Barbara Mikulski

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, knowing there is important legislative work to be done on the issue of unfunded mandates, I will not take unduly the time of the U.S. Senate. However, I do wish to speak on two items, one, an unsung hero from Maryland who has just passed away and the other on the issue of national service.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded and that I be allowed to speak as if in morning business.

Ms. MIKULSKI. I am sorry, I cannot see the Senator.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I wanted to speak on the issue of national service. The new issue of Newsweek quotes the new Speaker of the House as unequivocally opposing national service because it is, in his words, ``coerced voluntarism.'' I believe the new Speaker does not understand national service or the grounding that went on behind it. As one of the founding godmothers of this initiative, I rise this afternoon to express my dismay at yet another attempt by Republican leaders to distort a bold approach to solving our country's problems. It appears from these recent comments and others made earlier on the floor today, that some in this Congress will try to lump national service in with every other program headed for the chopping block as part of our institution's budget cutting fever. Well, I am here today to say that national service is not a Government-run social program. And that is the point that the Speaker and some of national service's critics misunderstand. It is not a program but a new social invention created to provide access to the American dream of higher education and to help create the ethic of service and civic obligation in today's young people. Under national service, young Americans receive a reduction in their student debt, or a voucher for higher education, in exchange for full- or part-time community service. Service projects are driven by the choices of local nonprofits organized around one of four broad themes-- public health, the environment, public safety, or education. National service began as a concept with the Democratic Leadership Council and other Democrats like myself in the 1980's. But its purpose was not born of political gamesmanship or partisan advantage. It was designed to address two of the most pressing needs that our country faces. One, how can students pay off their student debt; and how can we create a sense of voluntarism. The first is the issue of student indebtedness and access to higher education. Most college graduates today face their first mortgage the day they leave college--it is called their student loans. That debt often forces them to make career choices oriented strictly to getting them financially fit for duty. Worse yet, for many the high cost of higher education simply denies them access to college at all. By providing a post-service benefit, national service members can ease their student debt, or accrue savings that will help them go to school. It is not an entitlement, and it is not a hand out. Educational benefits are linked to work service. Participants are eligible only when they have finished their work service commitment. The second problem national service is designed to address is more idealistic. It is how to instill in young Americans what de Tocqueville called the habits of the heart. To address the sharp drop over the last two decades in the number of Americans who volunteer in their own communities, a fact representative of Americans disinvesting in those social institutions which helped build our country. Bob Putnam, a Professor at Harvard, has written an article called ``Bowling Alone.'' He says more people bowl today than a decade ago but few belong to bowling leagues. So, Senator Mikulski, what does that have to do with national service? The point is bowling alone is a metaphor for the way Americans have come to view civic involvement and citizenship. There has a been an absolute decline in developing community involvement. People have less time available because many households have two wage earners instead of one. They are more mobile. We have a society that is more influenced by TV. And they are also less committed. There is a serious lack of a sense of civic obligation. Fewer people attend PTA, groups like Red Cross and the Boy Scouts have fewer volunteers. My point in saying this is that national service is an idea that promotes exactly the values that the Republican leader wishes to instill. The fact that we should not rely on Government, that there should be a role for nonprofit organizations, that there should be for every opportunity, an obligation; for every right, a responsibility. And that is what national service is about. It is not coercive. Nobody is forced to get into the national service program. But I will tell you what they do. Their lives are significantly changed by it and their communities are significantly changed by it. Young American men no longer have the shared experience of military service that served for the men of my generation as a rite of passage into adulthood. Where they learned that there was more to being a good citizen than just staying out of trouble. That instead, civic responsibility meant uniting with people of all different walks of life for a common purpose to help people help themselves; to be part of an American effort bigger than themselves. National service is the latest in a long series of social inventions we have created to help provide access to higher education. We created night schools to teach immigrants English. We created the GI bill for returning veterans, and we invented community colleges to bring higher education close to home at a modest cost. The argument that national service is coerced voluntarism is a