Barbara Mikulski

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. 5182 (Purpose: To require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to convey certain real property to the City of Tuscaloosa, Alabama)

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I support the Bond amendment, even though my State, my city of Baltimore got an empowerment zone. We think we met the test. I still support the amendment. We believe that there should be public notice. It was part of a reform. We believe that public notices act in the public interest. It is as straightforward and as simple as that. I urge the adoption of the Bond amendment and the continuation of existing policy.

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 in support of the Bond amendment. I do it because it is the right thing to do at this time. It starts to address a serious problem with our public housing. A large number of section 8 multifamily housing projects are subsidized by rents that far exceed the fair-market rent in the area. In fiscal year 1997 alone, HUD estimates there are 40,000 units whose contracts will expire at rents over 120 percent of the fair-market rent. But Mr. President, this is not just an issue of numbers and statistics. This is an issue about real Americans and real lives. If we take the do-nothing approach, American taxpayers will continue to have their hard-earned tax money wasted by paying excessive rents. The Government can't afford to pay these excessive rents indefinitely. If we take a strong-arm approach and try to force owners to lower the rents and we reduce subsidies, we risk massive defaults. In addition to the massive multibillion-dollar costs to HUD and the administrative burden it would cause the Agency, it could lead to massive resident displacement. Mr. President, we're talking about real people in real communities potentially being out on the streets. None of us wants to be a part of putting people on the streets and increasing the homeless problem in our Nation. We as a nation are better than that. The residents deserve better and so do their communities. I support the effort to begin addressing the problem. We must ensure that while we do so, we don't create hollow opportunities, don't create a generation of slum landlords, and don't create a new liability for the taxpayers. We don't want to just address the problem, we want to solve it--with creative and effective approaches. This amendment is not a perfect solution, but it is a start. It allows HUD to negotiate with landlords of oversubsidized projects with contracts expiring in fiscal year 1997. HUD will seek to bring the rents of units over 120 percent of fair-market rent in line with the market rate where the units are located. This amendment begins a process that we must continue to work on during the coming year. Some will voice concerns that this amendment goes too far, others will say it doesn't go far enough. Mr. President, we must not make the perfect the enemy of the good. A modest beginning is better than no beginning. We can't afford to ignore the fact that over 750,000 units with subsidy problems are in the pipeline. The time to act is now. We can't afford to delay any longer. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment. Mr. President, I just want to say this. This is not just an issue of numbers and statistics, this is an issue about real Americans and real lives. If we do nothing, the American taxpayer will continue to pay excessive rents. If we take a strong-arm approach, we could risk massive defaults. I support this effort, because it absolutely begins to address the problem. We must ensure that in doing so we do not create a hollow opportunity for the poor, that Federal assistance does not generate a new class of sublandlords and new liability for the taxpayers. I believe the Bond amendment is the right approach that talks about real opportunities for the poor, provides a safety net so that these projects do not collapse, but we begin to bring this into discipline and really focus on a market-based approach. So, Mr. President, I support the amendment and urge its adoption.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Reserving the right to object, my staff has advised me that the majority leader's list did not include a Fritz Hollings amendment on HUD.

Ms. MIKULSKI. I will continue to monitor this situation and will do all I can to ensure taxpayer dollars are spent responsibly by the NSF and its grantees.

