Barbara Mikulski

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I thank the ranking member of the veterans authorizing committee for his support for this amendment. Most of all, I thank him for his advocacy. He has continued to speak up on what are the contemporary needs of the Veterans' Administration, particularly in health care. The Senator has been very clear in the need to recruit and retain new personnel, to move to new methods of service delivery, how we can be both high tech and high touch. I thank the Senator for his support for this amendment and also thank the Senator for his advocacy. I look forward to working with the Senator not only in moving the bill but moving our agenda to help veterans and doing it together.

Ms. MIKULSKI. I thank the chairman. I note that Senator Bingaman also wants to be added as a cosponsor of the pending veterans amendment. I am pleased to join with several of my colleagues to cosponsor this amendment to increase funding for VA medical care by $600 million. I appreciate especially Senator Byrd's continued, steadfast support for our veterans. We could not be offering this amendment without Senator Byrd and Senator Stevens. Earlier, I talked about how pleased I was with the bill--promises made, promises kept. But we wanted to do more. We had the will, but we didn't have the wallet. This is exactly an example of what I was talking about. We had the will to be able to provide a safety net for veterans' medical health care. We know that the cost of health care continues to be rising. We know that the discussion on how to reform Medicare is a work in progress within this institution and our colleagues in the House. It will have a tremendous impact on our veterans. We also know that the need for prescription medication among our veterans is escalating. Those wonderful breakthroughs we have are expensive. We want to make sure that if you have arthritis or if you are facing prostate cancer, you have the medical resources that are needed. So, yes, the amount we currently have in the bill meets minimum, spartan levels. This $600 million will help us tremendously. It will benefit our veterans to assure that there will be no need to close VA clinics around the country. They will be sure that no inpatient facilities will close and ensure that veterans continue to get access to the quality health care they deserve. First of all, I know that all over America the Veterans' Administration is analyzing what they should keep open, what they should close, and what should go to part time. The fact is, we can't have uncertainty. Why? We want continuity of care for the vets and the ability to retain good and excellent staff. If you don't know today that your VA medical center might be gone tomorrow, those nurses, technicians, lab people, facility managers, who now have great opportunities in the private sector, are being attracted and recruited to leave. We have to show certainty in terms of being able to provide care and give assurance to the personnel that we value them and we want to be able to fund them at the appropriate level. So I really thank Senator Byrd and Senator Stevens for identifying a way we could assure that inpatient and outpatient needs are met. I support this amendment. I am going to support it here and in conference. Once again, I thank the Chair. I yield the floor. Mr. ROCKEFELLER addressed the Chair.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, once again we come to the floor of the Senate to discuss the appropriations for the VA-HUD appropriations bill. This is a very exciting time because this appropriation is really the bridge between the old century and the new century. I think our bill does reflect, in its funding levels, that we intend for it to be a bridge between the old century and the new century. First of all, a word about the old century. We know that our American veterans, because of their bravery, their gallantry, and their self- sacrifice, saved America and saved Western civilization. That is why this subcommittee fought so hard to save their health care--a bridge from the old century, but a bridge to the new century. We also, during this century, realized that in addition to the ravages of war, there were terrible ravages to our environment. Once again, in our legislation, we make a significant commitment to the protection of not only the environment of the American people but also of the whole world--again, a bridge from the old century to the new century. It was in this century that America moved forward economically, first in its industrial age, and now toward the information age. But in the course of this century, we not only made a commitment to the progress of a few, we made a commitment to the progress of many. Through programs such as housing and urban development, we have continued to work to create a real opportunity structure for our American citizens. What is the hallmark of the American opportunity structure? One is home ownership. Through the VA mortgage program, the FHA program, and other key programs, we create a wider opportunity for people to be able to own a home in the United States of America. The other hallmark of the bridge from the old century to the new century is our passion for education. It was we, in the United States of America, whose continual social inventions created opportunities for people to pursue higher education. When my great grandmother came from Poland, she certainly could read, but she wanted us to be able to do more than to be able to read the newspaper or read our scriptures. She wanted us to have a real education. It was out of the American people inventing night school, a community college, a GI bill of rights, that we were able to make sure ordinary people had access to higher education. This is why we continue to be so enthusiastic about AmeriCorps. Right this very minute, there are young people working in communities all over the United States of America, in public education, public safety, and other areas, to ensure that we help our communities. But they are earning a voucher that they can use to pay for their higher education. Once again, a bridge from the desires of the old century to the new century. What, too, is the hallmark of the genius of the American people? It is our resourcefulness, our ingenuity, and our innovation. America is the nation of science and technology. It was in our great Federal laboratories that some of the greatest advances were made in the old century. We want to be sure we position them for the new century. Therefore, this appropriation continues to stay the course in science and technology, particularly in the environment, in NASA--our national space agency--and also in the National Science Foundation. That is really what this bill is all about. When we rise on the floor and talk to our colleagues about numbers and data, we sometimes sound like an annual report. But when we talk about what we want the Senators to vote on, we have to remember what our mission is. I believe the mission of the VA-HUD bill is to honor the old century, make sure we deal with the ravages and problems of the old century, and continue to position our country and our people for the new century. This takes me, then, to some of the specifics of the bill. I really thank Senator Kit Bond, the chairman of the subcommittee, and his staff, for all of the collegial consultation we had during the preparation of this bill. I say to my colleague from Missouri and to all Senators listening, that we know this is not a perfect bill, but it is a very good bill. We had the will but we did not have the wallet to be able to do what we wanted to do for the various agencies and programs. Hopefully, as we move through conference and as the issues around spending caps are resolved, new opportunities might occur that would allow us to meet funding levels that we think are appropriate. This bill is a work in progress, but the bill we bring here today is one that I feel satisfied to bring to the Senate. A special thanks to Senators Stevens and Byrd, who really foraged to find another $7.2 billion in budget authority and another $5 billion in outlays to be able to move this bill, with bipartisan support, to the Senate floor today. The timing of this bill is noteworthy. Right now, a significant approach that we have with this bill is to make sure we fund the Federal Emergency Management Program. From Maine to Florida, and