Barbara Mikulski

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Ms. MIKULSKI. We have been through a lot of ups and downs already today, and I would like to thank all the Senators for offering their amendments. Mr. President, I know I have 3 minutes for summing up. Let me just say this. There is much to be said in favor of national service and much criticism in terms I think of the need for a tighter ship. I think we would agree with the need for a tighter ship. Let me just say in conclusion, my life has been devoted to creating an opportunity structure. I am absolutely committed to giving help to those who practice self-help. My great grandmother came to this country from Poland for a prearranged marriage with $16 and a feather bed mattress. She came with no guarantees. She came seeking opportunities. And she came because she believed in the United States of America there would be access to something called the American dream. The triad of the American dream was homeownership, access to education, and personal freedom. The reason that I was one of the leaders in establishing national service was that we would have an opportunity structure for access to the American dream. There were those who said these are not volunteers because they earn a voucher. They do not get paid. They get a living stipend and a voucher. We use the term ``volunteer'' to mean that they are not drafted or coerced into it. Perhaps that is not the right language, but it is the right intent. The important part of this is that we know for most Americans their access to higher education is closing. Student debt is increasing. What this bill essentially does is follow the framework of a principle I believe in, that if you are middle class the role of Government is to try to help you stay there or do better and, if you are not middle class, to be able to get there through hard work, effort, and merit. That is what national service is all about. That is what its intent is, and that is why we have been advocating this bill. I know that we are in a very skimpy budget time; that the chairman of this bill and I struggled over this. I know that originally as we looked at this bill the question was, How can we fund it? The chairman felt we needed money to go into the community development block grant funds, and I could not fault him for that-- empowering cities to make local decisions for economic development. Absolutely. What we face here is not should we or should we not support national service. We have a very skimpy budget allocation. I know that there are those who say, ``Well, we can do Pell grants; we can do four more housing subsidies.'' The fact is, I believe under the skimpy allocations we are now coping with there will not be the money to do these things. I hope we continue the support of national service. I thank the chairman for the courtesies given to us on this and really the civility of the debate. I hope that my colleagues will vote to continue national service.

Ms. MIKULSKI. I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Georgia. I wish to tell the Senate this is one of the founding fathers of national service.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I yield the Senator from Delaware 3 minutes.

Ms. MIKULSKI. I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Vermont.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Does the Senator from Massachusetts wish to speak? I note the absence of a quorum, and ask that it be equally divided.

Ms. MIKULSKI. I would like to yield 8 minutes to the Senator from Massachusetts. And I look forward to his discussions, as well as the chart.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Senator Leahy has been a longstanding supporter of national service. I appreciate his remarks. Mr. President, much has been raised about the concerns over the fiscal responsibility of national service, and the GAO report, I believe, shows that we are getting a dollar's worth of services for a dollar's worth of taxes. In the interest, also, of not running up the printing cost of the Federal Government, I would like to include only the executive summary of the GAO report in the Congressional Record. I ask unanimous consent that the executive summary of the GAO report on the Corporation for National and Community Service be printed in the Record.

Ms. MIKULSKI. I ask the Presiding Officer, how much time does my side have left?

Ms. MIKULSKI. I will be happy to yield the Senator an additional minute.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, I am about to yield 4 minutes to the Senator from Illinois, a staunch supporter of national service. He has been waiting patiently. Before the Senator from Iowa leaves the floor, I would like to say three things. First, I know that the Senator is not out to torpedo the program but to reform the program. He was one of the first to raise concerns about the program, and as he recalls, I joined with him in the GAO report. I also have in my possession the letters that he did send to the President asking for a reformed framework. I would like to recognize and acknowledge the validity of the Senator's concerns about that, and I think the Senator should have gotten a better response. I think I was owed a better response. Third, I wish to say to the Senator, however, if this amendment goes down, national service is zeroed out. So it will not be about reforming national service; it will be about ending national service. So we will talk more. But I would like to thank the Senator for his work on this issue. I think he raises important points. We disagree on the amendment. I also thank the Senator for the tone in which he presented this argument. I think good people can engage in this kind of conversation with civility and keep the focus on the issues. So I would just like to thank him. Having said that, I yield 4 minutes to the Senator from Illinois.

