Barbara Mikulski

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Wellstone amendment and am an enthusiastic cosponsor of it. I come to the Senate floor as a professionally trained social worker. I have been through seven welfare reforms in my career, both as a social worker in the streets and neighborhoods, and now in the corridors of the U.S. Senate. When we talk about reforming welfare, we want to make sure that welfare is not a way of life but that it is a tool to move to a better life. Over the break I sat in a room in Baltimore meeting with welfare mothers who wanted exactly to move to a better life and who were practicing self-help. But the very cruel rules of government are going to derail their hopes, dreams, and practical opportunities. And what is that? They were enrolled in a community college program--one in business, one as an addiction counselor, and one doing prenursing courses to make sure they could get back to society and be able to give an income to their family. But they were told they had to leave the program. They had to leave the program and look for work rather than complete the program so that they could have jobs that were truly self- supporting and sustaining. Why were they told that? Not because of a callous social worker. We are not callous. But the rules of government said you can get some kind of temp training. You can get into a training program where you can get some type of training that might or might not take you to a livable wage. That is not what welfare reform is all about. Welfare reform is to end the culture of poverty. And yet the very rules that we now have reinforce the culture of poverty. We are not giving help to those who want to practice self-help--meaning those who want to go to school, stay in school, and learn the skills for the new global economy, whether it is in the service field, the nonprofit, or the private sector. The Wellstone amendment allows States, if they so choose--I happen to have the type of Governor who would be eager to have this--to allow these women to be able to go into a job training program or have 2 years of higher education. There are people--there are women now on welfare who because of a bad choice in marriage actually dropped out of college. They might be 18 credits away. If we could help them finish, they would be able to have a job with benefits and be able to lead, indeed, a better life. The Wellstone amendment is not about new rules. It is about opportunity. The other side of the aisle, and this side of the aisle, has said one of the most important functions of government is to create an opportunity ladder. This is what the Wellstone amendment does. It creates an opportunity ladder that doesn't necessarily take you to the top but gets you over the top. I support the Wellstone amendment. I want to compliment the Senator from Minnesota for his steadfast commitment to children, but to know that for the children, they need a parent who has the best social program, which is a job that pays a living wage. And this is the best way to get one. I look forward to voting for the amendment, supporting the amendment, and I look forward to seeing to it that those women I talked to are able to get on with their life while we get on with doing our job.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise today in support of S. 1882, the Higher Education Amendments of 1998. I commend my colleagues, especially Senators Kennedy, Jeffords, Coats and Dodd, for all their hard work in putting together a bi-partisan education bill to reauthorize the Higher Education Act. I congratulate you for producing a package aimed at the needs of our students in paying for college and getting a quality education. This bill truly helps us to get behind our kids and our students. It lays the groundwork for the future in working toward a strong economy by educating our citizens and future leaders. This bill contains may important provisions reauthorizing the range of student financial assistance. I support this bill for three reasons, in particular. First, it contains important provisions that expand our teacher training programs. Second, it increases the maximum amount needy students can receive under the Pell Grant program. Third, it encourages new teachers to serve elementary and secondary schools in low-income areas by providing loan forgiveness for their Stafford loans. Training our teachers is one of the most important steps we can take toward improving education today. Our children deserve to be taught by well-qualified teachers in every classroom. We need more teachers, but we need more quality teachers. That is why I cosponsored Senator Kennedy's and Senator Reed's proposals to provide grants to local partnerships for teacher training. I am happy to see that many of the provisions in these two bills were included in this legislation. These grants will be made to local partnerships and are designed to encourage the reform and improvement of education at the local level. Second, I am very pleased that this bill increases the amounts available to students for Pell Grants. This bill continues the historic commitment of our government to grant aid to the neediest students by increasing the Pell Grant to $5,000. Education should be an opportunity for all people, regardless of their financial status. Education should be both accessible and affordable. We have an obligation to make sure that every single citizen of our country has the chance to go to school, get an education, get a good job and a boost up the opportunity ladder. Third, this bill provides loan forgiveness for Stafford loans to teachers who choose to teach in elementary and secondary schools in low-income areas. It authorizes the Secretary of Education to repay certain loans made to borrowers who become full-time teachers for three consecutive school years in a high-poverty area. This section combines our commitment to a quality public education for all students with our commitment to also target the areas in highest need. It provides incentives for well-trained teachers to teach in areas that really need committed and well trained teachers. This bill helps ensure that we are meeting the needs of all of our students by targeting funds to those