particularly with key residents in North Carolina, New Jersey, and in my own State of Maryland, we worry right now about the ravages of Hurricane Floyd. But in this bill, we continue our commitment to FEMA, and we include an additional $300 million for disaster relief funding. This means that FEMA is ready to help those communities recover from this devastating storm. Should the administration request additional funding for disaster relief, we will also be ready. Let's go to VA. First of all, our obligation to our veterans is this: promises made need to be promises kept. What does the American veterans community want? They want to make sure that for the older veteran and the Vietnam and Korean war veteran, we continue to provide them with quality health care. But we need to make sure that VA, as it always has, continues to be a door of opportunity, particularly through the GI bill, for home ownership and education. I would hope that one day the VA benefit would be a tool for lifetime learning and the subject of a new century discussion. We have increased funding for VA by over $1 billion to a total of $18 billion for veterans' health care. This was really the recommended level that came from the Government Accounting Office. We know that the VA medical care could always be funded additionally, but right now that is what we bring, and we are now looking at an amendment with proper other resources to fund it. Also, another significant part of the VA budget is that we maintain the funding for VA medical research at $316 million. The Veterans' Administration continues to play a very important role in medical research for the special needs of our veterans, including areas such as geriatrics, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, and orthopedic research. The benefits of VA medical research are not limited to veterans. The entire Nation benefits because of VA medical research. We continue to provide funding to treat something called Hepatitis C, a growing problem among the veteran population, particularly our Vietnam vets. We want to be sure that we help them with their problem and also do all we can to ensure that it is not spread in the wider population. In addition, we have increased the funding for State veterans homes by $50 million over the President's request to $90 million. This is the same as last year. Why are the State homes so important? We know that long-term care is a growing issue, particularly with our World War II vets and our Korean vets. We believe in Federal and State partnerships. No one jurisdiction of Government can carry the burden of long-term care by itself; and therefore, the additional funding for State veterans homes enables that wonderful partnership to occur between the Feds and the States and the veterans themselves. We also come to a discussion on HUD. The whole point of the Housing and Urban Development Agency is to be able to help communities in terms of being able to have economic development and for individuals to have economic empowerment. That is it. It is to fund primarily self-help initiatives or to reward self- help initiatives. Therefore, what we wanted to do in HUD was to stay the course for the community development block grant money, which goes directly to local communities with local decisionmaking. With this funding, mayors, county executives, or commissioners can decide for themselves what the best way to revitalize their communities is, and not have cookie-cutter solutions coming out of Washington. At the same time, we wanted to be sure the poor have a way to a new life, particularly with the significant success of our Welfare-to-Work Program. This is why we have a program called HOPE VI where we took down the high rises, which were ZIP Codes of poverty, to really create a new opportunity. We want to do the same thing for section 8 so we do not continue to have the concentrations of poverty that we have. This year, working together with the authorizers, we were able to be sure that everyone who has a section 8 contract--meaning a Government subsidy for housing--will continue to get their subsidy. This is no small matter. We have a lot of section 8's that are expiring. We wanted to be sure that if you had a section 8, and you were living in a neighborhood, moving from welfare to work, trying to get job training, you would not lose your subsidy. This was indeed a significant accomplishment in this bill. Last year, working with the authorizers, we also added 50,000 new vouchers. The administration would like to add 100,000 new vouchers. I personally would like very much to do that. But right now, as I said, we do not have the wallet. I am working with the administration to find an appropriate offset not only to pay for new vouchers now, but to insist that anything new has to have a sustainable revenue stream in the future. This is important because we are concerned that though we have started, we want to be able to continue it. That is a big yellow flashing light for me, and we need to be aware of that. Another area that is very special to me is housing for the elderly. Once again, working on a bipartisan basis, we have been able to increase the funding for the elderly and disabled by $50 million. This will be very important as we also look at new ways to help the population as they age in place. I am particularly appreciative of cooperation on developing some new concepts on assisted living and service coordinators to help aging seniors with their unique housing needs. We also help increase the funding for the homeless and do other important things, which I want to discuss later. With regard to NASA, I was extremely troubled by the House version of the bill. I was troubled because they cut NASA by $1 billion. At the same time, I was also troubled that the House seemed to focus a lot of those cuts in my own home State. I do not take it personally, but it certainly was convenient for them, knowing I am the ranking member, to know that I would also mount a rescue mission for the programs in my State. But it is in that State that we have mounted the rescue missions on Hubbell and in other areas. I really appreciate the collegial support of Senator Bond to look at where we need to put our resources for a national purpose. This isn't about Maryland. We have the great Federal laboratories in Maryland. I do not count NIH as only a Maryland Federal laboratory. It is a national Federal laboratory, and so is Goddard. The Goddard Space Flight Center is the flagship NASA center for Earth and science research. We want to make sure it continues to be able to do that. With the help of this subcommittee, we know we will continue to have those jobs. They will continue to fix Hubbell, have the next generation space telescope, and provide us with new opportunities in terms of protecting the environment. I would like to also go on to National Service, which is funded at $423 million--a reduction from last year. I hope this funding can be increased as the bill moves forward. National Service has been a success. It has enrolled over 100,000 volunteers in a wide array of community programs. I know the management and oversight is less than what is desired. I thank the Senator from Missouri for his limited patience; my patience is also limited. But we have to remember that the mission is working, even though the management and oversight could certainly be improved. I also want to comment on the National Science Foundation. We are so proud of the National Science Foundation. We really do appreciate it, and it is funded at $3.9 billion in the bill, which is an addition of $250 million. What is important about the National Science Foundation is that it was created to respond to be sure that America did not fall behind Russia in science and technology. America continues to lead the world in science and technology, particularly in information technology that has revolutionized the world. This is truly the information age. I appreciate the fact that, working together, we have increased the funding, particularly in those areas that will enhance research and development in the field of information technology. Let me conclude by saying that I will talk more about this bill as we go on. That is the thumbnail sketch. But I do want to just say a couple more things in closing about this bill. First of all, I am very appreciative that we have had the bipartisan support to continue the funding for