Barbara Mikulski

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. I am also pleased to have this opportunity to discuss NASA consolidation, an issue about which I have been deeply concerned.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Perhaps we should also request NASA provide the subcommittee with a cost-based justification of the movement of these aircraft before NASA takes action.

Ms. MIKULSKI. I ask Senator Feinstein if any other sites have been evaluated for this aircraft consolidation? [[Page S 14373]]

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I offer an amendment on behalf of Senator Harkin. I send the amendment to the desk.

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

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Mr. BOND addressed the Chair.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, we have cleared these amendments with all of the relevant authorizing committees. There are no objections on our side, and in many instances they are enthusiastically either sponsored or approved.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, we are coming into the closing minutes now of this bill. We started the debate on VA-HUD appropriations around Monday at 3 o'clock. A lot has gone on since then, and I commend Senator Bond on moving this bill and the way he has handled this legislation in the Chamber. I know this is the first time he has chaired the committee and brought the bill to the floor. I compliment him on the way we have been able to move in such an efficient way. I thank his professional staff for the many courtesies and consultation provided my staff. I thank Mr. Rusty Mathews, Mr. Steve Crane, and Mr. Kevin Kelly, who provided technical assistance on my side. In this bill, we won some and we lost some. We won some by preserving America's future in space. We came to an agreement on redlining. And we lost issues like national service. This is America. This is democracy. We have spoken, and I believe it is now time to vote. I believe the President will have significant concerns with this bill. I believe the President will veto it. But I believe the time now for debate has concluded, and I again wish to thank my colleagues for the support that they gave me during this time.

