Barbara Mikulski

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I am aware of the study. We spoke about the work being done by the Geological Survey of the Department of the Interior that is trying to develop sophisticated methods for earthquake prediction. They are predicting future--within the next decade or so-- severe earthquakes on the west coast but possibly in the Midwest itself. I might add, you never know when an earthquake is going to hit. As the Senator knows, the State of Maryland is not an earthquake State. We are more a hurricane State. Yet we had earthquakes in a small county in the Baltimore metropolitan area. It was shocking. Fortunately, we had no major loss of property and no loss of life. So, yes, we have to be ready to stand centrally on the whole issue of earthquakes, but we do need that rainy day fund. I thank the Senator for reiterating the report.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Montana for his remarks. I thank him for his support of this amendment. He has had a very difficult job, trying to bring the authorizing legislation to the floor. I know there were many roadblocks placed in the way of his excellent skills, in both content and parliamentary procedure. So I thank him for this support and upholding of the principle. Mr. President, I have no further remarks on the content of this legislation. I think one could see the very nature of this debate is we could disagree on content, on precedent, and yet at the same time maintain great civility. I hope the Senate learned a lot in listening to the exchanges here and, of course, I hope my view prevails. But I would like, again, to thank the chairman of the subcommittee for the courtesies. We have a long row to hoe to the next fiscal year.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes.

Ms. MIKULSKI. How much time does the Senator desire? A vote is set at 1:15.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Reserving the right to object. I will not object to the consent. I have been notified that Senator Baucus of the Environment and Public Works Committee wanted to speak between 1 and 1:10. So if I could not yield back all of my time and reserve the right, should he be here, I am in absolute agreement to having the vote at 1:15.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, as we debate this substitute, I want to, again, say that there are two issues that the Senator from Missouri and I absolutely agree on. First, that we need to reform HUD, and the other, that FEMA must have a rainy day fund. If I can just comment on the need to reform HUD, the Senator from Missouri is absolutely right about the need to organizationally reform HUD and then to deal with the conflicting and confusing budget information we receive that is demonstrated on the Senator's charts presented by CBO. First, what my colleagues might be interested to know is that I was one of the ones to talk about reforming HUD before the Cisneros plan came in. When I chaired the subcommittee, I actually commissioned a report by the National Association of Public Administrators to identify what are the areas to do that. I am happy that the Senator from Missouri and his very competent staff have also picked up on that. In essence, what they said was that HUD was an organizational disaster. They have over 240 different programs, sometimes serving such a narrow need standpoint. HUD has been crippled not by us trying only to meet compelling human needs, but HUD has been crippled by the passion of both Members of the House and the Senate on both sides of the aisle to pursue trophies: ``Let's come up with a program for this. The new trophy is new programs.'' A line item for this, a line item program for that. So I look forward to working with the authorizing committees, as well as my colleague on the Appropriations Committee, to move HUD from these 240 different programs often with their own bureaucracy to six programs and that needs to be done in an orderly, methodical, prudent way. Then there is the second issue about the question about the so-called CBO scoring and about OMB. Mr. President, in the interest of time, I will not go through these detailed commentaries that I have received from the Office of Management and Budget. But there is a great deal of difference between what the assumptions are by the Congressional Budget Office and by the Office of Management and Budget. They use technocratic words and I believe I like to use diner vocabulary. Essentially, from the diner's standpoint, we need to get OMB and CBO to resolve their assumptions. The Senator is right, there is absolute confusion over what we need to pay for, what we need to pay for in the future and whether there is a train wreck. So I do not dispute the nature of his argument, nor am I here to defend OMB against CBO. Believe me, I am going to let those people with green eyeshades and bifocals far better calibrated than mine to get into a room and actually advise the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee and myself as to what are the real assumptions, so that we can come up with a real appropriation. However, at the request of Dr. Rivlin, I will put into the Record her concerns about the differences between CBO and OMB. What I am concerned about, though, is the $4 billion cut. While we understand that the prospective aspects are troubling, two programs are cut: $835 million for modernization of public housing, though it does leave $2.5 billion in this account; $90 million for lead-based paint hazard reduction. Mr. President, I have been concerned for some time that HUD itself, in many cities, is the biggest slum landlord in that town. It often has lead paint that has been there for a number of years, and we do know that lead paint and flaking of lead paint does have negative health damages. Also, we know that much of the public housing is obsolete and is very much in need of modernization if it is going to be fit for duty. Those two items, I believe, would give one cause and concern about that. The other areas that I am concerned about is the issue of national service. I have often been teased and called the mother of national service, and I honor that because, you see, national service is not just one more Government program. Many might think that, but it was meant to be a new social movement. It was designed to deal with certain issues before us. No. 1, that for many college students, their first mortgage, their first debt, is their student loans. Many of our young people are loaned $10,000, $15,000, $20,000. Also, we are faced with the declining ethic of voluntarism in our society, and also such compelling need that we cannot meet it all by more Government programs. So, therefore, what national service is--and it was a bipartisan effort that passed it; and, yes, President Clinton amplified it--it enables young people to volunteer and work in the service of the United States of America, primarily working in nonprofits, to pay off student debt, but also to make a sweat equity investment in the United States of America. Last year, we funded it for $200 million. I believe over 20,000 volunteers are now working. It is the first year that the program is fully operational. I am concerned that the cut in national service will, No. 1, devastate the program and, No. 2, be a deterrent for volunteers, community service people, even applying because they think the money will not be there. This is not some Great Society program. This is not a handout or another Government gimmick and social engineering. It is about instilling the habits of the heart in our young people, making sure that they help and volunteer, getting lots of benefit out of their volunteer community service. I really like the fact that it is primarily in nonprofits and not in big bureaucracies and that we now do not know the full impact of helping these young people learn these habits of the heart. Because like with the Peace Corps, long after they left volunteer service in a foreign country, they came home and kept that spirit of voluntarism right here and made important contributions in the private sector in philanthropic work. I am concerned about the cuts in national service. I could elaborate, but I believe the time is short. I am going to yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time and see if the leadership has decided that they would like to vote.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Thank you, Mr. President. I know we are awaiting to hear from the leadership their advice on the hot line as to when they wish to establish the vote. I believe the vote will occur sometime within the next half an hour. While we are waiting for that, I know one other Senator wishes to speak.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, how much time do I have?