the Chesapeake Bay Research Program. This was started by my very dear predecessor Senator Mac Mathias, and we all worked together on it. In fact, I was in the House when he started it. But we had the support of four Presidents: Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George Bush, and Bill Clinton. That is exactly what we need-- bipartisan support to come up with solutions. But the other thing I am really proud of in this bill is how we help our country continue to cross the digital divide. Bill Gates says we are at the digital divide. We will either be on one side or the other-- whether you are a nation, whether you are a community, or whether you are a citizen. I want to be one of the Senators who helps America and all of its citizens, particularly paying attention to rural communities and constituencies that have been left out and left behind, cross that digital divide. In this bill we are doing it. Our funding for NASA helps us do this. The funding we have for the National Science Foundation puts the money in the Federal checkbook to make sure that we come up with the new ideas for the new products that will be part of continuing to cross the digital divide. The Senate knows that one of my greatest passions in public life is to enable the poor to move out of poverty and into self-sufficiency. In this bill, through HUD, we fund something called the Neighborhood Networks Initiative--it has already been in operation; 500 residential computing centers have been established. These Neighborhoods Networks bring together local businesses, community organizations, and other partners. Right this minute in public housing, where we want to make sure people move from welfare to work and children have opportunities for a different way of life, we are creating little e-villages. In these communities, if you work hard, through either structured school activities or daytime use for adults, you can learn to use the computers. This newfound computer knowledge will help residents find good jobs at living wages well into the future. Again, there are many things I could say about this bill and I will say them as we move along. I think we have a very good bill. We are working very closely with Senator Bond, with the leadership of our two parties in the Senate and with our administration. Hopefully, we will pass this bill sometime today, move to conference, and then move forward with the bridge from the old century to the new century. Mr. President, I believe the VA/HUD bill is about four things: meeting our obligations to our veterans; serving our core constituencies; creating real opportunities for people, and advancing science and technology. The VA/HUD bill takes care of national interests and national needs. This has been a tough year for the VA-HUD Subcommittee. Due to the budget caps, our original 602(b) allocation was billions of dollars below what we needed. Senator Bond and I agreed that we would not move a bill until we had a sufficient allocation. But thanks to Senators Stevens and Byrd, we now have an additional $7.2 billion in discretionary budget authority and nearly $5 billion in outlays. This has allowed us to move this bill with bipartisan support to the Senate floor today. Mr. President, the timing of this bill is noteworthy. Just last week, residents along the Eastern U.S. experienced the wrath of Hurricane Floyd. Everyone from Maine to Florida was affected by this storm, including my own State of Maryland. Many people, including the residents of North Carolina and New Jersey, are still without power and flooded from their homes. Mr. President, the Federal Emergency Management Agency has $1 billion in the disaster relief fund to help state and local governments recover from this storm. The bill we present to the Senate today includes an additional $300 million for the disaster relief fund. That means FEMA is ready to help those communities recover from this devastating storm. Should the administration request additional funding for disaster relief, we will provide whatever is necessary to help those in need. Mr. President, our first obligation is to keep the promises we have made to our Nation's veterans. I am proud to say that in this bill, we have kept those promises to the veterans and the VA employees. I am proud of the men and women who serve our veterans. From the in-patient hospitals to the out-patient clinics, the employees of the VA work long hours and sometimes under difficult conditions. We have increased funding for veterans healthcare by $1.1 billion over the President's request to a total of $18.4 billion for veterans healthcare. Some have argued that we should spend more on veterans healthcare. I consider the $18.4 billion we have provided in this bill to be a funding floor, rather than a funding ceiling. The General Accounting Office generally agreed with this approach as a starting point. In a recent analysis of the VA healthcare budget for our subcommittee, the GAO concluded that a $1.1 billion increase over the President's request should be sufficient--assuming the VA's cost cutting program is successful. Nonetheless, I will continue to work with my colleagues to ensure VA has more than sufficient funding for our veterans healthcare needs. In addition, we have maintained funding for VA medical research at $316 million, the same as fiscal year 1999. The VA plays a very important role in medical research for the special needs of our veterans such as geriatrics, Alzheimers, Parkinson's, and orthopedic research. The benefits of VA medical research are not limited to veterans. The entire nation benefits from VA medical research--particularly as our population continues to age. We also provide full funding to treat Hepatitis C, a growing problem among the veterans population, particularly for our Vietnam veterans. We have increased funding for the State veterans homes by $50 million over the President's request to $90 million, the same as last year. The State homes serve as our long term care and rehabilitation facilities for our veterans. They represents a uniquely successful partnership between the Federal and State governments. By increasing funding in this area, we keeping our promises to our veterans and meeting a compelling human need. We have also made sure that we take care of our working families--by funding housing programs that millions depend upon. Our bill provides $10.8 billion to renew all existing section 8 housing vouchers. That means those who have vouchers, will continue to receive them. Unfortunately, we were unable to provide additional funding to add 100,000 new vouchers at this time. We simply could not find an additional $600 million in budget authority to cover the cost of 100,000 new vouchers. Many of my colleagues will remember that we added 50,000 new vouchers last year. But a tight allocation simply did not give us enough room to add more vouchers at this time. We maintained level funding for other critical core HUD programs. Funding for housing for the elderly has been increased over last year. Funding for the elderly and disabled is $904 million, a $50 million increase over last year. We have including additional funding for assisted living and service coordinators within the section 202 program. This has always been a top priority of mine and Senator Bond. We will always make sure that the housing needs of our elderly are met. We also must recognize that the housing needs of the elderly are changing--the elderly are aging in place. That's why we included additional funding for assisted living and service coordinators to help our aging seniors with their unique housing needs. Homeless assistance grants are funded at the Presidents's request. In a time of prosperity, we will not forget those who are truly in need. In addition, we have funded drug elimination grants and Youthbuild at least year's level. The Community Development Block Grant Program is funded at $4.8 billion. This is an increase of $50 million from last year and $25 million over the President's request. The CDBG program has been a very successful program targeting federal funds for economic development-- with local control. In addition, I have included report language that directs HUD to continue its efforts to bridge the information technology gap in communities through its ``Neighborhood Networks Initiative.'' The Neighborhood Networks Initiative brings computers and internet access to HUD assisted