Barbara Mikulski

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, this side not only has no objection to the amendment, we concur with it. It allows Charleston County and the city of North Charleston, SC, to merge for purposes of CDBG consideration. We think it will make the agency more effective and efficient. We support the Hollings amendment and really wish the people of Charleston Godspeed as they face Hurricane Fran. I urge the adoption of the amendment.

Ms. MIKULSKI. I share the goal of the Senator from Missouri to move in a well-paced way on this bill. I wonder, while we are waiting for the Democratic leader to come to offer his veterans medical care amendment, if we could have a quorum call and let us look at some of the amendments that maybe we could zip trip through once there is concurrence. Maybe while we are waiting for the Democratic leader to come we could actually dispose of some of those amendments. Mr. President, I note the absence of a quorum.

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

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise to support Senator Daschle's amendment. I join such groups as the American Legion, Vietnam Veterans of America, Veterans of Foreign Wars, and Disabled American Veterans in supporting this effort initiated by the President and spearheaded in the Senate by the minority leader. Senator Daschle's amendment seeks to help the innocent victims of a war fought long ago. Just as there are lingering psychological wounds from the war, there are veterans and their families who struggle with the lingering physical impacts every day. This amendment will provide health care and benefits to children of Vietnam veterans who suffer from spina bifida, believed to be caused by their fathers being sprayed with agent orange. I have a long record of fighting for our Nation's veterans. I have fought for adequate health care and benefits funding as both the chair and ranking member of the VA-HUD Subcommittee. I've fought to ensure vets receive quality of service and effective and accessible VA facilities. I also worked to make sure the VA provided the services especially appropriate for women veterans. I am determined that we never forget America's veterans. They fought to protect Western civilization, preserve freedom, and defend democratic governments. They fought overseas to protect those of us at home. I am determined that promises made must be promises kept. We must say thanks to vets with concrete actions, not just flowery rhetoric. Medals are nice, but the Nation has a responsibility to help veterans who risked their lives and returned home to find their lives and the lives of their children changed forever. The minority's leader's amendment reminds us that many Vietnam vets were exposed to agent orange. A March 1996 National Academy of Sciences report noted that exposure to that substance may cause spina bifida in veterans' children. The VA estimates that up to 2,000 children of Vietnam era veterans may be impacted. This amendment ensures that they would be provided appropriate health care and monthly benefits. And furthermore, this amendment is paid for. The minority leader's amendment includes an offset that more than covers the anticipated cost of these expanded benefits. While some would say this is an issue that can wait, and calls for further study, I say we really should not wait. We must not forget that spina bifida is an incurable disease that isn't going away for those affected. Those kids cannot wait one more year, for one more study. It may be easy for some of us to forget the war, or not to quite remember the war. For all of those who like to go into parades and talk about what they want to do to help the veterans, I believe that for many veterans who served in Vietnam, one of the ways we can show our respect is to make sure that children who have birth defects because of what their fathers were exposed to in Vietnam are protected. That is what the vets would like. They fought a war. We can call it a war. We should call it a war, and we should remember that. Yes, they want the GI benefits and, yes, they appreciate the VA medical care. But I know of no Vietnam vet that would not be proud of the fact that we looked out for their children. There is concern about the study. Some say the linkage between agent orange and spina bifida for children of the vets is too skimpy. But I want to bring out the fact that the law that was passed related to agent orange says that there only need be a positive association, not a definitively determined cause and effect. So the National Academy of Sciences shows that there is a positive association between agent orange and these children who have spina bifida. That is what Senator Daschle is standing on. We support him. We are supported by the VA and so many other groups. I hope when the Democratic leader offers his amendment, it is one of those that passes 99 to 0. We really don't need to make the children of Vietnam veterans subject of a heated debate on the floor. That outlines my thoughts in the area. If there is substantial debate, I anticipate that I may participate even further on this. I hope my colleagues will give this very serious consideration.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. I ask the Senator from North Carolina, is that adequate nonprofit clarification?