high need areas. Let me briefly mention two other provisions of this bill that are of special importance to me. I am very pleased to see that the Thurgood Marshal Legal Education Opportunity Program, legislation that I cosponsored with Senator Sarbanes, was included in the manager's package of this bill. This amendment will help qualified disadvantaged students gain admission to law school and help prepare them for their legal education. It identifies socially and economically disadvantaged law students and provides them with both financial and academic support services. This program has a 29 year record of assisting these disadvantaged students and I am proud to have been a strong supporter of this program. Mr. President, I would also like to thank Senator Jeffords and Senator Kennedy for including language in the manager's package that doubles the authorization of federal funds that do not have to matched by the Historically Black Colleges and Universities graduate programs. This will greatly help our HBCU graduate programs increase their quality of programs. It follows our important commitment to support our Historically Black Colleges and Universities. I am particularly happy that both HBCU graduate programs in my state at Morgan State University and Eastern Shore will benefit from this important amendment. Mr. President, this bill represents a real investment in the education of our youth. It represents, as it should, a bipartisan effort to ensure the quality and affordability of education for all. Education can and should be something that we can all agree on. We will all have to live in the future with the decisions we make now on education. We are responsible for our future, and that means we are responsible for making sure that our children are equipped to deal with the issues they will be facing.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise to support the Internal Revenue Service Restructuring and Reform Act conference report that is before us today. I supported the Senate bill in May and, although this report has unrelated items that should be debated on their own merits, I will support this conference report because it will change the culture of the IRS by focusing on customer service. This new culture will improve the way the IRS interacts with individual taxpayers, IRS employees, and tax-exempt groups. As we know from our constituents, the IRS has engaged in some horrible management practices. It has been rightfully described as an agency out of control. I am particularly furious about the documented harassment of taxpayers. In my state of Maryland, I have heard from many Veterans groups across the state and a volunteer fire company in Western Maryland about harassment at the hands of the IRS. Let me give you some examples. The Veterans of Foreign Wars and the American Legion Posts in my state have been systematically audited over the past five to six years because they sell drinks and food to members' guests. The Veterans groups tell me that their sign-in book was confiscated, people were subpoenaed, and IRS agents threatened to lock them up. Amazingly, the American Legion was told by the IRS that they could not hire an attorney or a CPA out of Post funds to help them with the audits! These Posts offer our vets fellowship, entertainment, and a place to bring their families for an affordable meal. Yet, their very existence has been put in doubt by the actions of the IRS. What is their crime? They sell drinks and food to their post members and their guests, a little beer and a little bingo and a lot of the IRS. Let me tell you, this has got to end. In Frederick County, the Emmitsburg volunteer fire company used ``tip jars'' to raise money to purchase a fire truck. The Frederick County Commissioners passed a local gaming law that makes it legal and less bureaucratic for non-profits like the fire company to place ``tips jars'' in local taverns by eliminating the need for county tax processors to get involved. However, the fire company was audited by the IRS and was told it owes close to $29,000 in back federal taxes because the money raised was not funneled through the local county tax authority in the customary manner. I find it very troubling that any of our government agencies would accuse the men and women who protected our country of being tax evaders and tax cheaters. I take much satisfaction that these methods will not be tolerated in the new IRS. After we pass this legislation, the IRS will be a more customer focused organization and will have a separate division dedicated solely to working with members of the tax-exempt sector, like our veterans groups and volunteer fire companies. Mr. President, I also want to recognize the hard work of many at the Internal Revenue Service. We need to recognize that most IRS workers are good, faithful employees, doing their best to serve the public. Many employees at the IRS are my constituents. I know that every day they go to work, do a good job, and then return to their families, their neighborhoods and their communities throughout Maryland. In light of all the negative talk about the IRS recently, I want them to know that I value their work as faithful employees and I thank them. I realize that the front-line employees of the IRS often receive little recognition and little thanks. It pleases me that this legislation will help the employees at the IRS make their voices heard, and to receive the updated technology they need to allow the cultural and technological changes to succeed at the new IRS. Finally, I wish to address what I consider to be a major abuse of the legislative process that I mentioned before. As we all know and are suppose to respect, the purpose of a House-Senate conference is to produce a report that irons out the differences between similar legislation passed by the two houses of Congress. It is not intended to be a backdoor, behind-the-scenes, under-the-table method of getting controversial items passed on popular bills. There are two such provisions included in this conference report today and that's why I supported Senators Dorgan and Murray in their efforts to recommit the conference report back to conference. The first goes against one of my principles for maintaining our