Barbara Mikulski

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Yes.

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 rise again this year in support of America's space program and in opposition to the Bumpers amendment that strikes the funding for the space station. How ironic it is, at this time of great space discoveries like the possibility of life on Mars, that my colleague wants to eliminate one of NASA's greatest programs. Once again, I will come to the defense of the American people who depend on the space station in so many ways. What do I mean? I am talking about jobs. Killing the space station is about jobs, and jobs in the United States of America. It is about putting people out of work or keeping people on the job, many thousands of men and women who work directly in the program or in factories that work on the space station itself. There are many thousands whose jobs result from the multiplier effect of the station's construction. Most are middle class, blue and white-collar workers who make family level wages, with health security, and we want to be sure that they have paycheck security, health security and can count on this job. They are the same kind of Americans who are already affected by military base closings. For my colleagues who insist we need a defense conversion strategy to deal with the end of the cold war, the space station is an opportunity to retain our high-tech manufacturing skills for a civilian economy. My opponent claims that commercialization as a result of the space station is not materializing. The 1993 National Association of Public Administrators committee report stated this: Through university-based partnerships with industry and government, and also through traditionally federally sponsored commercial space initiatives conducted at diverse NASA field centers, private investment in commercial space processing ventures has grown. So I urge my colleagues not to be lulled into thinking that killing the space station will not have a serious negative effect on our economy, the economy of the State of Alabama, and more important, on the lives of thousands of Americans throughout the entire United States, both in Alabama and in Texas. Also, let us fight for the space station for scientific value. One of the points raised by my opponent is there is little science of any value that will be done aboard the space station. Quite the contrary: The science proposed for the space station cannot be accomplished on Earth. The space station science requires access to very low levels of gravitational force, and it must be sustained. It is technologically impossible to create a low-gravity environment for this type of research without going into space orbit. The thinking behind the Bumpers amendment is the same kind of thinking that would stifle our understanding of bacteria and germs that cause disease. It is that kind of philosophy that would have stopped Madam Curie from discovering radium, from which the field of radiology developed, or Jonas Salk from finding the cure for polio. With technology being developed for the space station, scientists are already beginning to understand how cancer cells form in the human body, and they can do so because of a zero-gravity environment which permits them to grow tissues just like they are growing in the human body. What does that mean? We can actually simulate tumors in a way we could never do here on Earth. For those who say, ``Do not give it to NASA, give it to NIH,'' there is a joint agreement between NASA and the National Institutes of Health, just on this exact same kind of life science research. This type of research has produced important microgravity research findings. This is particularly so in the area of protein crystal growing. No other lab on Earth can simulate that kind of tissue growth. Other labs must contend with the distorting factor of gravity. What does the absence of gravity mean? It will allow the kind of research that produces new insights into human health and disease treatment, like heart and lung functions, cardiovascular disease, osteoporosis, immune system functionings, and so on. The other reason we support the space station is because of technological innovation. The space station is not only about science, it is about technology development. By the mere fact of building the station and by the mere fact of doing medical and life science and crystal development, in order to do the research we have to develop new technology. That can be medical equipment technology, mineralization techniques, and a whole series of other things. That has been the history of NASA. Also, let us be clear, the space station is about the entrepreneurial spirit that has been at the heart of our country's aerospace industry. In the history and development of ideas, there are always the naysayers who say let us stick with the status quo. But we can do better. Through history it has been bold people with entrepreneurial ideas, backed up with resources, that invented new technology that led to new products that led to new jobs that has made the United States of America an economic superpower. We are an economic superpower because of our scientific and technological development. In high-technology innovation, the United States has always led the way. U.S. competitiveness can only be maintained by long-term, cutting-edge, high-risk research and development. So I will continue to fight for the space station, both for what it represents now and what it represents in the future. I will vote no on Bumpers and yes for America's space program for the 21st century. I yield back such time as I might yet have. Mrs. HUTCHISON addressed the Chair.