knee- jerk statement that belies the facts. I chaired the Appropriations Subcommittee which has funded national service in the past. In the first 2 years of the Clinton administration, no one coerced anyone to participate. Instead, people were knocking down the doors to join. Two facts make this point. First of all, there are more people who want to participate than there are opportunities. In national service's first 2 years, about 1,500 organizations applied for funds. Only 300 were selected because of lack of funds. That is a selection rate of just 20 percent--a lower selection rate than peer-reviewed research grants at either the National Science Second, in the current fiscal year, we provided enough funds to get about 23,000 people participating in full- or part-time national service. Yet since the President launched his call for a season of service, the Corporation for National Service has received calls from nearly 200,000 different persons wanting to participating in the program. So just 1 in 10 who have wanted to voluntarily participate have been able to do so. Now some discount the kind of work undertaken through national service. They say it is trivial, or unnecessary, or even irrelevant. But I can tell you that in my own State of Maryland, national service is making a difference--not with fancy bumper sticker programs or activities that simply touch the surface of what is needed. For example, 30 national service volunteers in Montgomery County are working with cops as victim assistance advocates for 1,000 senior citizens. They help teach crime prevention techniques and organize neighborhood watch activities. They work every day to make Montgomery County, MD, a safer place to live. National service is helping senior citizens avoid crime by teaching crime prevention, organizing neighborhood watchdogs and rural, urban. In suburban areas they have service corps related to conservation. They are rehabilitating houses for low-income families. When we were hit by tornadoes, the National Service Corps moved in and helped families help themselves to be able to pull themselves out of the tragedy that affected them. There are many criticisms of national service, and Senator Grassley raised a few related to bureaucracy. I do think we need to make sure that bureaucracy is kept at a minimum. Mr. President, regardless about how one feels about it as an organization, let us not lose sight of the mission. We need new social inventions in this country to take us into the 21st century just like we need new technological inventions. We have continued creating social inventions that have provided access to the American dream around owning a home and acquiring higher education. In terms of acquiring education, we in the United States of America invented night school so immigrants could be able to learn English, citizenship, and move ahead. No other country in the world had it until we invented it. There is the GI bill that said ``thank you'' to Americans who made sacrifices in World War II, and part of that was to be able to have a VA mortgage and a VA opportunity to seek higher education. We even invented the community college system to make sure that you did not have to go away to be able to learn. National service is an opportunity. It is an organization right now that is providing volunteer slots of 20,000 people a year to actually work hands on in their own community, primarily working through nonprofits and enabling themselves to pay off their student debt, helping the community. Mr. President, I believe their lives will be changed. I believe that when the voucher part of this program is over they will go on volunteering the rest of their lives. I think it is an important program. I hope that before we go around attacking some of these programs that we take a look at their mission. If we have to fine tune the administrative aspects of it, so be it. But I believe national service is an important part of our national agenda and should have bipartisan support. In rural, urban, and suburban places around Maryland, the Maryland service corps--like the Maryland Conservation Corps, Civic Works in Baltimore, and Community Year in Montgomery County--are teaming up to rehabilitate houses for low-income families. These are but two examples of hundreds of ones that are taking place across America in 49 of the 50 States. They are fighting to make a difference in people's lives, 1 day at a time, one person at a time. Because in today's culture of mass marketing, mass production, and mass advertising, we need to teach every young American that he or she can make a difference. Whether they are from a middle-class suburb, a tough inner-city neighborhood, or a rural county that's economy is driven by the labor of the land. Earlier today, one of my colleagues alluded to a General Accounting Office study that I initiated when I chaired the VA-HUD Appropriations Subcommittee. It is a routine review of the administrative costs of national service activities designed to help us improve it where possible, and guarantee as much money goes into service activities instead of overhead. The fact that we began it in the last Congress demonstrates the long- standing desire of those who support the program to make it bipartisan, and focused on results, not rhetoric. It doesn't indicate any evidence that this initiative is off-track or funds wasteful service efforts. To suggest otherwise is simply to let one's rhetoric get ahead of the facts. So, I for one, look forward to the GAO's findings and intend to use them to improve national service, not undermine it. As the new Republican majority takes shape in both Houses of Congress, I hope that they keep an open mind on national service. Rather than criticizing it, national service