Ms. MIKULSKI. I yield the Senator an additional minute.

Ms. MIKULSKI. I yield to the distinguished Senator from California, who has faced her share of earthquakes and slides and really knows what these issues are, 10 minutes.

Ms. MIKULSKI. I thank the Senator for speaking in behalf of this amendment. He makes excellent points, particularly the consequences to the housing programs and the compelling needs we have to meet. I thank him for interrupting his schedule. How much time would the Senator from California like to have?

Ms. MIKULSKI. The President has declared it an emergency disaster and therefore follows the same procedure under the law.

Ms. MIKULSKI. That is correct. They total $22 billion. They have been funded off budget as prescribed by law as the President declares it an emergency disaster.

Ms. MIKULSKI. The Senator is correct.

Ms. MIKULSKI. I yield the Senator such time as he may consume.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I know that there are others who wish to speak. While we are waiting for them to come, I want to comment on the comments of my colleague, the Senator from Missouri. First, the Senator said that the Mikulski substitute does nothing for deficit reduction. I respectfully disagree with that because you see under the rules of the 1985 Budget Act, disasters, if declared by the President as an emergency, do not have to be paid for. President Clinton declared these disasters in the FEMA supplemental an emergency. So, therefore, under the rules of the Budget Act, they could be placed on the discretionary spending. Yes. Added to the deficit but it will not count against the appropriation. My bill maintains the President's declaration of an emergency and a disaster. But in the interest of deficit reduction we are willing to pay for it. Therefore, this $6.7 billion does not go off into some limbo and yet add to the deficit. It will be both through my substitute a pay-as-you-go. It will be a one-time only pay-as-you-go through this across the board with the prospective establishment of a rainy day fund. So you see. I believe that the Mikulski substitute which is a pay-as- you-go substitute does reduce the deficit by $6.7 billion. There is a great deal of debate about what this rescission money will be used for. Is it going to be used for deficit reduction or is it going to be used for tax cuts to be offered by the other party? There are those of us who support deficit reduction and, therefore, know that if that is the point of the rescission package we will look for elements to do the deficit reduction, but here is a whole other substantial school of thought within this institution led by the Senator from West Virginia, Senator Robert Byrd, who says ``yes'' to deficit reduction but ``no'' for the savings to be done on tax cuts. I will not debate the points that Senator Byrd wishes to bring to the body's attention later this afternoon. He will do it in his own usual eloquent, persuasive way. But I believe the Mikulski substitute does, because we are doing pay-as- you-go not by putting it off budget but with $6.7 billion for deficit reduction. Do I go as far as the House? No. Do I go as far as the Hatfield-Bond legislation? The answer is no. The House went to $17 billion. The efforts by the distinguished chairman of the committee, Senator Hatfield, and the subcommittee, Senator Bond, goes to $13 billion. But when I knew I was going to try to deal with this problem by an across- the-board cut, I did not want to gouge other subcommittees by paying-- for the fact that we do not have a mechanism for a rainy day fund. So I kept it under what I called the Mikulski 12.2-percent solution. Sure. I could have come up with more rescissions to do an across-the-board. But I did not want to gouge the criminal justice system. I did not want to gouge Labor, HHS. I did not want to gouge the important funding that needs to go on in defense. So that is why my amendment is so modest. It is 1.7 percent. It is absolutely modest. I say to my colleagues, I do not like across-the- board cuts either. Hopefully we can do this with line-item evaluations. It is natural disaster funding that should be borne by the Nation doing this across-the-board cut. I can comment on other aspects of it. But I note that the distinguished chairman, ranking minority of the authorizing committee, Senator Sarbanes, is on the floor. He is interrupting his other important work to be here. Sarbanes such time as he might consume to elaborate on this subject.