Ms. MIKULSKI. I can only yield Senator Bumpers' time. Actually in behalf of the opposition to my position, I will graciously yield to one of the great Senators 5 minutes.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. We can't agree to a modification until we know what the modification is.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Absolutely.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. To the Senator from North Dakota, the Senator first of all is right; we use a vocabulary nobody understands, like ``mark-to- market,'' ``soft seconds,'' and all of that. It is part of budget speak and one of the reasons the American people cannot follow much of the debate. The language of Washington is not the language of everyday people nor the language of everyday mortgage speaking, and so on. So I want to acknowledge that. Let me first explain to the Senator what ``mark-to-market'' means. It is really called multifamily portfolio reengineering. It is a program designed simply to refinance the FHA-insured project base, meaning that it is the actual building. Section 8 assisted multifamily, meaning more than one family lives in it. It is private sector housing. It is not public housing. The Senator is right. It was a program created during the Nixon era and worked, but every good intention got layered on and now we are in a situation where there is a tremendous possible liability to the U.S. Government if these mortgages go into default. If so, it is like a mini S&L crisis. What we are all trying to avoid, including working with the Clinton administration and Secretary Cisneros, is that. There is no answer. So what we are doing is providing the flexibility for refinancing and restructuring. If you are a lousy landlord, you are going to be pushed out. They will not renew it. We are all in kind of this quagmire. This demonstration project is providing flexibility to the local government. But let me come back to what the Senator says, how he needs to understand this. I want to understand it, too. The best explanation, quite frankly--and I mention it for the Senator's staff--the Baltimore Sun in a column called, ``The Perspective,'' August 18, had an exceptional article done by John Barth, who was the chief economist at the Office of Thrift Supervision during President Bush, and Robert Litan, who is the director of economic studies at Brookings. He goes through what this time bomb is, and it is a time bomb, including a variety of the options that we have at our disposal. There are none that are easy. There are none that are simple. There are none that are cheap. So what we are in the process of doing with the Bond amendment is beginning the process of getting our hand around it. Now, I could go through item after item after item on tax consequences, and so on. But I do not know that it would serve the Senator, and also perhaps we could get this even Xeroxed because we will be debating this tomorrow. But one thing the Clinton administration agrees upon, and I believe the Republican Caucus as well as our side, is this is a time bomb, and where ultimately we might go to vouchers or some other thing, right now we have this, and we will be faced with this I would say for the next 3 to 5 years. I know this because of a problem in Maryland where the guy took the section 8 money, did nothing on maintaining it. HUD, Maryland HUD, preferred sitting in an air-conditioned office rather than going out standing sentry on these projects, and now this guy is walking away from it. I have an IG report on it. I cannot go into it in more detail. So you have the bums like what I had in Riverdale, in Maryland, and then you have others that got into it--well-intentioned, aging projects, section 8, tax credits--but now they cannot continue to pay that rent and so they say, ``Whoops, we are now caught. How can we work it out?'' And the Bond amendment is how to deal at the local level with landlords, owners who are ready to deal in good faith so we do not place the tenants in jeopardy and we do not place the taxpayers in jeopardy. It is the beginning of a process, and the only tool we have is to restructure these mortgages and to begin to kind of phase them out. Will the Senator characterize that as accurate? Mr. BOND addressed the Chair.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I support Senator Bond's amendment. It starts to address the serious problem with section 8. A large number of housing projects, or housing programs, are subsidized by rents that far exceed the rent in a given area. In 1997 alone, over 2,100 of these section 8 contracts with nearly 132,000 units will expire. The Government cannot afford to continue paying these excessive rents indefinitely. This is almost like a Ponzi scheme, which is to come on in and get an FHA mortgage to build it. But in order to sustain the mortgage at inflated rents so you don't default, you need section 8 contracts. Well, we are heading for a financial disaster in three ways. No. 1, this could become an incredible taxpayer liability if all this begins to cascade in default. No. 2, we cannot continue to pay rents above market value, nor should we. No. 3, what we find is that we have an incredible number of these section 8 contracts coming due over the next 3 to 5 years. We must get a handle on the problem. Senator Bond's approach is a very, very reasonable approach. It is a demonstration project. It gives a variety of tools to the local area to resolve this, because so much housing in a national program is locally set. The market value in Utah of section 8 is remarkably different than in the San Francisco area or the Seattle area. So we think it is a very good approach. I think the Bond amendment begins a process that enables us to begin to, in a reasonable, rational, well-paced way, begin to move on this. We cannot ignore the fact that over 850,000 units with subsidy problems are in the pipeline. Now is the time to act. I look forward to additional debate on this amendment, but I look forward to supporting this amendment. Most of all, I support beginning the process of getting a real grip on this issue. Mr. President, I will have more to say later, but I think that summarizes my thinking.

