Barbara Mikulski

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. It would have been useful if perhaps the Senator had suggested this earlier and we could have consulted with the authorizers. Our hands are shackled, really, because of the authorizers strongly opposing the amendment.

Ms. MIKULSKI. If the Senator will yield, what would he suggest?

Ms. MIKULSKI. Is it the Senator's belief that the longer we stay, there will be a change in our position?

Ms. MIKULSKI. But why is it that speaking on the bill is different than speaking in morning business, if you want to continue to persuade?

Ms. MIKULSKI. If the Senator from Nebraska will yield, the suggestion by the Senator from Missouri is not to deny the Senator from Nebraska from presenting his arguments. What it does do is give us a framework for moving on these other two amendments and it relieves us of our responsibility to conduct our business. It doesn't preclude the Senator from Nebraska from talking. If the Senator will yield further, why would talking while we two are here accomplish what you want to accomplish, beyond what we have already discussed? I don't understand why you are objecting to morning business when we are not in any way asking you to give up your right to continue to speak.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I, too, concur with the chairman. I thank the Senator from Rhode Island for his leadership. The facts speak for themselves. The situation in Baltimore of 22 percent of children in Baltimore city have some type of lead in their blood, this is a serious issue. I won't go into all the public health aspects and pediatric consequences this late. But I will tell you what it means. It means lower intellectual achievement. It means a lethargy, a sluggishness that is perpetual. Unless the child has their blood chelated, and if you go into Johns Hopkins and you are going to have your blood chelated because there was lead paint dust on your mom's kitchen table that kind of got mixed up with after-school cookies, then it is going to cost $8,000 in Medicaid to clean out your blood. Even if we can clean that blood out, we can't necessarily clean out the consequences that have already set this child back, particularly in cognitive development. I thank the Senator from Rhode Island for raising this, to move it up. I am glad we can finally accept it with an offset. I asked that I be a cosponsor of the amendment. And we know that we need more research. We need the type of licensed people to be able to clean out the lead paint and protect our children. I view this as an important public health, get-behind-our-kids initiative. I look forward to just accepting it and defending it in conference.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Nickles amendment. I wish to associate myself with the remarks by the chairman of the subcommittee, the Senator from Missouri, Mr. Bond, as well as the senior Senator from Maryland, Mr. Sarbanes, who also is the ranking member on the Housing, Banking, and Urban Affairs Committee. Senator Sarbanes outlined, I think in rather solid, logical terms, exactly why the Nickles amendment really is, though well-intentioned, flawed in its public policy ramifications, as did Senator Bond. I must say that initially, when Secretary Cuomo came and presented this idea, I really raised my eyebrows. I thought, my gosh, FHA--he wanted to raise the limit to $227,000. That is a quarter of a million dollars. That is a lot of money. Now, from the time I either chaired the subcommittee or now, as ranking, it has been my passion and my commitment to public policy to expand opportunities for first-time home ownership, and two significant tools were in the VA-HUD Subcommittee--the VA mortgage itself, which has been a significant empowerment tool for minorities and for others who might have been really segregated out of the mortgage market, and also FHA has been very, very important in terms of first-time home buyers. But yet as we looked at the facts, it really became important for us to lift the limit, and we felt that a reasonable approach would be to raise the FHA loan limit in high-cost areas, many of which are in my State, from $170,000 to $197,000, and also to raise the limit in low- cost areas from $86,000 to $108,000, which are also in my State, and to streamline the downpayment calculations to reduce administrative costs and burdens. The administration wanted to have just that one limit of $227,000 for all communities. I do not believe that one size fits all. I do believe we need to recognize the realities of the market. In addition to that, we are concerned about foreclosures, and we did not want to risk people getting into so much debt early in their lives or risking the loss of a home because they got in over their heads. We did not want to end up with heartbreak for the families and heartburn for the taxpayers. I believe what we have here is a good middle ground. Included in the language, in addition to the mortgage, we direct HUD to consult with Congress before beginning its bulk sale of foreclosed properties so that we can deal with the way they deal with foreclosed properties, which I am not happy about and I know the Presiding Officer is not either. I do not want to see those properties go at fire sale prices or end up blighting a community when it should have been a tool of empowerment. The Federal Government ends up being a slum landlord, selling it to someone who either cannot afford it or chooses to use it to downgrade the neighborhood. FHA should be a tool for first-time home buyers and not a tool for neighborhood deterioration. Let me just give you some figures from Maryland and why I think this bill is good for Maryland and also good for the Nation. There are three counties in Maryland at the current low end limit of $86,000. They are Allegany, Garrett, and Somerset. And I also know Dorchester sits somewhere in there as well. In Garrett, the realtors report that the median home price is $124,000 in a county where the FHA limit is $86,000. That is a poor county. FHA is a very important tool. It is not a poor county, but it is of very modest means. Eleven counties out of our 23 and Baltimore have limits at