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

Ms. MIKULSKI. I yield 1 more minute.

Ms. MIKULSKI. I yield to the Senator from Massachusetts 15 minutes.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, we are the country that invented night school so that immigrants, working in factories during the day, would have a chance to learn English, learn citizenship, learn the skills to move ahead in our society. That was a social invention. We created the GI bill for returning vets because we said that if you gave to this Nation, we will make sure you will be able to participate in the American dream. National and community service is part of that framework. How can we make sure the access to higher education is not only for the wealthy? In my own home State of Maryland, to go to an independent college like Loyola or Notre Dame of Maryland, the kind of school I went to, it now costs anywhere from $12,000 to $18,000 a year. For most middle-income families, the whole idea of $72,000 for 4 years of education is beyond their dream. The same thing for our public schools. It still then would be about $8,000 or $9,000 a year--or $45,000. In this country, we believed that intellectual ability and character was randomly distributed through the population, so that it was only an elite few that could have access to higher education and thus remain elite. We wanted to make sure it was available to others. So that is why national service is important. There are many critics to national service, and Senator Grassley, of Iowa, has rightfully raised many of those concerns. I joined with him, asking GAO to evaluate the AmeriCorps Program. I felt if we could not stand to be evaluated, we could not stand to be authorized and we could not stand to be funded. In our quest, we asked them to identify the resources required to field an AmeriCorps participant, evaluate whether an AmeriCorps program was meeting its mission, and make recommendations on how the national service corps could be more efficient and effective. Well, GAO answered two of the three questions we asked. GAO estimates that the amount of resources available from the Corporation to field a participant are in line with the Corporation's estimate. Most impressive in GAO's finding is that national service programs are meeting the objectives that Congress set when we passed the bill in 1993. Some will come to the floor and argue that the cost to the taxpayer of about $26,000 is excessive. Well, I want to point out that in the report it says, ``It is important not to equate our funding information with cost data.'' Most AmeriCorps programs are still in their first year of operation. Also, the $26,700 figure is misleading because it represents all resources from Federal, State, local, and private. It is not a total cost to the taxpayer. You know, in fact, we require matching funds. And Congress expects that the federally appropriated dollars would be used to leverage matching contributions. So we see that what they say it costs is really excessive. Also, some have suggested in the tight budget times we cannot afford to continue this. Well, I do not think we can afford not to continue it. The GAO report goes on to recognize that these grants have really served communities. They have served rural communities and they have served urban communities. GAO said in the seven AmeriCorps programs in the four States it visited that ``During our site visits we observed local programs helping communities.'' This one sentence makes it all worthwhile. GAO says, ``In our site visits, we observed that these communities are actually being helped.'' I could go on to talk about what they do, but what GAO says is, ``We observed participants renovating inner-city housing, assisting teachers in elementary schools * * * analyzing neighborhood crime statistics to better target prevention measures * * * '' working with the police, developing a community food bank for people with special dietary needs--and I could go on. Others would say that is going to be done anyway. Well, I am not so sure it is going to be done anyway. You have the downsizing of State and local governments. They are shrinking funds available for nonprofits. And also there are few people to volunteer. This bill rewards the kinds of values, like sweat equity and work, that are at the heart of the American family. It does not identify with victims. It does not whine. It is not morose about the issues facing our society. I think this goes right into the values of the Nation. These are not Democratic Party values; these are not Republican Party values. These are American values: Hard work, neighbor helping neighbor, making sure that the access to the American dream is there for all Americans. So, Madam President, I hope we will support the appropriation of national service. I also hope that we support the reauthorization when it comes up. I really think this is very important legislation. I think it really warrants the Senate's attention and their vote. I yield back such time as I might have left, reserving other time that has been allocated to me. Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Thank you, Mr. President. At this time, I yield myself no more than 15 minutes, reserving the balance of my time to allocate to other Senators and also for summation argument. Mr. President, I rise today to offer an amendment to the VA-HUD and independent agencies appropriations bill. My amendment restores funding for the Corporation for National and Community Service. It is in the amount of $425 million. The offset necessary to do this is taken from inside HUD to cover the budget authority in outlays needed to restore funding for national service. The amount of funding this amendment provides allows another year of operation at a level that is 48 percent below the President's 1996 request, and it is also 10 percent below the fiscal year 1995 rescinded level. In addition, my amendment would prohibit direct grants to Federal agencies, generating an additional 11 percent of savings. And, finally, my amendment would fence all funds from obligation until the Corporation submits a plan that restructures the program operation to reflect its reduced budget or until national service is reauthorized, whichever comes first. Mr. President, why do I do this? I do this because I so strongly and passionately believe in national service. This is not just yet another social program. It is a unique American social invention designed to help create the ethic of service in today's young people. It creates an opportunity structure under which young Americans receive a reduction in their student debt or a voucher to pay for their higher education in exchange for full- or part-time community service. This is not another handout. This says to young people, we know that your first mortgage is your student debt, but we want to give you an opportunity to reduce that student debt by doing service in your community. And if you do that, you will earn a voucher to reduce that student debt to the tune of about $4,000 a year. The projects themselves do not come from some Federal bureaucrat deciding what is best for local communities. It is driven by the choices of local organizations, primarily nonprofits, and organizing around four basic areas of activity: education, public health, the environment, and public safety. It gives these young men and women a chance to get a college education in exchange for community service. This is not a Gucci-styled, show-up-once-a-week concept. These community workers spend an average of 35 hours each week contributing to their communities. They get a modest monthly allowance, and they get other support. Why is this important? We want to do three things with national service. We want to help students reduce their student debt. We want to also rekindle the habits of the heart that made America great with the spirit of voluntarism. And third but not at all least, we want to deal with the new volunteer deficit that is facing the United States of America when many of our nonprofits are withering on the vine for the lack of community participation. What are some of the examples of what these volunteers do? In my own State, in Montgomery County, they operate a community assisting police program where volunteers engage in community education and outreach that addresses the need for crime control, prevention, and the reduction of fear in six underserved communities. Some of the projects that they do are coordinating a school awareness crime program. They provide bilingual assistance and referrals to crime victims. They work actually in a community policing station side by side with the police officers. They are not new cops, but they are cop extenders because while the police officers are doing the policing, these volunteers are helping doing prevention, community education, and also providing much-needed bilingual assistance. In Vermont, there is something called the Vermont Antihunger, Nutrition and Empowerment Corps. This group operates five sites in Vermont, developing a statewide approach to hunger to increase participation of low-income and rural residents in Federal food assistance programs and teaching them about nutrition and how to buy and plant food. In Washington State, we have a conservation corps providing a 1-year program that combines fieldwork and on-the-job instruction for doing things like watershed restoration, reforestation, stream and salmon habitat rehabilitation, and forest fire and oil spill response. It takes hard-to-reach kids and puts them with other young people who have recently graduated from college, both doing hands-on work. I know that we have not only turned the environment around but we have turned around some at-risk kids. YouthBuild Boston is a program that puts 18- to 24-year-old volunteers to work renovating buildings to provide low-income housing. The program engages disenfranchised youth in rebuilding their communities and provides them with the education and skills to become self-reliant and responsible citizens. The program has had such success that it has expanded its services from housing renovation to include environmental, public safety, and education projects. There are over 1,000 programs operating nationwide which involve 20,000 volunteers. These programs are doing exactly what Congress intended to do when we authorized this bill in 1993. In fact, many of the programs are operating with a larger degree of success than even we had hoped. National service was designed to address those two programs I talked about--student indebtedness as well as how to instill a sense of obligation and habits of the heart in young people. There has been a sharp drop over the last 20 years in the number of Americans who volunteer in their communities. Harvard Prof. Bob Putnam has identified this trend and says that we need to promote more civic activity. Fewer people attend the PTA. But also what we know is that groups like the Red Cross, Meals on Wheels, Girl Scouts, and Boy Scouts face fewer and fewer volunteers. What we want to do is instill this sense of citizenship, this sense of obligation. And we also want to say, as part of an overall Government framework, now we have a clear message that for every right there is a responsibility, for every opportunity there should be an obligation. And this [[Page S 14251]] is what we are trying to create also through this legislation. National service is the latest in a long series of social inventions designed by this country to create higher education. Earlier today we debated the space station. We are known worldwide for our scientific invention. But also we have been a genius in social inventions--those tools that enable people to pursue the American dream. (Ms. SNOWE assumed the chair.)