seems to be the kind of program they should like. Service choices are selected on the basis of merit, not political muscle. And those choices are made at the State and local level, not by bureaucrats in Washington. It rewards the kind of values like sweat equity and hard work that are the heart of American family life. It does not identify with victims, but instead calls people to self-responsibility--by helping not just yourself, but others too. What better way to help a young woman on welfare but to help her understand that she can not only receive help, but provide it to others as well. Benefits are earned through work, not a Government handout. There is no entitlement. And national service promotes the kind of social cohesion--rich and poor, black and white--best achieved by people working together, a theme the new Speaker outlines so eloquently in his maiden speech as Speaker. I worked for many years as a social worker and community organizer in Baltimore. I learned from that experience more than I have ever learned from memos and briefings in Washington. I am a better Senator because of what I learned from the people and the communities I worked with every day. The people who work in national service are also learning and being changed by their experience too. It was 35 years ago that President Kennedy challenged Americans to ask not what their country could do for them, but what they could do for their country. In that spirit, I will join the President and my colleagues on both sides of the aisle in fighting to preserve national service in the days and months ahead. I yield the floor under the unanimous-consent agreement that we had agreed to.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, when we think of the word ``hero,'' we usually think of brave men who have gone the wonderful men who fought at the Battle of the Bulge and saved western civilization. But I wish to speak about another hero, a hero by the name of Sister Mary Adelaide Schmidt, school Sister of Notre Dame who taught me in Catholic elementary school. Sister passed away in the last few days at age of 97. She was born in 1898, when we did not even have the right to vote, but she certainly knew how to empower women, empower us with the message of the gospel, empower us with the skills that we needed to make it in the world, and to know how to claim our womanly virtue and at the same time make a difference. Sister Adelaide played a special role in my life. This booming voice that you hear on the Senate floor today was a voice that was shy about speaking up when I was in the sixth grade. The same kind of voice, low pitched, husky, that can be heard throughout the Senate Chamber, could be heard throughout the sixth grade at Sacred Heart of Jesus Elementary School. As a result, I was shy about speaking up because my voice was lower than the other girls' in the classroom, when boys voices were changing. Sister Adelaide asked me to stay after school, brought this out in her kindly way, to have me share that with her. And then for the next couple of weeks she said, let us make sure you know how you sound and how good it is going to make you feel. She had me read poetry, she had me read passages of the Psalms, she had me read out loud from both the Bible and contemporary works of literature. By the time I finished that stretch of time I knew how to speak up; I was comfortable in doing it. Two years later I ran for class president in the eighth grade and, as Paul Harvey says, ``You know the rest of the story.'' So today I would like to pay tribute to Sister Mary Adelaide and the enormous sacrifice that she made with her life that made a difference in so many others', like my own. And for all of the wonderful men and women who are teachers, and teach in religious day schools: Know that you have made a difference. I believe that they are unsung heroes. So, Mr. President, I wanted to salute Sister Mary Adelaide.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my name be added as a cosponsor of the Congressional Accountability Act. I have cosponsored this legislation during the past several years because of my strong belief that what is fair is fair and what is right is right-- whether it is in the halls of Congress or the factories, shops and offices throughout America. Traditionally, Congress has exempted itself from fair labor practices, occupational safety and health, age discrimination and many other laws with which government must comply. This legislation will require Congress to comply with those laws. I am glad to see us take up this legislation and act swiftly on it. It is long overdue. The U.S. Senate should practice what we preach. We should go by the same rules we establish for everyone else. The critical need for this legislation was made clear to me over the last few years by the appalling stories I heard from employees of one of the instrumentalities of the Congress, the Architect of the Capitol. The Architect oversees more than 2,000 employees in the skilled trades as well as occupations such as restaurant worker, janitor, and laundry worker. Historically, there was no oversight, no fair and independent appeals mechanism, and no clear written management procedures governing the working conditions for these employees. And what happened? A plantation mentality emerged, in which employees were discriminated against, harassed, and denied opportunities for promotion and advancement. When these employees wanted to complain, they felt they had nowhere to go-- so they came to me. I was proud to take up their cause and proud that last year, the Congress enacted the Architect of the Capitol Human Resources Act, finally providing clear guidelines for modern management practices. I am proud to have been among the first Members of Congress to win real congressional reform with the passage of this legislation. Now it is time to apply similar fair and modern management practices to the rest of the congressional work force: the House and Senate Sergeants at Arms, the Capitol Police, and our own staffs in Senators' and Representatives' offices and on the committees. That's why I'm happy to lend my name to this needed legislation. I thank my colleagues and I yield the floor.