the FHA limit of $170,000, yet in Montgomery County housing the median price is $174,000. Raising these limits, I note, could help create 2,000 new home buyers in the State of Maryland. Well, Mr. President, that talks about Maryland, and I have a whole set of facts here on why it would be good for the Nation and also why increasing the Ginnie Mae fees would really give me pause, and I absolutely oppose raising the Ginnie Mae fees. What applies in Maryland will also apply in many communities around the country. This is especially true in many urban high cost areas, particularly in the Northeast and California. It is also true that in many rural areas in the heartland of the country. FHA does not meet the local market realities. HUD estimates that the provision we have included in our bill will provide for 17,000 new home buyers annually and generate $80 million a year in revenue for the FHA fund. HUD estimates the Senate's FHA increase will raise the limits in 32 high-cost metropolitan areas and 174 lower cost areas. But let's be clear; we're not talking about buying a place, but we are talking about buying a home. It is estimated that the average loan amount under the Senate proposal will only be $142,000. We have raised the limits enough to meet today's market realities without unduly increasing the risks for foreclosures. FHA is also a critical resource to fill the gap for potential home buyers who are credit worthy, but don't have the money for large down payments. Two-thirds of FHA loans have down payments of 5 percent or less, while only 8 percent of private mortgage insurance purchases are low down payment loans. Why oppose the Nickles amendment? Two reasons: it eliminates the high-cost area increase and increases GNMA fees by 6 basis points, from 6 to 12. eliminates increase in loan limit in high cost areas Striking the high-end increase will affect people in 32 high-cost areas across the country, including several areas in Maryland-- Baltimore City, and three counties: Baltimore, Montgomery, and Prince Georges. For thousands of people in high cost cities and counties across the country, FHA will be severely limited in its ability to provide this real resource for families shopping in the local housing markets. increases gnma fees The Nickles amendment also increase the GNMA fees for those who handle FHA loans. This can get really technical, and the ``experts'' have a nice time detailing the intricacies. The bottom line is that it will cost more for a lender to have GNMA securitize both FHA and VA loans and despite what people may say, I think we all would agree that when costs go up for a product provider, costs often go up for the consumer. Simply put, this amendment could make FHA and VA loans more costly for consumers. HUD estimates that it will increase the cost to the lender by an average of $2,200. Several veterans services organizations have also estimated that the increase in GNMA fees will increase costs for veterans purchasing a home by $250. These costs may be passed along to those trying to purchase their first homes. We do not want to burden our first-time home buyers or our veterans with pass-through costs. Mr. President, home ownership is critical step in a person or family's attempt to obtain assets and become a more permanent fixture in a community. Like many of my colleagues, I share the concern about the effect that foreclosures can have on individuals' credit and the stability of a community. My own hometown of Baltimore has been a victim of foreclosures harming neighborhoods. We have provided a modest increase that does not raise the limit too much too quickly. Our objective is clear, for those who FHA serves, ensure that it is a useful tool. The objective is not to put the private mortgage insurance companies out of business or to move FHA away from providing for low- and moderate-income buyers. I believe that the FHA provision included in the Senate bill before us is good for Maryland and good for the Nation. I believe that this is a positive step in rewarding investment and provides relief to working families. I encourage my colleagues to oppose the Nickles amendment and support the Appropriations Committee's attempt to help home buyers across the country. Mr. President, I hope that we defeat the Nickles amendment at tomorrow's vote and I look forward to hearing my colleagues' comments.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I concur in the remarks of Chairman Bond. It sounds as if it is a worthwhile endeavor, a complex issue, and not necessarily appropriate to our subcommittee. So we await further information in the morning to see what are the appropriate next steps. I concur that the Senator always has a right to ask for a vote on his amendment. So we will just wait to hear what we hear on the scoring and what the Interior subcommittee chairman and ranking member say. Mr. FEINGOLD addressed the Chair.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, first of all, I would like to thank Senator Wellstone for his cooperation in this debate, and for his willingness to stay on the floor. I also appreciate his remarks. I know the passion that the Senator from Minnesota has on behalf of veterans. He spoke in behalf of atomic veterans, and in behalf of a group of veterans in his own State that have been ignored. He has spoken for the homeless, for the mentally ill veterans, and also for the need for long-term care for the veterans. I thank him for that. Mr. President, when we debated both the highway bill and the budget bill, I supported the sense-of-the-Senate resolution that we not raid the veterans' medical care. Thence, when we voted on the highway bill, I voted for final passage, but was very clear saying we should not fix America's potholes on the backs of America's veterans and their needs for health care, many of whom bear the permanent wounds of war. I thank the Senator for raising this issue again. I want the Senator from Minnesota to know that I support his policy position on this. I, too, believe that promises made should be promises kept to the veterans, and we should find other ways of funding that highway bill. I look forward to further work with him on this topic.