robust economy. I believe that we should reward patient capital. We should discourage the two-hour investments in hot IPOs and encourage the two-year or longer investments in start-up biotech firms that are important for our new global economy. That's why I was pleased that the 1997 Taxpayer Relief Act included a lower capital gains rate for assets held for 18 months or longer. I am disappointed that this IRS reform conference report includes language that will remove that important economic incentive. The other provision that was inserted in the legislative darkness was a backdoor way of preventing serious debate on technical corrections to the ISTEA legislation. Many of us in the Senate are concerned because the ISTEA bill deprived our Veterans of important benefits. It was agreed that these benefits should be restored in a corrections bill. However, the leadership thought it would be best to include these ``corrections'' in this conference report, where they can't be amended. But our veterans will be harmed by this backdoor strategy and I will join with my colleagues to restore these benefits to our honored veterans who served their country. Mr. President, I am very pleased this conference report to restructure the Internal Revenue Service has arrived. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation so that every American taxpayer is treated with respect and dignity when dealing with the Internal Revenue Service.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I acknowledge the validity of what Senator Bumpers has raised about cost overruns, and I also raise the validity about what Senator Bumpers has raised with NASA over the fact that the cost overruns in the space station could lead to raids on other well-managed NASA programs. To that end, working on a bipartisan basis with our colleague from Missouri, the chairman of the subcommittee, we established a separate account dedicated solely to the space station to create better accountability and financial management of this program and transparency in terms of the total cost of what the International Space Station is. So it is not a million bucks here, 100 million tucked in over here, and so on. We are going to have a separate account providing accountability and transparency. I would like to continue with my arguments, but we have reached a time agreement. I temporarily yield the floor to my colleague from Missouri so he can propound his unanimous consent request. I ask unanimous consent to return to speaking on the amendment.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Thank you very much, Mr. President. I believe this amendment is a choice between the future and the past. We must be willing to embrace science and technology, to take the bold risk in scientific endeavors of the future like the space station. Investments in science and technology will be determinative of the 21st century in what nations will continue to lead the world. I do not want the American century to come to a close without a continued commitment to science and technology. We must use American ingenuity and know-how through this unique environment of the space station to tackle understanding of diseases or develop new techniques, like I just elaborated on a few minutes ago. Some will argue this type of research can be done more cost effectively on Earth. Other scientists will disagree because you cannot create a low gravity environment on Earth to perform many of these unique activities. One is microgravity research and providing better research in better pharmaceuticals, medical advancement to develop new materials to use on Earth, such as new fire resistant materials. My gosh, wouldn't our fighters have benefitted from that in Florida? Others might ask why this type of research cannot be done on the shuttle. The answer is we cannot rush the development of new technologies and science. If we did it on the shuttle, it means you would have 2 weeks maximum to be able to do it. I know no scientist working at my beloved NIH who could do research in 2 weeks, take a break, wait for another launch and go back for 2 weeks. One of the arguments we hear every year is space station-related costs and, sure, the space station does cost money, but the fact is that over $51 billion of the $96 billion discussed by Senator Bumpers is really related to shuttle missions, and those missions will fly whether we do the space station or not. One of the real questions, too, is what is the cost to the United States of America and its taxpayers if we do not continue or stay the course for the space station? We hear about the cost to maintain it and to build it. The actual work on the space station means 15,000 highly skilled engineering and production contract jobs supporting the space station. There are 35,000 contract workers and 5,000 civil servants who work on the shuttle, who is our major customer. This is a major employer. About 2,000 pounds of hardware have already been built for the U.S. station. What else do we lose? U.S. credibility with our international partners. Japan, Canada, and European Space Agency have all made this a truly international program. We have worked closely with the Russians. Like many, I am disappointed in the way the Russians have failed to deliver their promised technology on time, for which we paid. They have improved these actions, and I know President Clinton is moving on this. U.S. competitiveness can only be maintained by continuing the long- term, cutting-edge, high-risk research and development that we have done. I am not going to elaborate any further on what Senator John Glenn said. For all who are listening, we want to amplify that the space station is an important public investment and scientific breakthrough, where the very technology of doing the space station will lead to new breakthroughs in life science, information technology, and new kinds of materials--ceramic and so on--that will be very important to maintaining America's cutting edge. I reserve further time on my time for when we need to conclude our debate. I urge the defeat of the Bumpers amendment. Vote for the future and defeat the Bumpers amendment.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, how much time have I consumed?