Ms. MIKULSKI. As the ranking minority member of the subcommittee, I also would like to thank the Senator from Hawaii for his question, and I wholeheartedly support the answer provided by Chairman Bond. It would be a matter of great concern to me if any area of research at the National Science Foundation is singled out and given inappropriate reductions in funding. Our support for the Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences Directorate and for the Human Capital Initiative must continue to be strong and I hope to see those programs funded as generously as our appropriations will allow.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, what they point out is that the National Association of Insurance Commissioners found it is more difficult for residents of minority and integrated neighborhoods to obtain insurance coverage and that these homeowners often pay more for inferior coverage. Equally damaging are the efforts of African-American and Latino owners, what they must undertake in order to obtain any type of coverage. And if this civil rights rider would continue, HUD would be required to suspend most activities pertaining to property insurance and, in fact, it would even mitigate solving some of the problems we face. I know about the McCarran-Ferguson Act. I tried to end discrimination in insurance when I was in the House of Representatives. I heard enough about that to qualify for law school. But one thing I do know is that when the insurance industry complains that it is exempt from coverage under the Fair Housing Act because of this, that is not so. The position of the Federal Government and the courts is that the McCarran-Ferguson Act does not supersede or impair Federal authority to enforce the Fair Housing Act. While every State has property insurance laws that prohibit unfair discrimination, no State law provides the protection to insurance consumers equivalent to the protection of the Federal Fair Housing Act. Also, the insurance industry claims that all minority or ethnic homeowners who are eligible for insurance are able to purchase it. Yet investigations by the National Fair Housing Alliance have found that while some minorities have been able to attain insurance, this coverage is often inferior. In many instances, they found out that African- Americans or Latinos, when they called an agent, did not receive a return call or a followup phone call. Also, insurance companies claim that the disclosure of underwriting and pricing mechanisms would violate trade secrets, damaging their profits. But Connecticut requires the filing of the underwriting guidelines and makes them publicly available, and there is no evidence that it has a detrimental effect on any of the company's profits. Also, the insurance industry claims that it costs more to provide insurance in urban neighborhoods, which is why they say it must be so high. While the industry makes that claim, they have never presented any evidence to document that. The evidence, for example, from the Missouri Insurance Commission shows that is not true. Because, again, of the activities of the Federal Government to make home ownership available, we now have many of our African-American constituents living in the suburbs. It is a wonderful happening in Maryland. It is exciting to see that. I would hate to see that after working so hard to have access to the American dream, the ability to get insurance turns into an American nightmare because of an action taken by the Federal Government that says it is wrong to redline on the basis of race, gender, national origin, or disability, to be able to get the property that you worked so hard to get, and to not be able to have it insured. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Ms. MIKULSKI. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Mr. CHAFEE addressed the Chair.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise as a very strong cosponsor of the Feingold/Moseley-Braun amendment. As has been stated by the author of the amendment, this amendment would strike the provisions in this bill that prohibit HUD from enforcing fair housing laws as they pertain to property insurance. What does that mean? It means that the amendment that we are cosponsoring would eliminate the prohibition that now in the law says that HUD will not be able to prevent redlining in property insurance. The language that is currently in the bill would bar HUD from preventing insurance companies from discriminating on the basis of race, sex, nationality, religion, or disability. This has primarily manifested on the issue of race. Property insurance, as we know, is necessary to qualify for a home mortgage loan. Allowing property insurance companies to disregard the housing act could end up denying not only insurance to homeowners but actually would be an impediment to owning homes themselves. As a Senator who has always worked for social justice, I cannot support the provision currently in this bill. I am directly affected by this. I live in Baltimore City. I now pay more for insurance. I pay more for my property insurance. I pay more for my car insurance. I pay more not because of who I am, what I am, but because of my zip code, and there is a prejudice against that zip code simply because it is in Baltimore City. Yes, I live 8 blocks from a public housing project. I live around the corner from a shelter for battered women. I live in a Polish community that is also now historic in gentry. We have one of the lowest crime rates in Baltimore City. We have one of the lowest auto theft rates in the city. We have one of the lowest rates of problems related to fires, theft, robbery, assault, mayhem, but we pay more. And why? Not because we are good citizens, but because we live in a certain zip code. Now, hey, at least, though, I can get the insurance. I pay more, perhaps unjustly, but I pay more, and so do my neighbors. So do those young students at the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health. So do the Polish ladies who belong to the Society of Sodality. So do the priests at St. Stanislaus Church, and so do the people of color who live around us in the neighborhood. Now, I do not think that happens to be right. Also in Baltimore County and Prince Georges County we have a rising number of African-American middle-class people who have access to home ownership, often primarily because of what is in this bill. Through the VA and through the FHA, this subcommittee--and I know this chairman has promoted home ownership. Now, though we are promoting home ownership on one side of the Federal ledger, we are going to deny the Federal Government's ability to enforce antiredlining in property insurance. I do not think that works. At a time in our Nation's history when civil rights violations are universally rejected by people of conscience, and I know 99 other people in this body who also agree with that, I cannot understand why the Senate wants this type of provision. I hope that all Senators will find this provision as unsettling as I do. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Now, we can talk about States rights. I will not start the debate here on States rights. But the phrase ``States rights'' has been a code word word and buzzword for so long under the guise of States rights that often there has stood prejudice in our society. I am not going to bring that up. But what I will bring up is when we talk about duplication, about the fact that States and local governments have one set of laws and the Federal Government should not duplicate--when I was in the Baltimore City Council, I passed the first legislation in the city government to prevent discrimination on the basis of disability. Then some 12 years later, we passed a Federal law. Nobody in the Baltimore City Council said, ``Oh, no, Barb, we do not need that because you did this 12 years ago.'' Well, we needed it there, and we need it now. When we look at the fact that it is the Federal Government that is promoting home ownership, the Federal Government has a role in making sure the people who benefit from VA [[Page S 14359]] and FHA can get the property insurance to protect their property. I have a letter from the Fair Housing Coalition, and I ask unanimous consent to have it printed in the Record.

Ms. MIKULSKI

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, responding to the Republican leader's desire to move this bill, we have our next two amendments lined up, the Lautenberg amendment and the Feingold amendment. When we asked for the time agreement, that is maximum. Both men are here to offer their amendments. We intend to move very expeditiously. I recommend that after those two amendments, those votes be stacked. I truly believe we can do a lot of clear out and clean up. I am anticipating that either amendments will be worked out or that they will be withdrawn so they could be offered on other bills. I cannot guarantee that. We are working down our list, as well. So my recommendation is Lautenberg, Feingold, stacked votes; see kind of where we are, and then we will move right along.