Ms. MIKULSKI. I move to lay it on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 3199 (Purpose: To restore veterans tobacco-related benefits as in effect before the enactment of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century)

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I concur with the remarks of my distinguished Senator. He has really done the heavy lifting on this policy issue. I want to thank him for doing this. I absolutely concur with the direction in which we are going. I think it will be an important memorial and a way to staff it properly. I urge this amendment be agreed to.

Ms. MIKULSKI. I move to lay it on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 3198 (Purpose: To provide for the National Fallen Firefighters Foundation)

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, this does attempt to recruit the very best and brightest in the field of primary care to the VA. I proposed the debt reduction program, a student debt reduction program, back in 1992. Now, why do I approach this as debt reduction rather than scholarships? The scholarship program is very worthwhile, but there are many very talented people who have already graduated. They have a substantial student debt from studying either nursing or other primary care practices. What the $5 million would do would go towards reducing their student debt if they would enter VA services; they would get a year's worth of debt reduction for a year's worth of service. This way, we know they have completed their training, they have passed their licensing requirement, they are as fit for duty as the veterans they will serve. That is why we approached it from that policy standpoint. It also joins with the outstanding efforts being made by Senator Rockefeller to also develop other tools. I concur in the amendment, and I urge its adoption and ask it be accepted unanimously.

Ms. MIKULSKI. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 3197 (Purpose: To provide funds for the Primary Care Providers Incentive Act, once authorized)

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, no one can speak for the veterans the way a former POW can. I wish to be associated with the remarks of Senator McCain and move the adoption of the amendment.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Again, to be clear, the funds in this legislation can be used to support Section 314 program priorities. EPA Regional Clean Lakes Coordinators and EPA Regional Nonpoint Source Coordinators and their counterparts at the state and local level will need to work together to assure that critical Clean Lakes program needs, such as water quality assessment and diagnostic studies, are accomplished with 319 dollars.

Ms. MIKULSKI. I appreciate your bringing the situation in South Dakota to the Senate's attention. I encourage the Federal Emergency Management Agency to fund this important initiative.