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record these statements unsolicited from scientists who do both basic research and applied clinical research, not only on diabetes and Alzheimer's, but on many others diseases. I want their testimony to speak for itself.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I, too, rise in opposition to the Bumpers amendment to strike the funding for the space station. We have heard, prior to Senator Bond's speech, from a distinguished American. Senator Bond is also a distinguished American, but Senator Bumpers, the Senator from Arkansas, has really raised very important and significant flashing yellow lights regarding the space station. He has raised questions related to the funding of the space station; also, as to whether we are getting our money's worth in terms of research, wouldn't it be better deployed in other areas? And he has consistently raised many of those questions over the years. The result of that has been that, while he has not always won his amendment, he has certainly won our attention, that of those on the Appropriations Committee, and the attention also of the space agency itself that has resulted, I believe, in greater management efficiencies and a greater focus on specific research outcomes than would have been the case had those important issues not been raised. Senator Bumpers has been a champion particularly in the area of health care and medical research. I remember when I first arrived in the Senate, he was the leading advocate to make sure we had adequate immunization for the children of the United States of America, and what is now a standard public policy he raised and he supported, and we thank him for that. He also speaks eloquently of the funding for the National Institutes of Health, and I, too, join him on that. I hope by the year 2000 or thereabouts, in the new century, we double the funding for the National Institutes of Health, an agency that resides in my own State but really belongs to all of America and really benefits the entire world. I feel so strongly about the benefits that could be derived from the collaboration between NIH and NASA that I encouraged then Administrator Goldin and the Director of NIH then, Dr. Bernadine Healy, to really develop joint research projects. And they actually entered into a memorandum of agreement that stands today to ensure collaborative research in that area, a great deal of which is being manifested in the space station research arena. So, we thank Senator Bumpers for the yellow flashing lights that he continues to signal to the committee. We thank him for his steadfast advocacy for biomedical research. And we want to thank him for his important contribution. However, having then said those accolades, we do not want his amendment supported. I think another wonderful American, Senator John Glenn, has outlined very clearly and extensively why we should continue to support Space Station Freedom. I would not duplicate, but hope to amplify, Senator Glenn's remarks. I recall I was a young social worker when Senator Glenn himself had just finished orbiting the Earth looking for these important scientific breakthroughs, and I think of the year 1968 when we also orbited the Moon and our astronauts read from Genesis in space to remind us all of our link between here, the planet Earth, and outer space. I also remember that many Democrats, members of my own party, ridiculed the whole effort to go to the Moon and to take that ``one giant step for mankind.'' In fact, one Senator from Minnesota at that time called it ``moondoggle.'' No one looks back on the success of that endeavor, what it meant to our country both in terms of national prestige and scientific breakthroughs in that era of the cold war, and no one would call that program, now, ``moondoggle.'' I hope we will not also just dismiss, in the same way, Space Station Freedom. This endeavor was begun under Ronald Reagan, sustained under President George Bush, and continues to be supported by President Bill Clinton. But it is not only the Presidential support that gives this program validity, it is also the support of the scientific community. I would like to bring to the committee's attention the Nobel laureate, Dr. Samuel Ting, who has played a major role in developing much of the research on the space station. Another Nobel laureate, Dr. Herbert Hauptman, has addressed the Biomedical Research Caucus of Congress on the value of orbital research for biomedicine. Dr. Michael DeBakey of Baylor Medicine said: The space station is not a luxury any more than a medical research center at Baylor College of Medicine is a luxury. Since 1992, NASA has signed 20 different cooperative agreements with NIH. The National Academy of Sciences has repeatedly expressed its support for research on the space station. The Planetary Society supports it. The American Medical Association has adopted a resolution in support of it. The Society for In Vitro Biology hosts an annual workshop on what culturing cells in microgravity will mean. Who knows what breakthroughs we will find? I have five pages of quotes from different deans and professors of medical schools from all over the United States of America in support of this. They range from MIT, to Harvard Medical School, to the Harvard Institutes of Medicine; Brigham and Women's Hospital. I could go on about it. Let me quote Dr. Jessup who heads up the Deaconess Hospital, Harvard Medical School: The space program offers a chance to improve out models of cancer and to develop new drugs and treatments as well as to gain knowledge about how cancer spreads . . . The space station is the place to do it. Mr. President, my family was affected by two major diseases: Alzheimer's and diabetes. My very dear father died of Alzheimer's, and I am deeply committed to continuing the research to find either the cure or the ability to stretch out the intellectual ability for anyone who has it. My dear mother was stricken with diabetes and overcame her in her final years and resulted in her death. What I think about now, as I listen to scientists brief us on what this means, is it is outstanding, in those two areas, and what it will mean. Let me tell you about what Dr. Ken Kosik of the Harvard Institute says: By raising rats in an environment that lacks gravity, we have the opportunity to zero in specifically on the brain system that controls orientation. This brain system is exactly the part of the brain attacked by Alzheimer's disease. We will use the rats to search for the specific molecules which fail to appear in the brain circuits controlling orientation. And this could lead to incredible breakthroughs in knowing how to help those who have Alzheimer's or a propensity to it. I have a quote from a letter from Dr. Jim Mulvihill, the president and CEO of the Juvenile Diabetes Foundation International encouraging the support of the space station because of what it will mean. Dr. Murray Loew, member of the Juvenile Diabetes Foundation, Lay Review Committee, at Georgetown says: Although it may not be immediately apparent, persons with diabetes and astronauts share some of the same challenges. Consequently, NASA and the Juvenile Diabetes Foundation last May signed a joint Space Act Agreement so that both organizations can together begin fully sharing informa- tion . . . And research in juvenile diabetes, there are links here to do this. I could elaborate on this, but I turn to my colleague from Missouri, and ask him if the time agreement is ready.

Ms. MIKULSKI. If we are going to rotate time, I know that the Senator from Ohio had a few minutes that he wanted to use. I yield the Senator from Ohio no more than 5 minutes for his comments.