Ms. MIKULSKI. I think the prickly point here is what Senator Bumpers chooses to do on the NASA-Russian reactor sale. I think that is a prickly pear.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. I do not believe it will be extended into the evening, if the Senator agrees to lay this aside so we can go to the Jeffords amendment.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, let me bring to the attention of the other Senator from Maryland, the senior Senator from Maryland, that the leadership is going to try to do some other amendments after the Jeffords, of Vermont, amendment. There are Senators who need a window and both leaders are trying to accommodate that. I think they are looking for votes somewhere around 7:30, 8 o'clock, though it has not been agreed to. That is what is floating out there. So we are trying to get as many amendments in.

Ms. MIKULSKI. The Senator knows where I live in Baltimore, not too far from him, in a neighborhood called Fells Point. It used to be an old Polish neighborhood. It has a little bit of an entertainment district. But now we are seeing every day the increase of homelessness and panhandling. Yet when you talk to the panhandlers, these are mothers with children trying to get a few pennies together to hold the body and soul together. I live eight blocks from public housing. I live around the corner from a shelter for battered women. Those battered women are one step from being homeless. Fortunately, we have public housing. But this increase in homelessness is due to a decline in wages. It is also due to the decline of opportunity. So I think, coupled with what is going on in our economy combined with other cuts that are going to hurt the poor, that we really do need this amendment. I am very much concerned about the growing number and the changing profile. There is nothing romantic about the homeless. The homeless do not think they are romantic. The homeless think that they are homeless. And if you talk to people in our public schools or if you go to Mercy Hospital in downtown Baltimore, they are treating more and--what they are facing in the hospitals is more and more homeless families, particularly the children who have no home and no medical plan. I thank the Senator for his advocacy. I look forward to his voting for the bill.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Yes.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the Sarbanes amendment which would restore funding for the homeless assistance program. But I also rise in strong support of the leadership and advocacy provided by the senior Senator from Maryland. I am not the kind of person who likes being No. 2, but I am more than satisfied to be No. 2 to this distinguished Member of the Senate, our senior Senator. As we know, he is the ranking member on the Housing Committee. He has chaired the Subcommittee on Housing for a number of years, and his advocacy in promoting homeownership, opportunities for the poor in terms of shelter, and economic and community development as well as banking reform I think are to be acknowledged. Senator Sarbanes really wanted to offer many amendments to this bill because there are issues in this bill related to housing and their skimpy allocation that warrant both debate and additional amendments. He has chosen to focus his amendment on the poorest of the poor, that constituency in our society that has the least advocacy. The bill before us provides $760 million for homeless assistance programs, a cut of $360 million under last year's appropriation and the President's request. The Sarbanes amendment will restore this funding to the President's request of $1.12 billion. Preliminary analysis of this cut is that HUD would serve a total of 93,000 fewer homeless Americans, including 11,000 people who would have received housing if funding had been continued at current levels; 23,000 Americans who would lose their homes by denying them homeless prevention assistance that provides short-term rental and utility subsidies in times of family or financial crisis; 11,000 day care slots which would force the working poor to choose between working full-time and caring for their kids; 16,000 disabled Americans would lose mental health counseling provided under current levels; 14,000 homeless persons would be denied substance abuse counseling; and 20,000 homeless families would lose opportunities for job placement through HUD and nonprofit agencies. [[Page S 14277]] These numbers are staggering. In fact, this cut represents the first reduction in the homeless program since 1989. What bothers me most about this cut in homeless funding is the impact of this cut coupled with others that are coming down the pike. Over the past 25 years the construction of the interstate highway system, immigration and migration trends, the shift from manufacturing to service and knowledge-based industries, and the flight of the middle class have weakened our cities. Poverty is growing and becoming more concentrated. Twenty-five years ago 3.8 million people lived in the poorest neighborhoods in our largest 94 cities. Today, 10.8 million people live in those same areas. In those same 94 cities, unemployment increased by 66 percent between 1970 and 1990. The percentage of people employed in manufacturing jobs has dropped from 22.1 to 14 in the last 20 years. The point is that as we look across the agenda that the new majority in this Congress is promoting, you can't help but notice the devastating cumulative impacts of these cuts. The deep cuts being proposed by the majority in areas like job training programs, mass transit, and community reinvestment programs are drawing jobs, private investment, and income out of metropolitan areas. Cuts in Medicaid and the earned income tax credit will impact the working poor. And as the Federal Government continues to shift service costs to localities, metropolitan areas will be forced to choose between raising taxes and cutting services and capital budgets. The result is that our larger cities are increasingly becoming less desirable places in which to live and work. They are becoming warehouses for the poor. At a time when our cities need a helping hand, this Congress is instead adding to the burden. There is no better example than committee proposal that the pending amendment seeks to address. Mr. President, we have a convergence of forces going on in America's cities and also in communities we call the ``inner beltway communities.'' These were the first suburban communities after World War II where the infrastructure is now aging. And in our hometown of Baltimore, and in communities like Silver Spring and Oxon Hill, and some others, and in our own home State of Maryland, we see a rising number of homeless. And we see a new kind of homeless. Sure, the homeless in the past have been romanticized. Lucy played a homeless lady befriended by a young woman. We saw ``Down and Out in LA,'' some cute, clever kind of story about a homeless guy who ends up in a Gucci household and transforms them in some kind of great metamorphosis. But I will tell you, down and out in LA, down and out in Baltimore is increasing. And when we look at the homeless, we see what is the face of the homeless. First of all, there are many people who get up and work every day but because they often work at the minimum wage, they cannot afford housing. We see where men, particularly single men, are in and out of the shelters but going to work. We also see an increased amount, in the homeless, of single mothers who have been abandoned, often with no recourse, who then are finding themselves and their children out on the street. And now what we are also seeing is the homeless vet population. And I know the Senator from Alaska, Senator Murkowski, has been an outspoken advocate of that. So what we are seeing is an increase in homelessness because we are seeing an increase in poverty.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Senator Graham, the NSF's interest in partnerships and their decision to locate the facility in Florida were key ingredients for its success. This partnership between two universities, a fine national laboratory, the State of Florida, and several industries has led to outstanding science and new technologies as well. And I'm told the lab has a world-class collection of scientists and engineers that will continue to lead the world for years to come. Mr. DOMENICI, Mr. Chairman, let me underscore the importance of this partnership which includes Los Alamos National Laboratory working closely with Florida State University and the University of Florida. At last year's dedication in Tallahassee, Erich Bloch said, ``Absent any one of the three partners, this important project would not have come to fruition.'' That is still true today. In these tight budget times, Los Alamos has committed precious resources to this endeavor because it is important to do so. And my friend Gov. Lawton Chiles of Florida has invested heavily and wisely with scarce State resources. I want to encourage the subcommittee to provide NSF the resources necessary to keep this laboratory world-class.