Ms. MIKULSKI. The decision by the Department of Commerce to initiate a formal investigation is an official determination that illegal dumping may have occurred. Furthermore, the letter written earlier by Secretary Joffe strongly suggests the possibility of dumping.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. I wish to bring to the attention of the Senator from Missouri that Senator McCain has changed the original amendment to actually improve it, I think substantially, and Senator Harkin of Iowa wishes to be sure it has no negative impact in terms of his State. We cannot agree to the UC until we get a signoff from Senator Harkin. So we cannot get consent to modify it.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I conclude in my opposition to the Bumpers amendment by talking about the impact, what it would mean to both taxpayers' jobs and scientific innovation. Cost to terminate the station would erode any fiscal 1997 savings gained from cancelling the program. Termination costs are estimated at $700 million. The U.S. Government has invested $6.4 billion in the redesigned station and, for the most part, what the Bumpers amendment would do is essentially lose what we have already put in. Let's go to mission and employment. Termination of the space station would result in the loss of 15,000 highly skilled engineering and production jobs currently under contract, Mr. President, 15,000 jobs in Texas, in Alabama, and in other parts of our great country. In addition, 1,300 civil service positions directly supporting the space station would become expendable. A conservative multiplier effect in California, Texas, Alabama, and Florida estimates 40,000 jobs. We could talk about science impact, international impact, and the intangibles. Since its inception, the U.S. space program has driven science and technology. It has also motivated our young people to enter careers in space research, engineering, and has inspired the Nation. We all went to see ``Apollo 13.'' Apollo 13 was more than a movie. It was the whole Apollo program, the space station program. The Hubble telescope is inspiring young people to move in to study science and engineering, and whether they come or go in the space program, they are going to be fit for duty in the 21st century and inventing products we do not begin to think of. The long-term cutting edge, high-risk R&D is exactly what the United States of America needs. The investment NASA is making in breakthroughs in science and technology will make long-term economic growth possible. It is exactly this type of activity that we need in the United States of America. Right now in Desert Strike, we are using smart new weapons of war to bring a dictator under heel. I also want to see in the civilian area these new smart technologies that will generate jobs and keep our economy a 21st century economy. Therefore, we cannot approach it with a 19th century attitude or framework. Mr. President, that concludes my remarks. I yield the floor.

Ms. MIKULSKI. I claim those 4 minutes.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I understand I have yet 4 minutes.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Is that the concern the Senator has about the population changes and so on? We have discussed this. I believe the Senator in his steadfast way has represented that he would like to offer an amendment on another issue, and I think we could take it. Does the Senator from Missouri desire to acquiesce in that?

Ms. MIKULSKI. I appreciate the Senator's courtesy. If I might comment, first I want to reiterate my support for the IG report and for the general thrust of the Senator's amendment. I thank him for the courtesy of acknowledging the cost and the very nature of the geography of the State of Maryland with its 2,300 miles of shoreline. When it says ``small impact,'' that might be true with all of the continent, but Maryland is unique. I know the Senator from Missouri wishes to accept the amendment. I wish to cooperate. I wonder if our staff can see what we can do to ensure that the issue of marinas--that we get rid of waste, but yet I want to protect the small business guys that are named Buck and Harry. The Senator knows what I am talking about. So if I could have the concurrence, I look forward to working with the Senator. Again, I thank him for his courtesy.

Ms. MIKULSKI. For purposes of clarification, this Senator knows full well that the Senator from Arizona is a graduate from the Naval Academy, and knows essentially the issues around the Chesapeake Bay. I am very sympathetic to the Senator's desire to implement the report of the IG. I have another flashing light about the marina issue. Let me ask a few questions because the Senator knows from his time on the bay that we have 2,300 miles of shoreline with many marinas, and they are the small businesses, kind of general stores along the water. Some are higher income persons, as the Senator said. But a lot of them are owned by people named Buck, and this is what keeps them going. My question is about the consequences of the Senator's amendment. Is the prohibition limited only to publicly owned marinas, or does it include private sector marinas as well?

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, the Democratic leader has instructed me, on behalf of our side of the aisle, to, upon the completion of the Senator from New Hampshire's debate and his anticipated motion to table, that we agree to the unanimous consent that a vote occur at 2:15. We further agree that between now and the time we recess for party caucuses that Senator McCain will be speaking on his veterans amendments. And the Democratic leader also agrees to the unanimous consent that upon the completion of the vote on the Feingold-Smith motion, that we move to the debate on the space station as proposed by Senator Bumpers.