housing projects in low income communities. This will help us to ensure that every American has the ability to cross what Bill Gates has called the ``digital divide.'' With regard to NASA funding, I was extremely troubled by the House version of the bill. The House bill included devastating funding cuts to America's space agency. The Goddard Space Flight Center in my home state of Maryland, and the Wallops Flight Facility on Virginia's Eastern Shore both took a significant hit in the House bill. The House funding levels would mean the loss of over 2,000 jobs at Goddard and Wallops. The bill before the Senate today will save 2000 jobs at Goddard and Wallops. NASA if fully funding in this bill, at $13.5 billion, which is the President's request. Funding for shuttle, space station, and the critical science programs are funded at the President's request. This will allow us to maintain this country's or science and technology leadership and reflects the Senate's commitment to science and technology as we enter the next millennium. National Service is funded at $423 million, a slight reduction from last year. I hope this funding can be increased as the bill moves forward. National Service has been a success, enrolling over 100,000 volunteers in a wide array of community services. With regard to the EPA, the subcommittee has provided $7.3 billion in total funding, an increase of $115 million over the President's request. The subcommittee has increased funding for most of EPA's major environmental programs: the bill provides $825 million for the drinking water state revolving fund; and $1.3 billion for the clean water revolving fund. Taking care of local communities infrastructure needs has always been a priority for this committee. Superfund is funded at $1.4 billion, down slightly from last year, but brownfields is funded at $90 million, the same as last year. I know there is some concern over EPA's salary and expense account, and I hope we can address these concerns as the bill moves forward. The subcommittee has also provided funding at or above the President's budget request for important FEMA programs: Emergency Management and Planning, Anti-Terrorism Programs, and the Disaster Fund. We will await any further administration request for disaster assistance in light of Hurricane Floyd. The National Science Foundation is funded at $3.9 billion, which is $250 million more than fiscal year 1999. This funding level will allow us to make critical investments in science and technology into the next century. The funding increases for NSF is an important step for maintaining our science and technology base. With regard to the Selective Service, we have restored funding for Selective Service at the President's request. The House eliminated funding for the Selective Service. Mr. President, I recognize that there may be certain provisions that members may disagree with or oppose. I acknowledge the validity of their concerns, but I hope we can move the bill forward and resolve these differences along the way. I believe the VA/HUD bill that we present to the Senate today, keeps the promises to our veterans, helps our core constituencies, creates real opportunities and makes investments in science and technology. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Ms. MIKULSKI. I ask unanimous consent that Ms. Jeannine Schroeder, a detailee from HUD working in my office on this bill, be able to come to the floor and have floor privileges, limited only to the VA-HUD consideration.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Good morning, Mr. President.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Ted Kennedy be added as a cosponsor to the Byrd-Bond-Stevens-Mikulski VA amendment for $600 million additional funds for VA medical care.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, this is a sad state of affairs. This last amendment offered by the Senator from New Hampshire is particularly troubling. We all agreed that we need to fund veterans' medical care. We all agreed that we needed to fund more. We all agreed when we worked in the full committee, in the Appropriations Committee, we wanted to do more. We had the will but we didn't have the wallet. Working on a bipartisan basis, the chairman and ranking members of the Appropriations Committee found a way to add $600 million more to VA medical care. It is absolutely a good idea. We intend to support it. Also, the chairman and ranking member, along with Senator Bond and myself, know that declaring it an emergency is a temporary technique because we are in a situation where we are operating under such tough spending caps. The Senator from Minnesota has offered an amendment that violates the Budget Act because it busts the caps. We will oppose that. The Senator from New Hampshire, a well-known advocate for veterans, a staunch supporter for the return of the MIAs, now offers an amendment. However, he takes it out of the Corporation for National Service, otherwise known as AmeriCorps. This is a sad state of affairs, that while we are trying to meet the compelling human need of our veterans, we are going to further reduce a self-help opportunity program for higher education, which is exactly what our veterans want Members to support. I will go into that in a minute. I will oppose the amendment of the Senator from New Hampshire and support the tabling motion of the Senator from Missouri. Why? Not because I don't want to help veterans; we are helping the veterans in this bill. But we are now pitting one good program against another good program in terms of its mission and purpose. Both veterans' medical and AmeriCorps leave a lot to be desired in the management area. But at the same time, if we stick to the mission, we can continue this bill. I strongly believe in the importance of National Service and voluntarism. I helped create the original bill. I believe we need to do all we can to maintain an opportunity structure for access to higher education and also to teach the values of the habits of the heart--that for every right there is a responsibility, for every opportunity there is an obligation. The National Service does that. Right now, there are 66,000 people who have participated in the program. They are out there doing very important community service, leveraging other volunteers. For that, they are earning a voucher toward their higher education. I do not think anyone can dispute the merits of a program that shows for every opportunity there is an obligation, for every right there is a responsibility. That is one of the core values for which our vets fought so hard. But the corporation has already taken a cut in funding. It is now being funded below last year's level and below the President's request. The corporation was established to enhance those opportunities available for national and community service and to provide these educational awards for those who participate. Through the corporation, we help not only communities but those who volunteer as well. National Service participants may receive educational awards that can be used for full-time or part-time education, vocational ed, or job training. This is great. I know how much the Senator from Ohio believes in the great American opportunity structure. But this is not a giveaway; you have to do sweat equity in the community. National Service does have its problems within its organization. Its oversight and its management do need to be improved. But we should not further reduce the funding of National Service; we should find a way to deal with the spending caps. This program is a success, and it must be maintained. Earlier today we adopted that amendment to increase veterans' health care by $600 million. With this, it means that veterans' health care will be funded at $1.7 billion over the President's request. Senator Bond and I agree, the President's request was too skimpy. We agree with that. So we added in a billion in the committee. Now we are adding another $1.6 billion. So we believe we are working, as a work in progress, to meet the needs of veterans' health care. But I do not want to see these generational issues here. I do not want to see old, sick vets pitted against young Americans who are willing to be working in disaster relief, tutoring people, and also serving the homeless--pitted against that. Guess one of the other things that National Service is doing. We talk about it in our own report. The