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to offer this substitute which I feel greatly improves the manner in which Congress deals with the disaster assistance. I call it the Truth in Disaster Budgeting Act. Before I describe my amendment in the nature of a substitute, I would like to thank the chairman of the VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies Subcommittee, Senator Bond, for all of the courtesies that have been afforded me, my staff, and other people on this side of the aisle. I believe that Senator Bond, in the approach he used, tried to do the best with the deck that was dealt him. But I do not think it was a great deck. We essentially feel like we are a couple of cards short. Mr. President, let me go through the principles of the bill, and I would like to amplify my remarks. First, what this amendment does is replaces title I and it offsets the earthquake relief aspects by applying a 1.7-percent across-the- board cut to all discretionary spending, except VA medical care, nutrition programs, Social Security, Medicare administrative costs, and defense readiness. It also, as the second part, requires Congress to set up a rainy day fund. Let me explain where we are. The President has declared the need for a Federal emergency management supplemental to the tune of $6.7 billion to pay for the disasters that the United States of America has faced-- like in Northridge, CA, and the remaining aspects of Hurricane Andrew. That is the good news. The bad news is that Congress is being asked to pay for it out of one appropriations subcommittee, the subcommittee called VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies. These are 25 different agencies. So essentially, one subcommittee within the U.S. Senate becomes the bank to fund disaster relief, and it is being done out of the rescission bill, when we do not have the money unless we take it from those programs that have already been appropriated. I disagree with the President in taking and funding emergency disaster relief out of one subcommittee. That is the reason I am offering my substitute. I believe that natural disasters, which are acts of nature, should be funded and all the Government should bear the burden and not just a few programs. Therefore, what my substitute does is replace the rescission contained in the bill with an across-the-board cut of 1.72 percent. This across-the-board cut will raise the $6.7 billion necessary to offset the cost of providing disaster assistance to complete the recovery efforts in Northridge, CA, and for previously declared disasters in 46 other States. My substitute also specifically exempts those four areas which I feel should not bear any more cuts. First, VA medical care. Promises made, promises cut. Let us not cut VA medical care. Second, it exempts defense readiness because I believe we need to be able to stand sentry and have our force structure ready. The other is that it exempts food and nutrition programs at the Department of Agriculture, like Meals on Wheels and school lunches. It also exempts the administrative costs related to Social Security and Medicare. Mr. President, though the President has declared this FEMA supplemental to be a disaster, under the rules of the Senate we do not have to pay for it. It would be off budget. I believe people on both sides of the aisle agree that it should be paid for, and I agree that it should be paid for. I also agree with the principle that my colleague, Senator Bond, is doing, which is to essentially establish a rainy day fund--only I want to establish this rainy day fund for rainy days, both literally and figuratively, prospectively out of this subcommittee. The reason I say that is the recent disasters like Hurricanes Hugo, Andrew, Iniki, floods in the Midwest, the Northridge earthquake, and the Loma Prieta earthquake, have proven a compelling need to reevaluate Federal disaster assistance policy. The first crucial step is to establish the rainy day fund so that we can respond and meet our responsibilities. What the Mikulski substitute does is to direct the appropriate authorizing committees to establish both the mechanism and the source of funding for a rainy day fund before the start of fiscal year 1996. I am offering this substitute because I have, as I said, two serious concerns with the bill reported to us: The bad precedent set by requiring that disaster assistance be offset by cuts in spending in other areas. Second, the dangerous precedent by taking all of these offsets or sources of funds from one subcommittee, VA, HUD, Appropriations Committee. VA, HUD is 25 different agencies. It funds all of veterans, all of housing, all of EPA, administrative expenses of FEMA, National Science Foundation, and even agencies like Arlington Cemetery. I believe that we should not be the bankroll. I am also concerned that it would come out of primarily HUD and EPA, National Service, and VA