Ms. MIKULSKI. It said: I was . . . pleased to learn that animal care and welfare proposals . . . meet U.S. legal standards . . . and the [NASA] task force compliments . . . its leadership in bioethics [as well as its scientific merit]. So, when you hear from the Senator from Ohio, the Senator from Tennessee, the scientific community, I think the evidence speaks for itself. I know the Senator from New Hampshire wishes to conclude the debate on this, and that is his right. We respect that. I just ask unanimous consent that, when the Senator makes his tabling motion, the vote occur at 2:15. I will reel that right back in. Senator Bond and I were trying to expedite the vote. It is just a clarification of the time. Many of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle are flying back in. They may be delayed until afternoon, and I know they want to have their voices heard on this most important amendment.

Ms. MIKULSKI. I thank the Chair. I think we are about to move to the conclusion of this debate, and I think it has been an excellent debate. I think proponents of terminating the Bion Project are, indeed, well-intentioned people in the Senate, the Senator from Wisconsin, and the Senator from New Hampshire, and I think their sensitivity and concern about the sanctity of life should be acknowledged. It is exactly because of our concern about human life that many of us who are proponents of science and technology support well-regulated, well-monitored, well-thought-through and necessary animal research. The issue of animal research is not new to this Senator. As a Senator from Maryland, I not only have the honor of representing one of the primary space centers in the United States, Goddard, but I also represent the National Institutes of Health as well as Johns Hopkins University and the University of Maryland, all of which engage in very strong scientific research and, in many instances, do use animal testing in their protocols. So as someone who believes that we need to have scientific breakthroughs to save lives, whether it is at NASA or NIH, I do believe we do need to have animal research in life science projects. I am not alone in that view. We have heard from a Senator-astronaut, Senator Glenn, from Ohio, who, as we know, was the first astronaut- Senator to orbit the Earth, and I think Senator Glenn is alive today because the first lives to go into orbit were monkeys and we knew how to deal with gravity, how to deal with oxygen, how to make sure that we could launch him and bring him back safely. We heard from the distinguished Senator from Tennessee, Dr. Bill Frist, a medical doctor, again talking about the compelling nature of doing animal research in order to be able to save human lives. Much has been said about this project, and I would like to use this opportunity to engage in a factual conversation. Just to go over some of the facts, I would like to bring to my colleagues' attention that Bion 11 and Bion 12 are two cooperative United States, Russian, and French space flights and they are scheduled to go up October 1996 and July 1998 using Russian Bion biosatellites. Now, Bion spacecraft are satellites that do not have crews on them, so this will be unmanned. They were developed by the Russians, and they fly biological experiments with, yes, primates--rodents, insects, and plants--in near Earth orbit. In very general terms, the major objectives of these biosatellite investigations are to study the effects of low gravity and space radiation environment on the structure and function of individual physiological systems and the body as a whole. Understand, this is not the space shuttle with monkeys on it or rodents or insects or plants. These are 8 feet in diameter. They carry a 2,000-pound payload. We have had about 10 of these since 1973. What we are talking about here are 10 monkeys that were on previous Bion missions that were recovered. In the Bion protocols the monkeys are actually recovered. Also, Bion protocols do not include the sacrifice of monkeys. So we are not talking about ghoulish, Kafka, grim practices here. We are talking about research, done on mammals, that has been adequately scrutinized for protecting the animals. First, the experiments have been peer reviewed four times for their merit. So, no, these are not just idle experiments. They have been reviewed on many occasions for their scientific merit. The whole point of their scientific merit was to ensure we were getting a dollar's worth of research for a dollar's worth of taxpayer dollars. And, was there another way to do this research on Earth? The answer came back resoundingly that this was valid scientific research and it was worth the money and it was worth the effort. These protocols are evaluated and monitored for humane treatment of animals. Prior to the external peer review by a group called the AIBS, a scientific group, there was a prerequisite for funding in which the proposals needed to be reviewed by the sponsoring institution's internal animal care and use committee. This is in accordance with the Animal Welfare Act, that every institution that conducts research with Federal funds must have an animal care and use committee, it must include a veterinarian, a scientist, an ethicist, and so on. So, again, it was not ``let's put a bunch of monkeys or rodents in space and put electrodes on them and see what happens.'' All of the scientific protocols were used to ensure the Animal Welfare Act was honored and was practiced on this project. I knew there would be reservation because this was done by the Russians. We are not in the cold war, so that is not the issue. But, frankly, one of the characteristics of the Russian space agency was the astronauts were known for their incredible bravery. It was an endurance contest. Often, their work focused on endurance test research. What ours is, though, is more about how we can protect astronauts in space, but also learning from life science projects that would study these biological effects that would protect people here on Earth. What I am told is that NASA is gathering data on bone mass, muscles, bone structure, healing in space, osteoporosis--something of tremendous interest to me--and so on. This research is leading to enormous medical advances. This benefits you and I and other Americans. We hope to save young children because of Bion research. We are helping to protect women from debilitating bone disease, particularly osteoporosis. Let me share a few examples. The Bion Project has enabled scientists to study the cause, treatment, and prevention of spinal cord injuries in space by using this primate research. The Bion Project has also produced data on fluid and electrolyte balance. This has tremendous impact on research for people with kidney problems on kidney dialysis. Often, people get sick not only because their kidneys are in failure but because of the failure to maintain an electrolyte balance. It has also looked at the generation of new blood cells and the whole issue of immunology. It is related to cancer research. We could give many examples of this. One of the things I think has also been very important is, because of the technology to monitor the primates, we have also been able to improve other monitoring systems-- for example, on fetal health, which I know is of great interest to many of our colleagues. The 8 joint Bion missions to date have produced access to space for 100 U.S. experiments, 90 peer review journals, and has accounted for one-half of all the life science flight experiments accomplished with nonhumans. According to NASA, similar unmanned satellite programs developed by NASA alone, without Russian support, would cost 20 to 30 times as much. It is not our job to review the project for scientific merit. In fact, that has been established. It has been reviewed four times for that merit. I believe we need to ensure the ongoing part in this. Ames Research Center has an excellent animal care program, as demonstrated by its full accreditation by the Association for the Assessment and Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care International. This is a nonprofit organization that reviews animal research around the facilities to make sure they are fit for duty and humane in their operation. So I think this project is of merit. I think we should continue it. I do not think we should cancel it. Earlier in the conversation, someone talked about the OSTP, the President's Office of Science and Technology. They also do support the project. I have a letter here from Dr. Gibbons stating that. I ask unanimous consent that be printed in the Record.