National Service volunteers are helping the homeless. They also have a particular outreach program to homeless vets. So it should not be either/or. National Service right now, as we speak--as we speak, there are over 10,000 volunteers providing tutoring in elementary schools. The Civilian Corps is a 10-month program on disaster relief. They are right there now in North Carolina. They are helping clean up other parts of our country. But we are saying no, we are not going to fund these programs because we want to fund veterans' health care? I think the vets would say: We need our health care; we need our facilities open, with the best of the staff and the supplies and the prescription drugs we need. We agree with that. But I do not think they would want it at the expense of these young people. I really do not believe it. One of the things National Service is doing is not only helping the community but it is called values. What do our vets stand for? Patriotism. Our young people are out there serving America. They stand for loyalty. These young people are learning loyalty and the habits of the heart. Our veterans stood for self-sacrifice, neighbor helping neighbor, and the defense of the Nation. These young people are part of a national defense effort, eliminating poverty, illiteracy, helping the homeless. At the end of their 2-year program, they go on to school and they get on with their lives. Just as the Peace Corps, they are forming alumni associations, and they keep on giving, and they keep on recruiting people who give, many of whom will visit veterans' nursing homes. So let's not pit one generation of Americans against the other. Let's make sure we follow a wise and prudent course to honor our veterans and to make sure that our young people have access to higher education, earning a voucher through their own sweat equity, but learning the values of the greatest generation that ever existed, those who fought for us in World War II. I yield the floor.

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

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I oppose the Gorton amendment on CAFE standards. I oppose lifting the freeze on CAFE standards because it would hurt American workers, American consumers and our economy. First, if we raise CAFE standards--we lose American jobs. More and more American workers are building larger cars and sport utility vehicles. That's because these are the cars that Americans want to buy. But if we raise CAFE standards, U.S. car makers will be forced to build smaller cars. That means higher costs--for new equipment, new product lines, new tests. I'd rather see these resources used to leapfrog to new technologies that make cars safer and more efficient. Meanwhile, our foreign competitors won't have to do anything. They won't face new costs. So by raising CAFE standards, we'll put American workers at a competitive disadvantage with their foreign competitors. Second, raising the CAFE standards means fewer choices and higher prices for American consumers. Americans are buying larger cars and SUVs because they're safer and better fit their families' needs. So by raising CAFE standards, consumers will have fewer large cars to choose from. They'll also face higher prices--since manufacturers will pass on their higher costs. Finally, we cannot forget the reason why so many Americans are buying larger cars--because they are safer. If we have more small cars on the road, we will likely have more injuries and fatalities that result from car accidents. We need to save America's economy, America's jobs and American lives. I urge my colleagues to join me in rejecting this effort to lift the freeze on CAFE standards.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Thank you, Mr. President.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, on rollcall vote #8, if I had been present, I would have voted nay. My position was announced as aye. I ask unanimous consent that the permanent Record be corrected to reflect how I would have voted, if I had been present.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I oppose the President's decision to grant clemency for the FALN terrorists. I oppose clemency for two reasons. First of all, this clemency decision violates the tenets of our counter terrorism policy. Terrorism is one of the greatest threats facing our nation. We say that we will fight terrorism with every tool that we have. We say that we will make no concessions to terrorists. We say that we'll track the terrorists down--no matter where they are, no matter how long it takes. We say that we'll hold them accountable--and punish them to the fullest extent of the law. By granting clemency to terrorists, we are saying that these tenets don't always apply. What kind of message does it send to offer clemency to those who are guilty of the most heinous and cowardly crimes? Terrorism is a real threat to America--and to individual Americans. Too many families are suffering the inconsolable loss of their loved ones--because some murdering thug wants to make a political point. Too many times, I have called grieving families to express my sorrow. After Pan Am 103 was destroyed over Scotland, I called the families of seven young people from Maryland who were brutally and callously murdered. We recently marked the tenth anniversary of this terrible crime--and we are still seeking justice. I also think about a young Navy diver from Maryland--Robert Stethem--who was murdered in a terrorist attack in 1985. The victims of terrorism deserve justice that is not watered down. The second reason I oppose clemency is that I am not convinced that the terrorist have expressed sufficient remorse. Each of these individuals had many years to express remorse and renounce violence. I haven't heard that the FALN terrorists have changed their lives to reflect a change of heart. I haven't heard about any apologies or expressions of regret. Their renunciation of terrorism was tepid. It came only in exchange for their freedom. I don't consider this true remorse. I don't consider this worthy of clemency. So I will support this resolution to disapprove of clemency for terrorists. I am sorry that the President chose to shorten the sentences of terrorists who feel justified in using violence to achieve their political goals.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I am horrified by the atrocities occurring in East Timor--where an armed militia is using murder and intimidation to nullify the results of a free and fair referendum. The United States must join the international community in protecting the people of East Timor from mass murder and religious persecution. During this century, we have seen horrifying examples of dictators and despots whose brutality begins with attacks on the peaceful men and women of the church. This is happening again in East Timor--where members of the Church are being brutally persecuted. The stories coming out of East Timor are heart-wrenching. Women and children are massacred within the sanctuary of their churches. Catholic priests, nuns and Caritas workers are being murdered as they try to protect their communities. Nobel Loreate Bishop Beli has been forced into exile. Churches, convents and schools are being burned. Thousands of men, women and children are fleeing from their homes in fear. They are taking refuge in the countryside--where there isn't enough food, water or medicine. This brutality is occurring with the complicity of the Indonesian military. This is a military that has conducted twenty five years of repression in East Timor. It is a military that the United States has trained and armed. The international community cannot stand by while civilians are brutally murdered. That is why I support President Clinton's statement of support for US participation in an United Nations peacekeeping force. The force would be led by regional powers--including our strong ally Australia. The United States would help to provide logistical support. This peacekeeping force would have three goals: to protect the people of East Timor; to restore order and to enable the referendum for independence to be implemented. The United States must stand up for our interests and our values. We must join our allies in protecting the people of East Timor and restoring peace and stability to their country.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. I thank the Chairman and Ranking Member.