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I know that the Democratic leader has no reservations about a vote occurring. The majority leader is testifying and would like a short quorum call. I suggest the absence of a quorum, and I believe we should notify Members that a vote will be forthcoming.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the newborns' and mothers' health protection amendment. I am proud to be a cosponsor of this legislation. This amendment is about family friendly health care. It puts the care of mothers and babies before the financial interests of insurance companies. It puts into practice what we have always preached--to honor the mother and to defend motherhood. This amendment requires that insurance companies provide coverage for care for a minimum of 48 hours after a vaginal delivery and 96 hours after a caesarean section. It allows mothers and infants to be discharged earlier if there is appropriate follow-up care. This is consistent with the practice guidelines issued jointly by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists [ACOG] and the American Academy of Pediatrics [AAP]. What I like about this amendment is that what we explicitly state as our values, we implicitly practice in public policy and public law. What we do with this legislation is ensure that mothers and their babies receive the care that they need, that is deemed appropriate by their physicians. On both sides of the political aisle, we talk about putting families first. This amendment does that. It puts value on motherhood. This whole movement around providing care for 48 hours or 96 hours or whatever is medically appropriate came from mothers themselves. Then it was the movement of the extraordinary medical facilities that were willing to step forward and even defy the insurance companies. St. Agnes Hospital in my hometown of Baltimore insisted that they would provide this care if they had to do it out of a charitable endowment or if we all had to pitch in and do bake sales. St. Agnes took a stand-- they were going to assure that mothers and their babies got what they needed when they needed it. That resulted in the Maryland general assembly acting--and now I am proud to say that Maryland has a law that really mirrors in many ways what we are doing in the Federal legislation. So, I salute Senator Bradley for offering this amendment, but I also salute the mothers who organized, and the doctors and medical facilities who defied the insurance companies. I want to see managed care, but I don't want to see doctors managed. There is a fundamental distinction. We have to start getting our priorities straight and decide where we are going to be making our decisions. And in the case of newborns and their mothers--I believe decisions need to be made in the delivery room and not the boardroom. I urge support for this amendment.

Ms. MIKULSKI. We are very happy about the fact that this subcommittee that has so many wonderful agencies in it also funds emergency management. And right now, Senator Bond and I, in trying to decide how FEMA will meet its obligations, are also on those diets of finger nails, or any other one that might work, I might add. Madam President, I think the amendment offered by the Senator from North Carolina indeed has merit. The whole idea of getting drugs out of public housing has been something that we have supported for many years. When I chaired this subcommittee I had the good fortune of working with the Vice Presidential nominee, Mr. Jack Kemp, who was the Secretary of HUD, and now Mr. Cisneros, on a focused approach to get drugs out of public housing. It was always our belief that public housing should be a steppingstone to a better life and not to be an incubator for drug dealers. In the course of watching this effort develop, we were aware that there were certain gaps in the program. What were those gaps? That often the grand program to get drugs out of public housing was limited only to public housing, those horrendous, horrific high-rise public housing projects that often were tools of neighborhood destabilization rather than tools of empowerment. But also we saw something else, that where the Federal Government has subsidized housing in other areas, that they too have presented problems. In my own home State of Maryland, there was a project called Riverdale in a suburban area. And it was owned by the private sector. We thought, oh, gosh, this was going to be terrific. Get rid of all the issues in public housing. But what did we see? A scurrilous landlord who did not do maintenance, who did not work with the county in being able to screen the residents, did not use the section 8 subsidies to modernize, keep the building fit for duty. Guess what? It took on all of the trappings of the negative aspects of public housing, became poorly maintained, with neighborhood destabilization, and became an incubator of crime. There were no funds to help the local police department or whoever to really deal with this. I think that is wrong. And what I like about the Helms amendment is that it will include those entities that are Federally assisted, multifamily housing developments or other multifamily housing developments for low-income families, supported by non-Federal entities. That means that we will be able to make sure that whatever the Federal Government is involved with, we are going to make sure it is fit for duty, and fit for duty not only in terms of maintaining the physical structure, but, through the work of Senator Bond and myself, Senator D'Amato and Senator Sarbanes here, we now have something called ``one strike, you're out,''--``one strike, you're out''--which means that if you have been arrested for a criminal act, you were not going to stay in public housing or section 8. We are not going to subsidize criminal behavior if we are on the watch. We are going to get them out so that the poor people who want to see Federal help as a tool to be able to empower themselves to a better life--we want to help them, but we do not want to subsidize people who are part of the problem. We want to help people become part of the solution. That is why we like the conceptual framework of the Helms amendment. I must say, I have pause about creating an earmark in CDBG. The reason I like CDBG, otherwise known as community development block grant money, is because community development block grant money was to be a block grant, maximum flexibility, minimum micromanagement by the Federal Government, so that local governments could best decide how to meet their needs. The rural needs of Maine are very different than the bustling metropolis of Baltimore City in the Baltimore-Washington corridor. Who could do what? So at this time I do not think we should fuss about budget over that. I am going to support the Helms amendment here on the floor of the U.S. Senate. I will be happy to adopt it just on a voice vote. I understand the leadership from the other side of the aisle is considering the vote. First of all, to Senator Helms, I congratulate him on his thought-- and his staff--behind this. I think it is about time we start really thinking about how, when the Federal Government spends its money, the taxpayers feel satisfied, and we should be creating opportunities, opportunities for the poor to help themselves. I believe now with our strong, no nonsense zero tolerance one-strike-you-are-out approach combined with the grant program and the initiative of the Helms amendment, that we can start making sure anything that the Federal Government is involved in in neighborhoods is not a tool of neighborhood stabilization, but a tool of empowerment. I look forward to supporting this amendment by whichever vehicle is best to move it. I yield the floor.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, I would like to comment on the amendment offered by the Senator from North Carolina. And as we do, I sincerely hope that the people of North Carolina are spared any damage from Hurricane Fran. We know your cousins in South Carolina are bracing for some pretty heavy weather. And as another coastal State, we know what these things mean. So I just, in a spirit of cordiality and collegiality, want the people to know in the Carolina's that we, in Maryland, are worried about them and are thinking about them.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Will the Senator yield 1 minute to me?