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I am proud to join as an original cosponsor in Senate bills 6-10 introduced today by the Democratic leader. They represent a solid effort to help working families, give help to those who first practice self help, get the Federal Government's fiscal house in order, and reform the Congress. Since the November elections, some have been left with the impression that the Democratic Party has no vision for the future of our country, and that we have abandoned the concerns of the middle class. As a blue collar Senator who returns home each night to the city where I was born, I believe that these five legislative efforts dispel that myth. These five items represent what we believe as Democrats are a downpayment on the concerns of middle America--job security and our standard of living, affordable health insurance, ending welfare as we know it, balancing the budget by cutting spending, and reforming the way Congress itself does business. The first of these initiatives, S. 6, the Working Americans Opportunity Act, will enable working Americans to have available a lifetime opportunity of employment retraining. It will revamp job training programs by consolidating those programs that work and eliminating those that don't, providing job training opportunities and access to people who practice self help and need new skills for real work situations. Finally, it will not require new taxes or spending because it replaces, consolidates and eliminates nine existing programs and cuts government bureaucracy. Winning the war for America's future depends on whether Americans can have jobs today and jobs for the 21st century. We simply must have a skilled work force that is equipped and ready to compete for the high tech future. S. 6 will get us headed in that direction. S. 7, the Family Health Insurance Protection Act, is a significant first step toward ensuring that all Americans have access to affordable, high-quality health insurance coverage. It will ensure that no one can be denied health insurance because of a pre-existing medical condition and protect workers who change jobs from losing their health coverage. It will also prohibit insurers from dropping customers or raising their rates once they become ill. It will reduce red tape and provide tax incentives to small businesses that provide health insurance. This legislation will let us begin to ensure health coverage for every American. S. 8, the Teenage Pregnancy Prevention and Parental Responsibility Act, will make our welfare system a parter--with parents, teachers, and clergy--in keeping kids in school and off welfare. As the only social worker in the U.S. Senate, I have long fought to make our welfare programs reflect America's family values. This legislation will require unwed teenage mothers to live with an adult family member or in a supervised group home. It will also help communities to develop their own solutions to the problem of teen pregnancy. And finally, by strengthening our child support laws, this legislation will crack down on deadbeats who ignore their responsibility to their children--and leave taxpayers will the bill. It is time for us to stop wringing our hands about teen pregnancy and do something about it. S. 8 will help us reduce teen pregnancy without resorting to orphanages. S. 9, the Fiscal Responsibility Act, will ensure that we are honest with the American public about balancing the budget. It will require the Budget Committees to report a budget resolution that shows exactly how we are to get to a balanced budget by the year 2003--without smoke and mirrors. This act will force Congress to match its budget balancing rhetoric with real action. The American public deserves to know exactly what a balanced budget will mean. It will force Congress to debate the real issues and bring honesty and open debate to one of the most critical issues facing the Congress and the country. I welcome this debate.S. 10, the Comprehensive congressional Reform Act, is intended to help restore the confidence of the American people in their democratic institutions. It will make Congress live by the laws it imposes on everybody else, require strict disclosure of lobbyist activity, ban gifts from lobbyists and impose tough campaign finance reform. I am proud to have been among the first Members of Congress to win real congressional reform with the passage of my legislation last year to reform and modernize the appalling working conditions under which the more than 2,000 employees of the Architect of the Capitol labored. S. 10 will continue this progress toward real reform. I commend our new Democratic Leader, the distinguished Senator from South Dakota, for developing this insightful and visionary package of measures. They symbolize his desire to tackle the tough issues which are foremost on the minds of Americans as we begin 1995. While I do not necessarily support each provision within these measures, I believe that we should begin the debate on each of these subjects on the first day of this new Congress. I believe our party and this Congress needs to promote a shared national vision around jobs and those who practice selfhelp. I look forward to working with my colleagues to see that each of these matters is fully addressed by the 104th Congress.