Ms. MIKULSKI. I thank the Chairman. Senator Gorton and Senator Byrd, is it the intent of the Appropriations Committee that the funds provided in the bill for Glen Echo Park in the construction account of the National Park Service be used for rehabilitation and replacement of facilities at Glen Echo Park?

Ms. MIKULSKI. I rise with my colleague from the State of Maryland to engage the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member of the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee in a colloquy regarding the funds included in the Senate bill for Glen Echo Park, a unit of the George Washington Parkway in Maryland.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the Democratic Emergency Relief Package for Agriculture. I am pleased to be a cosponsor of this critical amendment. American farms are struggling to survive. This package creates a safety net for our farmers who are facing a devastating drought. I support this amendment for three reasons. First it will help our farmers in Maryland who are suffering through an extreme drought. Second, it will help us maintain our agri-economy in the United States. Third, it is comprehensive because it helps farmers in all regions of the country. My state of Maryland is suffering from the most severe drought in the State's history. Last week, Governor Glendening declared a state-wide drought emergency. This is the first time in Maryland's history that the Governor has had to take such drastic measures. Up to this point, water conservation efforts have been voluntary. Now, Marylanders will be required by law to conserve water. The United States Geological Survey officials are calling the drought of 1999 possibly the century's worst in the Mid Atlantic region. We can't stand by and let our farmers face this drought on their own. These are hard working, tax paying Americans who are facing a crisis. If we don't help them, we all lose. Maryland has now been plagued by drought for the third consecutive year. The drought has destroyed between 30 percent and 80 percent of the crops in nineteen counties in Maryland. Loss of soybean, tobacco, wheat and corn crops is making this a very tough season for Maryland farmers. Our farmers need our help. Our farmers are losing crops and they are losing money--without help, they might lose their farms. Couple the drought with the record low prices, high costs and a glut in the market and that spells disaster for Maryland farmers. I am already fighting with the rest of the Maryland delegation to designate Maryland farmland as disaster areas because of the drought. This means the Department of Agriculture will provide emergency loans to our farmers. But we need to do more. Loans need to be paid back. Loans do not provide any real long term assistance for our farming community. We must also provide grants for these farmers who are suffering most from the drought. The Democratic package contains direct payments to help our farmers. These grants could mean the difference between saving the family farm or selling out to the highest bidder. Mr. President, the second reason I support this package is because it supports our family farms. Agriculture is a critical component of the U.S. economy. Our country was built on agriculture. Agriculture helps us maintain our robust economy. It is what fills our grocery stores with fresh, plentiful supplies of safe food for our families. It allows us to trade with other countries and build global economies and partnerships. It allows us to assist other countries whose people need food. Agriculture is the number one industry in the State of Maryland. We need to make sure U.S. agriculture is strong. We cannot allow natural disasters to ruin this crucial sector by putting farms out of business for good. These are good farmers who, through no fault of their own, have been put in devastating situations. These are farmers we need. I will not stand by and allow them to go under. We must pass this farm package to save our farmers. Finally, Mr. President, I support this package because it supports farmers in all regions of the country. The combination of low prices, lack of adequate crop insurance and natural disasters has made it a challenge to draft a package that helps everyone. Different areas of the country suffer from one or all of these contingencies. As I mentioned, Maryland suffers from all three. This makes it especially hard for us. It also makes it especially vital that we pass this farm relief package today. I strongly urge my colleagues to vote to help our American farmers and to save our farms.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, it is with great sadness that I rise to pay tribute to the life of Captain Jennifer Shafer Odom. She died on a mountainside in Colombia--where she was defending our Nation and our values. This morning, her grieving family is at Dover Air Force Base--to bring their daughter home for the last time. On July 23, Captain Odom was on an Army reconnaissance plane that was flying near a major drug-producing region of Colombia. During bad weather, the plane crashed into a mountainside--killing the five Americans and two Colombians on board. These brave soldiers were casualties in our war against drugs. They were fighting to keep drugs off our streets and out of our schools. They know that this is essential to our national security and our national values. Captain Odom grew up in Brunswick, Maryland. She was a valedictorian at Brunswick High School. She was active in so many areas--from sports to theater. As a scholar, an athlete and a leader--it's not surprising that she chose to attend the U.S. Military Academy at West Point. She wanted to use her many talents to serve her country. She graduated from West Point in the top quarter of her class. She served in the United States Army with valor and distinction--raising to rank of Captain. But it is not just for her accomplishments that she will be missed. I've spoken to her family several times in the past few days. What comes across is their pride in the kind of person that she was. She was so dear to her friends and neighbors that the entire community joined in a prayer chain to pray for her and for her family. Captain Jennifer Shafer Odom served our country with distinction. Her courage and her sacrifice remind us that our freedom abides in the heroism of pilots like Captain Odom. Her death was a tragedy--but her life was a triumph. She leaves behind a grieving husband, and her heartbroken parents. I ask my colleagues to join me in keeping Captain Odom and her family in our prayers.