Ms. MIKULSKI. If I could comment----

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I know we are debating the VA-HUD bill, and I want to make my comments on it. I think, like all Americans today, our thoughts and our prayers are with our U.S. military, who, once again, are called upon to stand sentry to protect those who cannot protect themselves. For all who might be watching this on C-SPAN and seeing how we want to help the veterans, we are going to keep our promises to America's veterans, but we should really hold these men and women in our hearts today. Today, I want to join my distinguished colleague, the Senator from Missouri, to offer for floor debate the fiscal year 1997 appropriations bill. This is an $84.7 billion bill. It funds seven Cabinet or Cabinet- level agencies, as well as 18 independent agencies. We fund all of the veterans programs--both the veterans pensions, as well as veterans medical care, veterans medical research, housing, the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Science Foundation, National Community Service, the Federal Emergency Management Agency. While we are looking at those large and significant agencies, we also fund programs like Selective Service, Arlington Cemetery, the Consumer Product Safety Agency. Somebody might say, ``Well, how did all that happen?'' It sounds like a lot of money, and it is, but years ago, this was the subcommittee that before you got to be a Cabinet agency, you were an independent agency. Hopefully, these agencies still have independence and backbone, but we now have seven of these. Of course, the largest and most significant, in terms of our obligations to the American people, is the Veterans Administration. Dealing with these competing interests has been an enormous and difficult job. I want to thank Senator Bond and his appropriations staff, as well as my own for all the hard work they have done to get this bill to the floor. I want to acknowledge the role of Senator Hatfield and Senator Byrd in ensuring we have an allocation to meet day- to-day needs of American people, as well as in science and technology, looking at the long-range interests of the American people. I am particularly grateful for Chairman Bond's efforts to work on a collegial basis with this. I want to thank him for the collegiality and civility with which we have been able to work on these issues. This bill continues the process of implementing many of the recommendations of the National Academy of Public Administration that I raised on issues related to HUD and EPA. It is my commitment and I know the chairman's commitment that we want to make sure that a dollar's worth of taxes is used for a dollar's worth of services. When we are working, whether it is to fund Housing and Urban Development or the Environmental Protection Agency, we want to fund results and not bureaucracy. That is why when I chaired the subcommittee, we turned to the National Association of Public Administration to give us kind of an x ray of what they thought we should be doing so we could get rid of the bureaucracy and focus on the results. I thank Senator Bond for continuing that. When we look at HUD, we can see we have been able to do that. It has been my concern that in Housing and Urban Development, too often we create programs without thinking about their results. Do we empower the poor, which I know the Presiding Officer is deeply concerned about? We share a belief and commitment in the role that nonprofit agencies play in the empowerment of the poor. We want to make sure that our section 8 program is an opportunity, but not a hollow one, and that along the way we do not create such large subsidies that we are creating a new generation of slum landlords or creating a new and expanded liability for taxpayers. I have been deeply distressed in my own State of Maryland, particularly in Baltimore and some of the surrounding areas, of the failure to stand sentry with section 8 housing itself to make sure that it is an opportunity for the poor. Too often section 8 housing is riddled with housing abuse, poor housing conditions from plumbing and other fire and safety violations. We want to make sure HUD is on track on how they spend their money, that we do get results and we are not creating more liability for the taxpayer and minimizing opportunity for the poor. Then we also looked at the funding for the Environmental Protection Agency. Both the chairman and I have worked to get them focused on the fact that they need to spend their money on that which is the greatest public health risk. The whole idea is not only to protect natural resources and make sure we have clean air and clean water, but in the process let us look at those areas that ensure public health and safety, and not move around on certain boutique programs that might grab a headline. Chairman Bond and I are more interested in saving lives than in grabbing headlines. That is why we urged EPA to focus on this kind of risk-based approach. We believe EPA is doing it. I believe Secretary Browner is actually trying to move it in this direction. There is one other area in this bill where we were able to restore cuts that the House made. We restored a $1 billion cut in Federal emergency disaster relief. As you know, many disasters have hit the United States, from blizzards to hurricanes, to terrible tornadoes that have affected our States. We wanted to be sure that if a Governor calls President Clinton 911 to help with emergency relief, we will have the money to be able to do that. We now have Edouard and we have Fran whizzing around out there. We want to be sure