grant. We don't even consider a project unless a list is filled out for a project. You filled one out. In fact, you filled out more than one because of the needs of the State of Michigan. What is it that we ask? Question No. 1, can you demonstrate that it will create jobs or a compelling human need? Does it create jobs or meet a compelling human need? Does it benefit a low- or moderate-income neighborhood? Does it eliminate physical or economic stress? Is there matching funds from a non-Federal source to show that there is grassroots support behind this? And is it essentially limited to a 1- year endeavor? That is what we ask our colleagues. Does it create jobs? Does it help poor or moderate neighborhoods? Does it eliminate that distress? Can you show there is money from other sources? And also, this is not meant to be a year to year to year to year entitlement. I want to talk about one in my own neighborhood. It is money for something called the Fells Point Creative Alliance to develop the Patterson Center for the Arts. I think when you read it, I can understand where someone might think this is for some yuppie, artsy, Gucci, woo woo kind of thing. I am not into ``woo woo,'' but I am into empowerment. Let me tell you about the neighborhood. This neighborhood is called Highlandtown. In the city of Baltimore, neighborhoods have names because Baltimore, the very nature of it, is a city of neighborhoods. And, God, I love it. And I am so proud of it. I love those neighborhoods. The neighborhoods are really what make Baltimore. It is not the Inner Harbor and not Camden Yards and not PSI Net Stadium. The Inner Harbor is great in terms of an entertainment area, but it is the neighborhoods that are the heart and soul of Baltimore. This Highlandtown neighborhood was made up of people who represented the Polish, the Italian, the German, and the Greek community. They built this country. They sat on their white steps. They went to war. And while the men were at war on the battled front, the women were at home being ``Rosy the Riveters'' on the home front. We are both men and women, the veterans of World War II. That neighborhood is aging in place, as are the people in it. I have a substantial number of aging World War II, GI, red-blooded Americans in that neighborhood, and their wives, who worked in factories called Bethlehem Steel, Martin Marietta, building the radar at Western Electric, who live in that neighborhood. They are old. And we are fighting off the predators, the predatory lending crowd, the flipping crowd. We are fighting off the drug dealers. What was once a proud neighborhood is now teeter-tottering on disaster. Now we have a new mayor and a new spirit. And guess what we are doing. We are transforming that teeter-tottering neighborhood into revitalization and creating a new village, with this theater being one anchor and the regional library being another. We are creating a new village, not only to keep out the bad but to build up the good. With these young artists, we are creating a new sense of a new kind of village. So this isn't some gooshy little Playdough project. This is not a gooshy little Playdough project. Now, if the mayor of the city of Baltimore is ready to work to anchor it, we have the right people ready to anchor it. The police commissioner is working to keep out the drug dealers. Our housing commissioner is keeping out the predatory lenders. I do not think we should eliminate this to keep out the empowerment money. I will tell you, our people fought for their country. I think they now are trying to fight for their neighborhood. That is what this project is all about. So I wanted to talk about mine. But behind every one of these congressionally designated projects is a story such as this. So if you really want to help the veterans of Highlandtown, you let me bring this help to them. So, Madam President, I feel very strongly about this. I feel so strongly about those veterans who are waiting in line. I do not want them in line any more than my colleague does. He and I would be partners in this, including my wonderful colleague from Missouri. We are ready to go hand in hand. But do not punish neighborhoods to be able to help the neighborhoods. Remember, our veterans fought for the neighborhoods. Now we have to fight for the neighborhoods and fight for our veterans, and not pit them against each other. Madam President, I yield my time.