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

Ms. MIKULSKI. I rise in opposition to the Sessions amendment. I really respect the Senator from Alabama and his deep commitment to space and to the significant investments that must be made in science if America is to be a leader in the 21st century. I have been to the Huntsville NASA program where they are doing a significant amount of the space station work, along with so many other worthwhile projects, and can see why he would have such a passion both from a patriotic standpoint, a competitive standpoint, and in actually seeing it hands on. I do not dispute the need to increase NASA's budget. Both the chairman and I have really dealt with this issue as forcibly as we could. Given our parameters, we felt that we have come up with essentially a funding for NASA that keeps crucial and critical programs, that keeps us exploring, keeps the Shuttle safe, and continues our work in Earth observatory data. What I object to, though, in the amendment of the Senator from Alabama, is his offset. He takes the offset of $33 million from the Corporation for National and Community Service. That program, too, has been flatlined for more than 3 years. When we talk about national and community service, let me just say what it is. This corporation makes grants to States, institutions of higher education, and public and nonprofit organizations to create service opportunities. But most of all, one of its most significant programs is to have volunteers in communities. If you are an AmeriCorps volunteer, you get a voucher to reduce your student debt or to be able to use that voucher to either go to college, higher education, vocational education, or get yourself ready for the future. Essentially, it is an earned-learned service opportunity. I could ask the Senator from Alabama a series of questions but I will not. But if we are going to talk about $33 million, know that $5 million in this program is to continue the Points of Light Foundation established by President Bush which we have supported in a bipartisan way. It is also $18 million from the Civilian Conservation Corps. I cannot support cutting $18 million for the Civilian Conservation Corps. So $5 million, $18 million, and we are up to $23 million. I really do not want to cut Points of Light. I really do not want to cut the Civilian Conservation Corps. Then there is $43 million for school-based and community-based service learning. I think we do need to teach values. I do think we need to teach habits of the heart, and service learning is one of the most important ways we could do that. The benefits in my State, my State of Maryland, show that when students have participated in volunteer services as part of the requirement to graduate from high school, they have been forever changed by the fact that they worked in a library, visited senior citizens, helped in a soup kitchen and did a whole series of other things. Mr. President, tonight is not the night to extol the virtues of the Corporation for National and Community Service, but it has served the Nation very well. It, too, has been flatlined. I will just conclude by saying this. There is a program in Baltimore, it is an old convent called St. Stanislaus Convent right down the street from where I lived in a neighborhood called Fells Point. It has been recycled where Catholic nuns and AmeriCorps volunteers are working with children from very poor families--really out of the public housing projects. Because of what the AmeriCorps volunteers bring, they recruit other volunteers to help the sisters be able to educate these children. When we talk about exploring the future, we have to get behind our kids to make sure that our kids have the skills that they need to get ready for this future. And what AmeriCorps does in many ways is that the very volunteers work in public education, work to be able to recruit people for an American roots program, and gets them ready for the exciting opportunities that we have. So while we want to go into space to explore--I want to make sure we look for yet unidentified planets--I want to make sure we have those programs that make sure that we get our kids ready to be able to work in these science and technology programs. And I believe the AmeriCorps program helps do that. And, therefore, I urge rejection of the Sessions amendment.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending Kerrey amendment be laid aside for not more than 5 minutes, and that the Senator from Montana offer his indemnification amendment, and that at the conclusion of that amendment we return to the amendment of Senator Kerrey.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Hope springs eternal, as does this evening.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Is that his hope?

Ms. MIKULSKI. I thank my colleague.

Ms. MIKULSKI. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 3196 (Purpose: To require entities that operate homeless shelters to identify and provide certain counseling to homeless veterans)

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I am proud to concur with Senators Cleland and Bond on this amendment. It will increase by $13 million the amount for the homeless grants for the VA. Nobody who fought to save our country should be out on the street. These men have borne the permanent wounds of war, some of which have caused deep-seated emotional problems--unable to find a job. What I like about the VA homeless program is, it not only provides a shelter but tries to get them focused on starting a new way of life. We have an outstanding one in Maryland. I am proud of it. And I look forward to accepting this amendment and say hats off to try to give the vets a new lease on life.