that the Governors of our Southeastern States know we are behind them. This bill also restores a cut in NASA's Mission to Planet Earth. All of us have been mesmerized about this new finding about life on Mars, that maybe there is life on Mars, or maybe there was life on Mars. It is a fascinating topic. But there is one planet that we believe there is intelligent life on and it is called the Planet Earth. Dr. Sally Ride said we should study it because by stepping back in space and studying Mission to Planet Earth, studying our own planet as if it were a distant one, we will come up with an incredible amount of information that will be able to help our farmers, help our fishermen, and help communities prepare for natural disasters. Mission to Planet Earth is a scientific mission, a civilian mission that looks at our environmental condition, which can then prepare communities for natural disasters, and not only here, Mr. President, but around the world. We can help Africa predict and know about a famine. We can help Japan and our friends in the Pacific rim know how to estimate typhoons and be able to save lives and property and evacuate people. What a great way for us to advance our scientific knowledge but, again, be able to help in our commercial activity and be able to save lives. Another cut restored was in the national service AmeriCorps Program. I know that is significantly controversial. I thank Senator Bond for working with me in restoring AmeriCorps at a modest funding level. This is a program that is very special to President Clinton and, I believe, to many people. What it essentially says is that by getting out there and volunteering, being part of AmeriCorps, you can earn a voucher to reduce your student debt. You see, for every opportunity, we think there is an obligation. This is not about giveaways. We want our kids to be able to reduce their student debt, but at the same time rekindle those habits of the heart, so when the voucher is over and they are back in their communities, they are part of the volunteer effort, working in nonprofits, or hands- on, or being members of boards and commissions. I am very proud of the fact that Senator Bond has worked very hard to ensure veterans medical care and veterans medical research. It is promises made and promises kept to America's veterans. I think we were able to do that. There are over 187 veterans hospitals. There are also many new outpatient clinics in many areas where I believe we have not done all we would like to do, but I believe we have kept our promises. Some of the yellow flashing lights for me are in EPA. I know that while funding for EPA is $70 million more than last year, it is $400 million below the President's request. There is concern about deep cuts in core programs or other priority programs like Boston Harbor, the Montreal protocol, climate exchange, and the environmental technology initiative. Some in Congress do not always make the case between public health and the environment. We know it is so, and that is why we need to ensure adequate funding for EPA. Another area which is controversial is NASA. Because we face so many compelling human needs, many people say, ``Why are we funding NASA?'' Well, by funding NASA, we develop new ideas, new knowledge and new technology that helps advance the cause of mankind through scientific discovery. That is the nature of what we are as Americans. We are discoverers. And through it, we are able to also come up with tremendous opportunities for technology transfer, which helps our American people. I could list those programs, but I don't think we need to do it. I do know that we will be looking at all of these special programs, some in Maryland and some in other States. Goddard Space Agency is in my own home State. I know the recent discovery of possible life on Mars is an example of how exciting and important the space program continues to be. Some people feel that money is wasted. But we cannot look that way. It is too narrow. You know, they laughed at the Louisiana Purchase, they laughed at Columbus, and they laughed at Pasteur. The Presiding Officer knows that scientific discovery and the technology around it is always ridiculed, such as the automobile, and all those things, and one day they transformed our society. Whoever thought a couple of guys working in a garage with spare parts could spawn a whole new computer industry that has now revolutionized the entire planet? We want to make sure that by funding the National Science Foundation, we continue to make sure that the United States of America is on the cutting edge. There are many issues that we have to face in the future, whether it is in housing, space, and so on. But I believe that we can solve those problems if we work with good will, common sense, and focus on the results we want to achieve in science and technology for the long-range needs of our country and looking at the day-to-day needs of the American people. How can we give help to those who practice self-help? I believe if those are our guiding principles, we will be able to move this bill, and I think we have followed those principles in this. Again, I thank Senator Bond for his very hard work and willingness to listen to my concerns and those of the members of my own party, and to work with my staff and me. I am going to echo the words of Senator Bond. Less than a month remains in this session. We don't want this bill to be in a continuing resolution. Let us make the U.S. Senate work and get the appropriations bill done. I look forward to voting for final passage of this bill tomorrow. I yield the floor.