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, we agree to the amendment. I have no other statement to make on it.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Reserving the right to object, on the arsenic, would the Senator go ahead with this? I need to be sure that the authorizer on our side, and Senator Lautenberg--not only do I wish to cooperate with the Senator from Rhode Island, but these got fairly prickly as we were moving into the full committee, so I just want to make sure we have one good thing done, and check in the meantime about the arsenic.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I absolutely oppose the amendment being offered by the Senator from Arkansas. I thank him for his support of the space program and also for research in the American life science community, but I want to make three points. The Senator says this is a condo in the sky for going to Mars. We absolutely reject that. We go to Mars, and we are going by robots; we are not going by astronauts. This is to be a science lab, not a condo. Second, the space station at one time was overweight and underpowered, not unlike the Federal bureaucracy. We streamlined the space station design to make sure that weight, power, and mission match. And last, but not at all least, there was a question whether we could really assemble the space station in space. When we gave the Hubble space telescope a new contact lens and our astronauts showed the deftness with which they could do mechanical assembly in space, they showed that we could do it. So we now have designs to the mission. We can put it together in space. And it is a science lab, not a condo for astronauts. I yield the floor.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I will use 1 minute of speaking on this and will speak again on my own time. I believe the American people want us to work on a bipartisan basis to save lives and to save jobs in the United States of America and to develop those lifesaving techniques that we can export around the world. Working on a bipartisan basis, we have worked on saving lives, and the special emphasis on women's health care that we have done on a bipartisan basis has been extraordinary. Let me tell you what working together has meant and working with NASA. It means that for the victims of osteoporosis, NASA has developed instruments to measure bone loss and bone density without penetrating the skin that is now being used in hospitals. It also means that in the absence, that research equipment developed by the space station is already paying dividends on the ground by growing ovarian tumor samples in NASA's new cell culturing device, called a bioreactor, so that tumors can be studied outside the body without harm to the patient and developing the technique to intervene. This is an enormous breakthrough, and while we are concentrating using [[Page S 14236]] space science focusing on ovarian tumors, this will have incredible consequences also for brain tumors and other diseases that are terminal because of a tumor effect. This is absolutely crucial. Working with the NIH on joint ventures, on hormonal disorders, immune system dysfunctions and also on heart disease, now the No. 1 killer of women in the United States of America, shows this. I know that the Senator from Texas is aware that because of our efforts, NASA and NIH have entered into a joint agreement on how we can do things in space that we could never do here. By doing things in space collaboratively, it will not only be in the laboratory, it will be in the doctor's office and in pharmaceutical devices we can sell around the world. I yield the floor.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I echo the chairman's comments, first to the people of Alaska, of our deep concern. As the Senator knows, I have visited Alaska. Though I do not have intimate knowledge with the specifics of the areas that he has talked about, I can only imagine the really sad impact. We believe in helping communities to be able to rebuild themselves and restore themselves. I hope that the President will declare this a disaster area. How we ultimately fund the actual disaster account is a subject of which we have had extensive hearings for which we would require an authorizing solution. I know this is not the time or the place to debate that. I think that is a good topic for 1996.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Well, if I had the opportunity to award the Senator a medal, I believe he deserves the highest recognition for his gallantry and his bravery.