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I see no discrepancy between the McCain amendment that we adopted last night and what Senator Harkin is doing. Senator Harkin is essentially doing a bridge and ensuring that those States that might have to make readjustments under the new plan that is being suggested can do so, which I voted for; I voted for McCain. But doing McCain without Harkin is going to send out panic in the Northeast-Northwest corridor. We want to have full-scale cooperation. We want to do the plan being suggested in an orderly, rational way. We don't need administrators doing damage control instead of patient management. I do not see the discrepancy. Senator Harkin's amendment is for 1 year, this fiscal year, providing the bridge, because the Veterans' Administration does not have a plan. This does not prohibit McCain from going forward in terms of the plan and giving us the report in 60 days, beginning to implement the 60 days. You can do that, but it is going to take a full year to do it. With all due respect to the VA, they are, at times, a bit sluggish. This will at least give a year. I see that as a bridge. I thank the Senator from Iowa. I support the McCain amendment, I support the Harkin amendment, and I support the veterans. God bless America.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise to support the resolution on Iraq. This resolution states the Senate stands with our troops, and our President, as they respond to Saddam Hussein's brutality. The President was right to act to contain Saddam Hussein's aggression. Saddam Hussein's actions threaten American interests and peace in the Middle East--as well as the safety of his own people. He must be taught that his reckless acts have consequences. He must pay the price for his brutal and immoral actions. The U.S. response is swift, specific and limited. The President responded swiftly and strategically after Iraq seized the city of Irbil in the Kurdish safe haven. Our objectives are clear and limited: to force Saddam Hussein to pay a price for his brutality and to make it safer for our pilots to patrol the no-fly zones in Iraq by destroying Iraqi air defense systems. To achieve these objectives, only specific military sites are targeted. We have already paid a great price to contain Saddam Hussein in Operation Desert Storm. If we ignore Saddam Hussein's latest aggression, he will only be emboldened to take further reckless actions that threaten our national interests--and the lives of his own people. Mr. President, my thoughts and gratitude are with our brave troops. They are once again called upon to stand sentry for those who would otherwise stand alone. The men and women of our Armed Forces have performed their mission with great skill and courage. I pray for their safe and swift return.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 5199 (Purpose: To require the conveyance to the City of Downey, California, of certain real property under the jurisdiction of NASA)

Ms. MIKULSKI. No objection.

Ms. MIKULSKI. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 5188, As Modified

Ms. MIKULSKI. No objection.

Ms. MIKULSKI. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 5201 (Purpose: To provide supplemental appropriations for veterans compensation and pensions for fiscal year 1996)

Ms. MIKULSKI. No objection.

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

Ms. MIKULSKI. The cooperative venture that the Senator from California has described is clearly the kind of information that we intend the Mission to Planet Earth to provide for our local officials to make real use of this invaluable data from space. We should support hazard reduction programs whenever we can in order to hold down cost of disaster in lives and property in the future.

Ms. MIKULSKI. I agree with the Senator from California that this biotechnology capability should remain within the United States. We have the experience that Japan cannot match in this arena and should not relinquish that capability.

Ms. MIKULSKI. I agree with my colleagues. These efforts are important as we expect a future of declining allocations. We must find ways to meet the needs of Federal programs in a balanced way. Particular attention should be paid to effective programs that give taxpayers the most bang for their hard earned buck.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, as we are just minutes away from the vote on four amendments and then final passage, I thank Senator Bond for his cooperation, respecting the voice of the minority, and for his very able staff and the way they worked with us; Senator Lott, who worked with us to bring the bill to the floor; to the Democratic leader for his advocacy for all of the issues in this bill, and for creating a framework where we could get many things done; and also to my staff for the excellent work that they did.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. We have no objection.