Ms. MIKULSKI. I am going to accept the amendment as well.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the Baucus amendment, and I would like to thank the Senator for coming and offering the amendment this evening. It is enormously appreciated. We know he has had a difficult day in the Finance Committee. We also thank him for his leadership in the authorizing committee. Like Senator Baucus, I wish to compliment the chairman of the subcommittee on the effort that he has made in the area of EPA reform. Yet, at the same time, we also support the Baucus amendment because we believe it will help weed out those riders that have the serious and negative impact on public health or the environment. Yes, it does give the Administrator flexibility, and it also will allow those who know the science the authority to help make the decisions. Most importantly, I believe this amendment will act as a safety valve if the House insists on any of its riders when we get to the conference. I believe the Senate bill now has a moderate, clear framework on how to deal with these riders, and I believe the Senate framework should be the prevailing one. This country has entrusted EPA with the health and well-being of its citizens, and this is one Senator who wants to make sure this trust continues. I urge my colleagues to stand firm on protecting the environment and public health by supporting the Baucus amendment, then supporting the Bond framework as we move through this legislation and into conference. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Ms. MIKULSKI. I am proud to be a cosponsor of the Rockefeller amendment, which would restore funding to veterans medical care. This amendment is about promises made, it's about keeping our commitments. This amendment is for the GI Joe generation--the World War II generation--our fathers who fought on the battlefront overseas and our mothers who fought on the homefront here in our communities. This amendment is for the men and women who fought in Korea in an undeclared war; the soldiers who served in Vietnam in an unpopular war; the veterans from the high-tech Gulf war; and, the new veterans from humanitarian missions in Somalia and Haiti. I have always fought to get them the care they deserve--and they deserve the best. Although this bill increases the funding level for veterans medical care by $235 million over last year, it is still $511 million below the President's request and $327 million below the House number. When we compare this year's number to last year's it looks as if the vets are getting a deal. But that is not true. This increase does not keep up with the skyrocketing increase in the cost of health care delivery. The increase does not allow the VA to keep pace with the number of veterans needing treatment--particularly the long term care requirements for the aging veteran population. It is inevitable that the quality of the health care we promised to our veterans will decrease. impact of senate fy 1996 mark Medical care--Assuming an increase of only $285 million above the 1995 appropriation, the impact in 1996 would be the following. A reduction of $511 million from VA's request: A reduction of 6,500 FTE 113,000 fewer vets treated 46,000 less inpatients treated 1,000,000 less outpatient visits Closing the equivalent of 4 medical centers with an average of 300 beds each. Mr. President, I recognize the need to balance the budget. But it rubs against everything I believe in to do that on the backs of the GI Joe generation, especially while we pile money up in a slush fund so that we can dole out a tax break to people who are making 6 figure incomes. So, I think it would be only fair to live up to the long-standing commitments we made with our veterans before we start making new commitments with the wealthiest of Americans. I certainly hope this Senate will recognize the commitment our great nation has made to its veterans and stand by that commitment by supporting the Rockefeller-Mikulski amendment.