Ms. MIKULSKI. I am right here.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I concur with the amendment offered by Senator Bond. It does make the compelling need that we have talked about and does so in a timely way.

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

Ms. MIKULSKI. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 5158 to Excepted Committee Amendment on Page 85, Lines 6- 15 (Purpose: To modify language providing NASA authority to provide special incentive payments to encourage voluntary retirements to extent necessary to avoid a reduction in force (RIF), subject to a $25,000 limitation, with a further limitation to assure no net increase in Federal expenditures)

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I concur with Senator Bond's amendment. Again, what we are finding is that NASA must encourage people to retire. Their original request was excessive. I think this is a prudent way to proceed, and this side accepts the amendment.

Ms. MIKULSKI. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Excepted Committee Amendment on Page 102, Line 23, Through Page 104, Line 17

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I concur with the amendment.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. I say to the Senator from Missouri that I believe when we convene tomorrow morning, and the two leaders will have conferred about how they want to pace the day, both in terms of a resolution relating to Iraq, and then from there proceed back to our bill. I believe the Democratic leader wishes to speak to the Republican leader, the majority leader, Senator Lott, about what they want to go first. So I am not quite sure how that will all be worked out.

Ms. MIKULSKI. I say to the Senator from Missouri, I believe we will have an orderly procedure. I believe we are in a situation because of two factors. One is because of the Iraq situation. There is a question of when we will do a resolution on that, which was not anticipated. No. 2, many Members are not yet back for the two leaders to be able to confer and do this. I think we are clear for where we are going. It is just a matter for the two leaders to talk and for us to work on a time agreement. I tried to get an agreement on the space station. I have tried for three Congresses to get a time agreement from the Senator from Arkansas. So we are all working on this. I think by the time we get to tomorrow we will be a little clearer on the order and our pacing. It is just a matter of getting everybody focused. People are just flying in now from the break.

Ms. MIKULSKI. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. board of veterans' appeals

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I absolutely support Senator Bond's amendment. We worked very closely on this. We think it is what we need to downsize Government without downgrading HUD. It gives, essentially, many of the employees the opportunity to be able to take an early retirement. We think that is a good idea. We support it.

Ms. MIKULSKI. We saved it.

Ms. MIKULSKI. To respond to the Senator from North Dakota about AmeriCorps Youthbuild, it is this subcommittee and with the concurrence and cooperation of Senator Bond and Senator Hatfield that we have restored the House cuts. Again, it is not some Government giveaway. It is almost like a conservation corps, but instead of outdoor work it is focused on rehabilitating housing. In their own way, youths learn those skills and go into the private sector. Some of the kids that are now working in Youthbuild, not only did we stop them from being dead-end kids, but you will go back to North Dakota and see that they will be members of the North Dakota Home Builders Association, and I mark-to-market my words on that.

Ms. MIKULSKI. If I might respond to the Senator from North Dakota, I read that article this morning, too. It was the first I have ever heard of this in my 10 years of being on this subcommittee, where someone owns a property, rents it to a relative, and then gets a section 8 to pay for the relative's rent. The gentleman referred to is Mr. Frank Lucchino, a very well-regarded public official in, I believe, the Pittsburgh area of the State of Pennsylvania. That is Allegheny County. I was quite concerned and had intended to talk with Senator Bond about that this afternoon. No. 1, I think Cisneros owes us an explanation. No. 2, this says exactly the point that I made: HUD is not standing sentry on its section 8, nor is local government. It has met often compelling needs. There are many good landlords. But there have also been bums and scams and schemes along the way. We need to clear those out. I was going to suggest to Senator Bond that we have an inspector general look into this, rather than GAO, because I think we will get a quicker response. And as you know, the inspector general is intimately familiar with all the details of both the financing and management of HUD. So I assure the Senator from North Dakota and anyone who has read that article and wonders what is up that we are going to get a response from Mr. Cisneros. I would like to recommend that we get an IG report on it. But I am like you. There are the tenants, the good-guy landlords, the well-intentioned taxpayers. And then under every rock we seem to find another rock on section 8. What disturbs me is that in some instances, because of poorly maintained buildings, it has been a hollow opportunity for the poor. All we have is unaccountable private-sector housing imitating the worst of the public housing. Second, we have many good landlords, but we have also in some instances--like Riverdale in Maryland had a new slum landlord, and then to add insult, the taxpayers were left holding the mortgage for $5 million. So we have a lot to do here. And to Mr. Cisneros' credit, and really to Senator Bond, and working on our committee, Senator Sarbanes, Senator D'Amato with the authorizing, we're trying to dig out. But the Senator from North Dakota, he knows when he walks into a stable, sometimes doing it one shovel at a time is difficult; but we will get to it. Mr. BOND addressed the Chair.