medical care. Mr. President, I am all for reducing the deficit, but what we must understand is that requiring offsets in discretionary spending to cover the cost of disaster assistance represents a fundamental change in Federal disaster policy. This was established with the enactment of discretionary budget caps and the pay-as-you-go and the balanced budget and emergency deficit control of 1985. This longstanding policy is based on the principle that natural disasters are unprecedented acts of nature, and nature cannot be accommodated in the standard appropriations process. By definition, these acts are extraordinary and catastrophic and beyond the scope of what we could normally confront in the annual battle with both the weather, elements, and the battle of the budget. Historically, since 1988, Congress has enacted seven major disaster supplementals, and they total $22.5 billion to aid virtually every State in the Union. The Appropriations Committee continually rejected amendments which called for offsets. It was funded off budget. Our guiding principle was to provide relief to those who desperately need it. Whether it was Hugo, the riots in Los Angeles, CA, flooding in Chicago, the terrible floods in Missouri, we never adopted offsets. Each of these was sudden, unforeseen, and funded outside of the budget caps. I do not want to argue that. I believe, along with my colleague, and I believe the majority of my colleagues, that we should pay for it. But I believe we should pay for it across the board and not out of the bank of one subcommittee. Mr. President, all of this is going to change if the offsets are the name of the game. I believe they should. But natural and national disasters should be a national responsibility. Therefore, that is why I establish this rainy day fund. The bill before us establishes a second precedent which is that the source of FEMA will be the VA, HUD. I think it is outrageous that one subcommittee needs to pay for what happened in California, Florida, Missouri, Maryland, or any other State. What is about to happen is a disaster for the appropriations. What do I mean? Well, first, out of that $6.7 billion, $4.6 billion will come from Housing and Urban Development, the one agency in our Federal Government that has primary responsibility for the needs of the elderly, children, disabled, and homeless. Also, $1.3 billion would be taken from EPA programs designed to assist States in complying with safe drinking water and wastewater treatment standards. It also will come from national service, veterans care, and the National Science Foundation. I know that the Senator from Missouri, in taking the money from HUD, tried to protect the most vulnerable--the homeless and the elderly--and I thank him for that. But still, it will take HUD's annual budget, which is over $26 billion, and this represents a 20-percent cut. The VA subcommittee cannot be either the bank or the will-call window for disaster relief. I believe it is bad policy. I also believe it is absolutely unfair. What happens the next time disaster strikes? Will we continue to take it from HUD? Will we eliminate the National Science Foundation? Will we just shut down a few hospitals out of VA? I do not know what will be done. What I do know, though, is that we anticipate more disasters. The U.S. Geological Survey estimates the probability of earthquakes only escalating and that there is a 80 to 90 percent probability of another major earthquake in California within the next 20 years. There is the strong probability of earthquakes in San Francisco and other areas. How are we going to pay for this? I believe we need a rainy day fund. I believe we need an earthquake fund. That is why I direct the authorizers to come up to deal with this. This amendment is about fundamental fairness. Who pays? Who pays for national disasters? Who pays for natural disasters? That is why I believe it should be borne by the entire Nation. So, Mr. President, what this amendment does is try to show that it is a new world order. We should not just fund things off budget and make out they do not exist, because we cannot keep racking up the deficit. But, at the same time, I believe that one subcommittee should not be the bankroller. That is why I offer what I originally called my 2 percent solution. I was able to lower that, and it essentially now is a 1.72-percent across-the-board cut, exempting VA medical care, nutrition programs, defense readiness and those administrative costs, and Social Security and Medicare. Mr. President, I could elaborate more on this. In the interest of moving in an expeditious way, I will yield the floor, yet reserve the time remaining for my side. Mr. BOND addressed the Chair.