Ms. MIKULSKI. I expect it, too.

Ms. MIKULSKI. That is correct. If the Senator will withhold a second, I wish to advise the Chair that I will leave the floor and delegate my authority to Senator Glenn until I return.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, if the Senator will withhold, a question to the Senator from Arkansas: Will he yield back the time, or is he going to use it all?

Ms. MIKULSKI. It will be called the ``Bumper crop.''

Ms. MIKULSKI. There is no objection.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to an outstanding young Maryland woman, Jenny Chuasiriporn. Yesterday, Jenny, a 20-year-old amateur golfer, placed second in the U.S. Women's Open following a ``sudden death'' round with the ultimate winner, Se Ri Pak. Although Jenny did not place first in the U.S. Women's Open, she won a place in my heart and in the hearts of many others. Jenny Chuasiriporn is a senior at Duke University and is from Timonium, Maryland. Her pursuit of excellence in golf is truly a family affair. Her 21-year-old brother, Joey, was her caddy and coach. Her parents were also at the Blackwolf Run Golf Course in Wisconsin to cheer on their daughter, having closed up their family business, the Bangkok Place restaurant on York Road, to be with her. Now, I will be the first to admit that I do not share much with Jenny in regard to the quality of my golf game. My golf handicap is pretty close to the height of the Washington Monument! But I do think I'm a pretty good putter. And I know from first hand experience that the game of golf takes an extraordinary amount of concentration and consistency to drive down the fairway, angle that chip shot, and putt slowly and surely. Jenny has that great concentration and consistency. She is and will be a great golfer. I, on the other hand, will stick with the Senate! Jenny also exhibited strong endurance. On Sunday, she hit a forty foot birdie putt that forced the tournament into a playoff round. After an 18-hole playoff round, the game was still tied between Jenny and Se Ri. Then the tournament went into what they call a ``sudden death'' round. It was the first sudden death round in the U.S. Women's Open 53- year history. Finally, on the second hole of ``sudden death'', Se Ri Pak hit an 18-foot birdie to win the tournament. But Jenny Chuasiriporn, the young Maryland amateur, had held on tight for five long days of golf and can surely call herself a winner. More and more Americans are turning to golf as a recreational sport. Jenny Chuasiriporn's game is not recreational. Hers is a game of hard work. Jenny and Se Ri went through weeds and water trying to win the tournament. That is not your typical Saturday afternoon golf game. Jenny played tough golf against seasoned professionals for five days, on the tough Blackwolf Run Golf Course in Wisconsin. That does not even count the endless hours she put in at school and home practicing for this day. She takes this game seriously and works hard at being the best. She went further in the 1998 U.S. Women's Open than any other amateur in 30 years. No one has done what Jenny Chuasiriporn did in 30 years. Once again Jenny, I pay tribute to your achievement, and your amazing concentration, endurance, and hard work. You make Maryland and our Nation proud.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, I wish to echo the request of Senator Bond. I say to all my Democratic colleagues, if you have an amendment, please let us know by noon tomorrow, preferably even by 10 o'clock tomorrow morning so we could have discussions with you and perhaps find other ways to resolve their, I am sure, very legitimate concerns. Also, we ask our colleagues to cooperate with us in a time agreement. There are many bills waiting to come to the floor. We have very few days left in July. We are ready to move our bill. I yield the floor.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, once again, we are on the floor to bring to the U.S. Senate for its consideration the appropriations on VA, HUD, and independent agencies. I thank Senator Bond for his very hard work and the bipartisan approach to producing this bill. I also acknowledge his professional staff and the collegial and cooperative way in which they have worked with my staff to bring this bill to the floor. It is this type of bipartisan effort that I think focuses on results, not rhetoric, meeting our obligations to important constituencies, like veterans and the elderly, and yet creating opportunities for people, like we are in FHA and VA mortgages, national service, and various other empowerment things we do. No one Member or party will get everything they want in this bill, but we do believe that this really does meet compelling human needs. Given the spartan allocation for the subcommittee and the need to make up cuts in programs, like housing for the elderly, I believe that this legislation is very solid. I strongly support it and encourage those on my side of the aisle to do so. This bill shows our commitment to both high touch and high tech. We have kept our high-touch commitment to our veterans and the elderly and the high-tech commitment to science in agencies like National Science Foundation, the space agency, and EPA. Let me talk a minute, though, just after the Fourth of July, about a constituency that truly does rely on the U.S. Senate for promises made, promises kept, and that is the veterans. The veterans of America rely on us, and I believe that Senator Bond and I have worked to scour every line item to be sure that the promises made to the veterans of the United States of America for their health care have been promises kept. This year, we will be funding veterans health care at the amount of $17.2 billion. That is ``b'' like in Barbara, not million, like ``m'' in Mikulski--$17.2 billion, and with the way we have been able to view the bill, this is a $200 million increase. Also, we want to improve VA medical research. The Veterans' Administration, through their excellent medical services, does an astounding amount of medical research, particularly the applied research that goes to hands-on clinical practice. In this budget, we have increased VA medical research by $38 million, to the tune of $310 million, and this will go to focus on research affecting aging populations, like Alzheimer's and Parkinson's, special needs of veterans, particularly those related to orthopaedic injury, surgical practice, and other improvements in clinical practice, to improve health care and shorten stays and not skimp. Also, as everyone here knows, as a champion of the women's health