Ms. MIKULSKI. I thank the Senator for yielding. I want to congratulate him on his advocacy for veterans. I thank him for coming here this evening to offer his amendment, the kind of cultured cooperation we have here in the U.S. Senate. And I particularly want to thank him for his advocacy for veterans health care. I am proud to be a cosponsor of the Rockefeller amendment to strike the provision contained in the committee bill which would deny benefits to those veterans who have become mentally incapacitated. The bill before us reinstates a provision of law that was expired in 1992. The provision contained in this bill suspends benefits to veterans who are mentally incapacitated with no spouse or children when their estates reach $25,000. It would allow payments to be resumed when the value of the estate falls to $10,000. Section 107 of the committee bill discriminates against a small group of veterans, those who have become incapacitated as a result of mental illness or disease. There simply is no sound policy reason to single out these veterans and deny them their benefits. The provision contained in the committee bill is an affront to veterans. By including this provision, the committee is going after those veterans who have become completely incapable of defending themselves, taking their benefits, and then using their money to cover even deeper cuts in the VA medical care budget. Aside from the fact that this provision discriminates against a small group of veterans, it also: denies parents who are caring for the disabled veteran the ability to accrue savings needed to care for their son when the parents dies; experience has shown that guardians and trust officers responsible for the care of these disabled veterans are unwilling to continue their responsibilities if benefits are interrupted; and the provision, when it was law [[Page S 14289]] under the 1990 Budget Reconciliation Act, led to a variety of unintended consequences that were destructive and demeaning to veterans such as arranged marriages to avoid the law, and the purchase of unneeded property or cars in order to keep the estate value down. Mr. President, we've seen enough to know that this is bad policy and bad law. If we don't stand up for these veterans, who will? I urge my colleagues to support the Rockefeller amendment. I want to make one point perhaps that has not been discussed in the debate, which is about the parents of the mentally incompetent veteran. You see, parents are very much concerned about their--primarily their son, sometimes their daughter--who is disabled and the need to keep some type of saving to care for their son or daughter when these parents die. Experience has shown that guardians and trust officers responsible for the care of these disabled veterans are unwilling to care for them if benefits are interrupted. The other thing that happens is that in order to keep some kind of asset base, they kind of get into phony, manipulatory things. They will want to try to buy a car or a new property and so on. This is not the veteran. This is not the people who fought at Iwo Jima or Pork Chop Hill or the Mekong Delta. These are honorable men and women who do that. And I think that what we need to do is make sure that we do not have bad policy become not good law. And I really support the Senator's amendment. These are people who have come to a point in their life where they are unable to think for themselves and in many instances unable to care for themselves. We are asking that a safety net be provided. And when they join the U.S. military, it is not an asset test. So I hope that the Senator's amendment prevails, and I hope his advocacy continues.