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

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I send an amendment in the nature of a substitute to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I am proud to rise as a cosponsor of the NATO Participation Act Amendments of 1995. This bipartisan legislation will increase security and stability in eastern Europe, and will contribute to the security of the United States. This year we are marking the 50th anniversary of our victory in World War II. But the end of the World War was also the start of the cold war. Soviet expansionism forced us to prepare to defend western Europe. And the captive nations of eastern Europe were forced behind the Iron Curtain. After more than 40 years of living under Soviet tyranny, Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, and Slovakia are free and independent. They are not asking for protection. They are merely asking to be full partners in the new Europe. By transforming their countries into free- market democracies, they have earned this right. If our international organizations are to survive--as I believe they must--they must adapt to the post-cold-war world. This sounds so obvious. Yet NATO is still mired in its cold war structure. We still have not established the criteria for NATO membership--let alone a timetable for admitting new states. In recent months the United States has more explicitly stated that NATO will be expanded. I applaud this. But our NATO partners have been dragging their feet. This legislation will help to clarify the United States position on NATO expansion--and will enable us to lead the alliance to meet the challenges of the post-Soviet world. We have all heard the arguments against expanding NATO. Some believe that we will offend Russia by expanding NATO membership. I disagree. NATO is a defensive organization. A country that doesn't have expansionist aims has nothing to fear from an expanded NATO. Mr. President, for many years I have worked with Senator Brown and Senator Simon to make the United States a more effective advocate for democracy and economic development in eastern Europe. I commend them for their leadership and look forward to working with them to enact the NATO Participation Act Amendments into law.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, on March 15, 1995, Dundalk Community College in Dundalk, MD, in honor of Women's History Month, hosted ``A Salute to Rosie the Riveter,'' honoring the women who worked in America's wartime factories to do their part in America's war effort. Between 1942 and 1945, the ranks of American working women swelled from 12 to 18 million. Responding to the call that ``We can do it,'' thousands of women entered the wartime work force women overseas. Joining the celebration on March 15 were 236 ``Rosies.'' These women worked in the industrial hub of Baltimore's wartime economy--they melted the ore, welded the ships, and riveted the wings. Fifty years later their employers--Bethlehem Steel, Lockheed-Martin--formerly Glen L. Martin Aircraft--and General Motors--Eastern Aircraft--thanked the 236 Rosies present at the celebration and the thousands of Rosies these women represented. In recognition of the efforts of Dundalk Community College and in honor of the lives of all of the ``Rosies'' who built the arsenal of democracy and helped to save the Western World, today we extend to them our gratitude. They have earned an honored place in our memory and respected place in our history.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Is the Senator aware that the administration strongly supports the retention of the $400 million request?

Ms. MIKULSKI. I know they do it in the House all the time. I would hope we would not get into that in the Senate. If you yield the floor then, I would just like to bring to the attention of the Senator from Missouri that the administration has submitted a letter in support of the wind tunnel. I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.