agenda, I wanted to be sure, working with Senator Bond, that we did not forget the men of this country. There is a special set-aside in here for research on prostate cancer, so that we can find a cure and we can find better early detection methods. We, the women of the Senate, as I know the Presiding Officer feels, want to show the men of America we are squarely on their side. I thank Senator Bond for going over this budget so that we could work to establish VA medical care, VA medical research, and also, at the same time, increase funding for something called veterans State homes. ``State home'' is an old-fashioned word. It comes out, really, of the Spanish-American War and out of World War I, where we had ``old-age homes'' for veterans. We are now at the end of the old century and moving to a new one, and State homes really now are long-term care and rehabilitation facilities for our veterans, but they are unique partnerships between the Federal Government and the State government, forming Federal-State partnerships to establish long-term care facilities, maximizing our dollars to operate it and even help build it, but State resources in purchases of land. This way, we stretch out the Federal dollar and the State becomes a stakeholder. I think this is a unique way of meeting the long-term care needs of our veterans population. While we were working to make sure promises made to the veterans were kept, we also, I think, had an excellent approach to the Housing and Urban Development Department. Particularly, I am impressed with the fact that we worked very hard, again, on a bipartisan basis in restoring the $489 million cut to elderly housing. HUD's elderly housing program is one of the more successful housing programs at the agency. It works with nonprofit organizations and faith-based organizations. The HUD 202 Program leverages those community resources that help provide safe and decent housing for the elderly and a sense of community in many communities around the country. The agency proposed close to a half-billion-dollar cut, and I am pleased that in the budget deliberation and now in our own appropriations, Senator Bond and I joined hands, joined forces, to make sure that we restored that cut so that the elderly of this country can have the 202 Program building housing for them and operating those programs. We also rejected with vigor the desire to take a substantial part of the housing for the elderly and convert that into vouchers. The Presiding Officer, I know, is on the Select Committee on Aging, and I know both in her home State of Maine and in her role in the Senate, she has been devoted to the cause of the elderly. She knows, as Senator Bond and I, that you cannot take an 80-year-old lady with a walker who is frail elderly and give her a voucher to go out in a community to find her own housing. Can you see her going up three flights of stairs with her voucher and her walker to see if the bathroom is fit for duty? We are not going to have the elderly of America going door-to-door with vouchers trying to find housing to meet their needs. That should be done through housing for the elderly, the 202 funding, housing for the elderly that is run primarily by nonprofit and faith-based organizations--Jewish charities and Catholic Charities in my own community. That is what the elderly want. Guess what? In this bill, we restored the $489 million, and I am really proud of the way we did that. In addition to looking out for the elderly, we wanted to look out for the young people of our community. We wanted to promote first-time home ownership. That is why we also looked at the FHA loan limit, recognizing that some parts of our country are very high cost. And we raised the FHA loan limit to $197,000 in high-cost areas and $108,000 in more modest areas. The administration proposed raising the limit to $227,000 for all communities. We believe that that is too high. We were deeply concerned about FHA foreclosures, that people would get into too much debt too early in their lives and end up not with an opportunity but with a heartbreak, and leaving the taxpayer with the liability. So we did not want heartbreak for the family and we did not want heartburn for the taxpayer. So we believe that this is a reasonable compromise, to raise it at this rate. It is critical that we ensure that FHA is able to meet the new market realities without setting ourselves up for this big buck unfunded liability in the event of FHA foreclosures. We also included language directing HUD to consult with Congress further before beginning its bulk sale of foreclosed properties. We do not want these houses to go at fire-sale prices or to end up adding blight to a community. We want to make sure that FHA is a tool for first-time home buyers, not a tool for neighborhood deterioration. We are also pleased that in this bill we really tackle the issue of brownfields. Brownfields funding is both in the HUD part of the bill as well as in the environmental protection part. The President requested $90 million for EPA's brownfields program. And $25 million of the request is provided for HUD's brownfields program. I happen to be a strong supporter of brownfields programs, and I think they are important tools to communities. They enable us to take care of areas that have a level of contamination and move them to clean up and redevelop them. My concern is that we will not get a Superfund authorization. And while we are waiting for Superfund funding--a great opportunity in our communities--brownfields that are not nearly as contaminated, with good gall and good appropriations, we can move brownfields to green fields, opening up opportunities for economic development. This then takes me to talking about EPA. Our bill provides critical resources for the Environmental Protection Agency at $7.4 billion. This is an increase of $51 million over last year. This is primarily in the areas of improving water quality, which are very important to a State like my own. It also includes last year's level of $1.5 billion for Superfund. This bill also contains money for State and tribal assistance grants, providing critical resources for States' efforts to maintain clean and healthy water. Madam President, water quality is absolutely crucial, and part of the funding is $20 million for the Chesapeake Bay program to continue our commitment to protect this natural resource. This Chesapeake Bay program was started by my predecessor, Senator Charles McC. Mathias, a distinguished Republican from the State of Maryland. Senator Sarbanes and I have kept that commitment. And