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to oppose what the Republicans are calling a tax cut. This so-called tax cut is a gimmick to get attention, to get votes, but not to get America what it needs. The Republicans are trying to pander to every interest group in America and give them a tax break. And who doesn't want a tax break? I oppose these tax cuts for three reasons. First, these tax cuts are premature. They are based on a projected surplus of funds that we do not have. We all know that this surplus exists on paper only. It is no more than a promissory note and we don't know if that note can or will be delivered. Second, these tax cuts are irresponsible. With no surplus, we are spending money before we have it. We are on a collision course between monetary and fiscal responsibility. Shouldn't we combine our monetary and fiscal responsibilities to get the country in the right direction towards growth in the future? Third, these tax cuts are callous. We are giving money away that we don't have--when we've not even met the compelling needs of our country: We've not fixed the draconian Medicare cuts stemming from the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. We've not ensured the long-term solvency of Social Security and Medicare. We've not addressed the spending caps--which are forcing cruel cuts in critical services for veterans health, and children's education, and which are crippling scientific research. The Medicare cuts in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 have already caused 34 Home Health agencies in my state to close--only two public Home Health Agencies remain in Maryland. Maryland is also facing a managed care crisis. Because of Balanced Budget Act of 1997, 18,000 people in Maryland will lose access to supplemental benefits such as prescription drug coverage and preventive health benefits. Republicans may say that a tax cut will allow these senior citizens to use the money from a tax cut to buy supplemental coverage, such as Medi-Gap and that they are returning ``choice'' and ``freedom'' to the American people. But what about the forty-percent of Medicare beneficiaries who do not even submit tax returns because their incomes are so low. Those people will not see a dime of the tax out. They will still not have any way to afford prescription drugs like heart medication or insulin for diabetes, because their HMO left town. Spending caps will threaten our ability to meet compelling human needs; to maintain the national security of the United States; and to stay the course on research and development. Because of the spending caps, veterans of this nation are facing a 10% cut in health care. Because of the spending caps, our members of the military will continue to be forced to shop in consignment shops and use food stamps because they are not making enough money. Mr. President, we cannot have a second-hand military. These are people who put their lives on the line to protect our nation. They should not have to use food stamps to feed their families and shop in second-hand stores for clothing. Because of the spending caps, our continued technological advancement will be jeopardized. America must maintain its competitive edge if we are to maintain our leadership in science and technology. I am not opposed to tax cuts when it is the right time to do so. I believe it is the right time for tax cuts when there is a real and actual surplus or an incredible recession and we need to stimulate consumption. It is clear that neither of these conditions exists today. We need to get back to basics--to save lives, save communities, and save America. I urge my colleagues to join me in rejecting this phony tax cut.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. I thank the Chair, and I thank the Senator from New Mexico.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, later today Senator John Kerry, Senator Rockefeller and I will make a motion which protects our senior citizens in the wake of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. I would like to talk about this but I also rise to support the amendment offered by the Senator from New Mexico, Senator Bingaman. As usual, his amendment is well thought out. It brings intellectual rigor, sound public policy, and responsible fiscal policy to this debate, and really meets a compelling human need. How I wish the rest of this debate reflected the Bingaman amendment, because I believe we have embarked upon a debate on these tax cuts which are, indeed, reckless. I believe the other party is practicing very reckless economics. First of all, we don't really have a surplus; we have a promissory note of a surplus. No. 2, we are looking at an area where we are not sure what the projections will be, and we need to be prudent. Therefore, we should use the taxpayers' dollars to meet compelling human needs, national security, and stay the course in terms of our research and development. While we are in the midst of debating bloated tax cuts, we have marines who are on food stamps. I don't see how we can meet our national security commitment, do a tax cut, and have marines on food stamps. The marines say ``semper fi''--``always faithful.'' They are faithful to the United States and we have to be always faithful to the Marine Corps and to the military. Right over there in Quantico, they are getting food stamps and they run consignment shops. That is not right. The Senator from New Mexico offers this excellent amendment that says: Stay the course on education. When I travel in my own State, people don't come up to me and say: I have a marriage penalty. They say: I am married, I have children, and I want them to have the same kind of good education I did. Barb, make sure we have sound public schools, well-trained teachers, and structured afterschool activities. That is what the Bingaman amendment does--it lets reserve funds stay the course for our children. While we are looking at Senator Bingaman's amendment, there is another compelling human need that needs to be addressed. We have to reserve certain funds to correct the draconian effects of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 on Medicare. The motion that I am cosponsoring will provide $20 billion to fix many of the problems in Medicare reimbursement. My colleagues might recall that in 1997 we passed a Balanced Budget Act. We were going to save money on Medicare. But we went too far in our cuts. HCFA went too far in its regulations. Guess where we find ourselves? In my own home State, 34 home health care agencies have closed. I have 10 public home health agencies, primarily in rural counties, some who travel on snowmobiles to treat home-bound patients, and eight have closed because of the budget cuts. There is a terrible problem, and we need to go back and correct the draconian cuts of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. We also have a situation where we have skilled nursing facilities that are teeter-tottering on closing. Some might say: Oh, that is a profit-making industry. Stella Morris isn't profit making. Hebrew Home isn't profit making. But I will tell you they will now have to find funds through private, philanthropic dollars even though the Government should be providing funds. We have people in my own home State who are being turned away from nursing homes because they are so sick, they have such complicated illnesses, that the nursing home can't take them because of the skimpy, spartan reimbursement policies that are the result of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. Some of those spartan reimbursements went to Medicare HMOs. I always thought that Medicare HMOs for seniors were a risky proposition because our old-timers are sick. They need complicated prescription drugs. I thought that these HMOs that were essentially making a profit may have some problems. However, these HMOs also provide seniors with extra health benefits that they cannot get in regular Medicare, oftentimes for no extra money. Now, I will tell you that the nonprofit HMO in my own State--Blue Cross Blue Shield--is pulling out of 17 rural counties in my State, as of 3 weeks ago in 17 counties, and 18,000 people