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, first I would like to thank my colleague, Senator Inouye, for his extraordinary advocacy in behalf of American veterans. As the ranking minority member on this bill, it pains me and grieves me that a Senator who bears the permanent wounds of war, who wears with pride the Congressional Medal of Honor, must come before the U.S. Senate and plead for a VA hospital; an American hero coming to speak in behalf of all other veterans of all other wars saying: Please give me a medical center to meet the needs of other men and women who served in the military, who themselves bear the permanent wounds of war. What we face here is the fact that in Hawaii there is a unique situation because of its geographic location. They cannot go to the trauma centers. Everything has to be in Hawaii. Also, there has been a unique linkage between veterans and military hospitals. So I want to acknowledge the validity of the Senator's plea. I want to acknowledge the validity of the plight of veterans in Hawaii. I pledge to him the desire, the deep desire, to work with him to ensure that the Hawaiian veterans have the medical care that they need and they deserve, and how we could do a linkage with perhaps the military hospitals and perhaps the private sector. But I believe that if we are as creative in helping these veterans with their medical care as we have been in other areas of national defense and security, we will be able to do this. I also thank the Senator for withdrawing the amendment, though I know it is deeply troubling to him to do so. But we have no money in this budget. The only way we could have funded it is if we had gone to the backlog claims. Right now there is a waiting list of over 6 months to 3 years for veterans trying to process their claims for their pensions and their disability benefits. American veterans should not have to stand in line for 6 months or more because of the sluggish nature of the bureaucracy with the way they have modernized, and so on. So we have now put resources in to deal with the backlog of claims. I am glad we are going to let that stand. Again, I would like to thank the Senator for his defense of America, for the worthy nature of the Congressional Medal of Honor which he wears and which I see on his lapel this morning, and for his defense of veterans who in many ways do not have a voice; and, of course, for his own constituents of Hawaii. I also want to acknowledge the staunch defense of veterans and health care of my colleague, Senator Akaka.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I note that my colleague, who is managing the VA-HUD bill, which is before the [[Page S 14224]] Senate today, will speak on environmental matters in our legislation. But before he does, I wanted to bring to the Senate's attention the death of someone who really has been an outstanding American citizen. Bessie Delany died Monday at the age of 104 in her home in Mount Vernon, NY. Many Americans know her as part of the Delany sisters. Dr. Bessie Delany and her sister, Sadie Delany, lived through the most remarkable period in American history, from about the 1880's all the way until now. They saw the end of slavery. They lived through the era where people moved from the South. Bessie Delany was one of the first African-American women to become a physician in the United States. She was the second African-American woman to practice dentistry in New York, having graduated from Columbia University in 1923. About 5 years ago, she and her sister became famous when they wrote, coauthored with Amy Hill Hearth, a book called ``Having Our Say: The Delany Sisters' First 100 Years.'' In April, a play opened on Broadway telling their story. I read their great book called ``Having Our Say,'' and it is a remarkable tribute of courage, character, and competency. Both of these women overcame incredible odds to make a substantial contribution to the American community. And overcoming all of the bias related to racism, all the obstacles for which there were very skimpy opportunity structures available to them, both--one went on to be a teacher, and Bessie Delany became, as I said, a physician. All of America is sorry to see Dr. Bessie Delany move on. We are very sorry about her death. We extend our sympathy to her family. But as a great tribute to her and her remarkable life, I really encourage all who are listening here to go to the library and get this remarkable book, ``Having Our Say,'' because in listening to what the Delanys say, both this remarkable teacher and this remarkable physician have a lot of lessons to teach us and to give us, also, a navigational chart for the healing that needs to go on in our society. So to Dr. Bessie Delany, wherever she is in God's great glory, we just thank her for what she has done for this country. We express our condolences to her sister Sadie. And as a tribute we urge you read this remarkable book about their lives. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. I ask unanimous consent that I may speak as if in morning business.