we thank Presidents Ronald Reagan, George Bush, and Bill Clinton, and now the Republican leadership of this committee, for working to keep that commitment going. We were also hit by something called an algae bloom. Now an algae bloom in my State is called pfiesteria. I understand that the Senator from Maine, the Presiding Officer, has also been hit by algae bloom in her own State. We know Senator Faircloth and Senator Helms have had it in North Carolina. We have had pfiesteria in Maryland; you have had problems in Maine; the Louisiana Senators have had it. This algae bloom is now a national problem, and we have put over $37 million in the EPA budget to begin to do the water quality monitoring and the research so that we can solve not only our problem in Maryland, but we also look forward to working with our colleagues, like yourself, in really dealing with this, because this could destroy our waters and it could destroy our mutual economies. Again, we look forward to working with you. This $37 million we think is a very important step in research and monitoring and trying to get good science and the best practices from EPA and environmental agencies in this. I regret that this year we do not have the authorization for the Superfund. Year after year, people want to reauthorize the Superfund site on appropriations and leave it to us to solve a problem that the authorizing cannot. I join in agreement with Senator Bond that we need the reauthorization of the Superfund site before we can move ahead on this bill. I know the administration is looking at additional sites for us to be able to clean up while we are waiting for authorization. I talked to Administrator Browner, and I said, if you have the sites, show us the money and get us also the authorization so that we can see how we could move forward. In the area of science and technology, I thank the chairman for working to increase both the funding of the national space agency as well as the National Science Foundation. In addition to increasing funding for the National Science Foundation, I am particularly pleased with the increases in informal education programs that will be important and also those in K through 12. Now, why is this important? Because so much of getting our young people excited about science goes on through informal education programs. These are not spontaneous playground programs; these are structured afterschool activities. In my own State, they are going on in the Maryland Science Center, the aquarium. I wish you had been with me during the break. I was at something called the Christopher Columbus Center, a marine biotech center. We have second graders there every day from 9 until 2. They do science in the morning; they do reading in the afternoon; and they are so excited. And when they go back then to the classroom, they are going to be much more reading ready and they are going to be excited about science. And, by the way, I got to do a few experiments myself. In terms of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA has been doing an outstanding job. I think FEMA has been doing an outstanding job, and we provided $1.3 billion to the agency, $500 million over the request. We also have provided a modest amount for predisaster mitigation, which I hope, as the bill moves forward through conference, we can actually increase because of the approach to preventing disasters. In my own State, Allegheny County has gotten a $700,000 grant, and we have worked with the Corps of Engineers and the Governor. We are well on our way to protecting communities that normally are hit. Now, in this legislation also there is $9 million for FEMA to have resources to do the training necessary to prevent us from terrorist attacks due to weapons of mass destruction. Senator Bond and I are working to increase that funding. I know it started out even more spartan than this. But, Madam President, we really have to worry that the predators in the world--be they nations or terrorists--are really going to once again try to spread weapons of mass destruction on the United States of America. I know that the military is standing sentry, our intelligence agencies will give us the warning, but we need to look out for our civilian population. I think we need to have the type of training at the local level that we can be able to move in this bill. Let me also thank the chairman for including money for national service, which does provide the opportunity for so many people to volunteer in our own communities, at the rate of $425 million, last year's request. And let me close by saying there are two independent agencies--the Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation, which we funded at $60 million, that I think specific amounts of money are absolutely out there in poor communities and near-poor communities doing a good job. Also, our Consumer Product Safety Commission has gotten out of the rhetoric business under its able administrator Ms. Brown and really is giving much needed advice on consumer product safety. Most recently, she has been helping with the whole issue of a particular type of blanket which could cause the death of preschoolers. This is our bill. It goes from funding Arlington Cemetery and the Consumer Product Safety Agency, to protecting us against national disasters, to honoring our commitment to veterans, to protecting the environment, and promoting science. This is one of the most interesting and exciting bills and subcommittees in the U.S. Senate. I believe the chairman and I have done an outstanding job in trying to get real value for the taxpayer and for the Nation in this bill. I hope that this bill moves forward and that our arguments have been so compelling that there won't be any amendments and we can pass this bill by tomorrow afternoon. Madam President, I yield the floor. Mr. BOND addressed the Chair.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, I think this is an outstanding managers' amendment. I think it resolves several issues related to the Tuscaloosa Hospital, the American Battle Monuments Commission, as well as clarifying certain things with EPA. I am particularly gratified that we will recognize the differences of the environmental effects between animal fats and vegetable oils and petroleum oil. And I think this will be an important clarification for EPA to issue this commonsense differentiation. I have been at oil spills and I have also spilled some oil on my floor cooking those Maryland crab cakes, and I know the difference, and it will help EPA know as well. So I am prepared to accept the amendment.