Ms. MIKULSKI. I thank the Senator.

Ms. MIKULSKI. While the Senator from Utah is speaking, perhaps we can talk with the leaders about how they wish to handle the vote. I believe the Democratic leader wishes it to be after the conference.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Must the vote occur immediately, or could it be delayed after the party conferences?

Ms. MIKULSKI. Yes, because, as I understand it, when the motion to table is made, isn't the vote immediate?

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I bring to the Presiding Officer's attention, and to my colleagues' in the Senate, I believe we are moving at a good pace in this debate. I see on the floor our colleague from Tennessee, Dr. Frist, who wants to speak on this. I do, as well. I encourage anybody else who wishes to speak, to please come to the floor so we can move to concluding this debate before the respective caucus. I think this has been an outstanding discussion.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Will the Senator withhold for a second?

Ms. MIKULSKI. I think that is a very good way to proceed. Hopefully, we can conclude this before 11:30 and then be able to move to the Iraqi amendment, so when we come back after the conference we can dispose of both of those and be then ready to continue to move the bill. That is kind of the way I see it.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. I thank the majority leader for his very kind words about the way we have tried to move the bill. We, too, urge our colleagues to come over, particularly those who now have an amendment that they wish to bring to the floor. We were open for business yesterday, did 4 hours of very good, yeoman work. I think both sides of the aisle want to move the bill. We would like to concentrate on the major amendments, space station and veterans health care, and if others would just come over and discuss them with us, we believe we can iron some of them out and move ahead. I thank the leader.