will lose their Medicare + Choice HMO. Why? Because Blue Cross Blue Shield is losing $5 million, and they can't afford to provide services. Dear colleagues, I ask you to reexamine the premise under which we are operating. No. 1, the surplus is not yet available. It is a promissory note. Let us move with prudence. Let us meet compelling human needs. Let us meet our national security responsibility and stay the course in research and development. Let's support the Bingaman amendment on education. Let's deal with the issues that came from the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. Let's make sure our marines aren't on food stamps. Let's make sure that those on food stamps and their children have access to public education so that in the next generation they won't have to be on food stamps. Then we truly have been responsible. We are then getting our country ready for the millennium. I would like to say one final word in closing. I thank the Senator from New Mexico for his strong advocacy for veterans, and particularly for veterans with disabilities. The Senator knows that we have an 18- month backlog. He has spoken to me about this. In his State, they have billboards complaining about the VA backlog. I bring to the Senator's attention that in VA-HUD appropriations, we have under this budget allocation a 10-percent cut. We will not be able to deal with that backlog. In fact, while we are opening tax loopholes, we might even be closing veteran hospitals. I yield the floor. I thank the Senator.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Yes.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise with great sadness today to pay tribute to the lives of John F. Kennedy, Jr., his wife Carolyn, and her sister, Lauren Bessette. My thoughts and prayers are with these families, for at this very moment, as we know, they are at sea to bring these wonderful, outstanding young Americans to a final rest. We in the Senate, of course, feel very close to this tragedy because of our affection for our own colleague, Senator Ted Kennedy. We in Maryland feel very close to this family because we are the home to Eunice and Sarge Shriver, to Mark Shriver, who has taken his place in the House of Delegates, and our own Lt. Gov. Kathleen Kennedy Townsend, who lost a brother just a few months ago. As the eldest of the Kennedy cousins, she has endured much. She is living a life of service that certainly would make her father as proud as those of us in Maryland. The entire Kennedy family has suffered so much. They have also given so much. It is a family of war heroes, Senators, Congressmen, and a President of the United States. They are also defenders of the poor, environmentalists, educators, and artists. They fight to give every American an opportunity to build better lives for themselves and to build stronger communities. Many of us in this Senate were inspired to lives of public service because of John F. Kennedy. As a young social worker, I thought he was talking to me when he called our generation to service. When he said, ``Ask not what your country can do for you--but what you can do for your country,'' I believed it. I wanted to do something. That is why I committed myself even more forcefully to my own career in social work. He practiced passionate, active idealism that was different from anything we had seen before in politics. That is why we hoped his son would continue that legacy. In many ways he had already begun to do that. John Kennedy, Jr., could have lived the life of the idle rich, but he did not. He worked several years as a D.A. in New York, and recently he created a magazine to bring young people into politics who were indifferent to it. He endured intense press interest with grace and good humor. It seemed as if he understood his family was a part of the lives of all Americans. While we all know the Kennedys, we cannot forget the Bessette family. They are suffering unimaginable pain with the death of two of their daughters. Carolyn Bessette Kennedy also lived in the spotlight. She, too, handled the attention with grace and charm. She had the same passion for life as her husband. Her sister Lauren was also making her own career in investment banking. Wherever we turn, the Kennedys have touched America. We have been there for their hopes, their dreams, and their good days. We want our dear friend, Senator Kennedy, the entire Kennedy family, and the Bessettes to know they are not alone today. We mourn with them, and we thank them for their contributions to America and for their own call to duty and to public service. God bless them and God bless America that we have in our midst a great legacy. I thank the Chair.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, the issue, which I wish to discuss, is the mapping of our country's shoreline. As the chairman knows, the National Ocean Service runs a Coastal Mapping Project which is responsible for mapping the nearly 95,000 miles of the US shoreline in an accurate, consistent, tide-coordinated, and up-to-date manner. I'm concerned that nearly 30 percent of the US shoreline has not been mapped. In addition, one-quarter of what has been mapped as mapped prior to 1970 with severely outdated technology. Since this data is used as the official shoreline on NOAA's nautical charts and is used by the government and the private sectors, it is important to keep up with the changes that result from coastal development and natural processes, which can be drastic. This year, there was an increase over both FY99 funding levels and the administration's FY00 request within the Committee's recommendation for the ``Mapping and Charting'' account. Would you agree, Mr. Chairman, that it is the recommendation of the Committee that $2 million of those funds can be used for shoreline mapping within the Coastal Mapping Project.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I would like to engage the Chairman of the Commerce, Justice, State Subcommittee in a colloquy. I am deeply concerned that the Subcommittee bill does not include the full Administration request for funding of the International War Crimes Tribunals. We are all horrified by the crimes against humanity that occurred in Kosovo. Recent reports state that as many as 10,000 people were murdered. An untold number of women were raped. Hundreds of thousands of people were driven from their homes. The War Crimes Tribunal needs adequate funding to gather evidence, to pursue and to try those who are responsible for these crimes against humanity. Congress provided additional funding for the War Crimes Tribunals in the Supplemental Appropriations bill. These funds were necessary to provide emergency assistance to the War Crimes Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. Before we provided this funding, Chief Justice Louise Arbour said that she had only seven investigators available for Kosovo. However, full funding for the War Crimes Tribunal is necessary for fiscal year 2000, if we are to continue ongoing investigations in Bosnia or Rwanda. The Chairman of the Commerce, Justice, State Appropriations Committee is a strong supporter of law enforcement--both in the United States and abroad. I ask him to join me in supporting the full request for funding of the International War Crimes Tribunals during the Conference on the Commerce, Justice and State Department Appropriations bill.