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

Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, I am pleased to join with Chairman Bond in offering this FEMA amendment. As he has indicated, it provides an additional $8 million for the antiterrorist activities of FEMA, combined with a $3 million increase provided in the full committee markup. Now, this is really important. There are rogues, bums, and predators out there who want to destroy the United States of America. The United States of America can be attacked and it can be attacked by another nation by a weapon of mass destruction, or it can be attacked by an external terrorist, or even someone within our own country. What are weapons of mass destruction? They are, of course, nuclear weapons. They are, in addition to nuclear, chemical, biological, and even cybermanipulation. The issues around chemical and biological weapons present new and unique threats to the United States of America. I am fortunate to have two outstanding military installations in my State, Fort Detrick as well as Aberdeen, whose whole approach is to look into the research activities on what could be the possible weapons used against us, whether it be nerve gas or a despicable virus that could bring a city's population to its knees. We were concerned in our hearing and raised this issue. Mr. James Lee Witt, the head of FEMA, said he did need to have more resources. In President Clinton's speech at the U.S. Naval Academy, he said that he had directed the administration to undertake a concerted effort to protect our people in the event of biological or chemical weapons being unleashed either by a rogue state, an international criminal organization, or a terrorist group. The key elements of this directive are, for the first time, a civilian stockpile of antidotes and antibiotics, protecting the population by public health surveillance to detect biological or chemical agents, and analyzing the results of diseases. The President wants an additional $294 million to go to the Justice Department, the FBI, the Department of Health and Human Services, but certainly to FEMA. We support the FEMA request because it is very important. It is consistent with its overall mission. They receive tasking under the Nunn-Lugar-Domenici legislation that it protect us from all hazards, including weapons of mass destruction, and they need to do several things: They need to play an important role in coordination, and they need to do preparedness by working with States for planning and for training. It is not only planning--we are not talking about endless summers of planning--but actual exercises to prepare local agencies, from city fire departments to police departments to emergency medical personnel, on what will be the way to both contain the attack and contain the panic around the attack. If we are hit by something from a rogue state or from an international criminal organization, one of the first instances will be to contain the chemical attack or identify the biological one. But people will be scared, they will be panic-stricken. This is an unknown situation. It is FEMA's job to work with the civilian population around the preparedness to do this. We know that our colleagues in the Department of Defense, like at Fort Detrick, we know that the National Institutes of Health and FDA will be working on the antidotes and the vaccines to protect our civilian population. We believe that this amount of $17 million enhances the preparedness, which is to coordinate with the Department of Defense and the National Guard, with the Department of Health and Human Services, as well as State and local governments. DOD, except through the National Guard, doesn't have a relationship with State and local governments. They come in after the first responders. So these funds are very important in developing a new manual, in developing training in the State and local communities, particularly in the high-risk areas that we know would be targeted by rogue states, to deal with their predatory acts. We believe that this legislation will provide them with a downpayment to prepare. We have been so focused on moving FEMA from a cold-war agency to responding to the tremendous number of civilian natural disasters we have had, and they have done an outstanding job. We now have the infrastructure for them to respond to any risk that the United States of America faces. Now when the ugly head of someone like Saddam Hussein is raised or the ugly tentacles of international crime organizations try to do their predatory acts, we need to stand sentry with our military and our intelligence agencies. But for anyone who is thinking about doing harm in any way to the American people, know we are well on our way to being prepared. We are prepared now, so don't think, if you are listening out there on CNN, where Saddam Hussein is, don't think we are not prepared. We are prepared, but we are even going to be better prepared. So don't even think about doing it, because if you do, you will face us in return and know we will take any and all means possible to protect our people and we, the Federal emergency management appropriators, are ready to make sure they have the resources to begin the planning and the drills to protect our people. I support this amendment, and if there is no objection, I urge adoption of the amendment.

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 ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business to pay tribute to the recently deceased comptroller of the State of Maryland.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, I would like to echo for all staffs and Senators returning from the Fourth of July work period that we really would like to see a definite list of amendments to the VA-HUD appropriations bill so that when we take it up, we can move as expeditiously as possible.