Barbara Mikulski

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. What is the pending business?

Ms. MIKULSKI. Which is the Ensign second-degree amendment?

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I make a point of order that the pending amendment violates section 302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I compliment the Senator from Oregon. I understand it is his very first speech he has given on the Senate floor; is that correct?

Ms. MIKULSKI. Well, how wonderful, I say to the Senator from Oregon, his very first speech was important because it was about home ownership and how we have to make sure the American dream continues to be within reach for most Americans, that they are able to afford a home and have the jobs that pay those wages, and that when they go to buy a home, the rates are reasonable, that they are not a victim of a scam or scum. I would like to say, if that is his first speech, I am looking forward to hearing many more and working with him on access to the American dream--home ownership, the opportunity to pursue a higher education, and to either own a business or have a job that pays a living wage. Senator Merkley is a welcome addition to the Senate. Speaking, I know, on behalf of those who have been here a while, that was a great speech, and we look forward to many more.

Ms. MIKULSKI. It is a matter of expediting the time. We are reviewing your amendment, which is a sense of the Senate. We are viewing it from not only a policy standpoint but with this arrangement of discussing issues with the House. It is more of a time management issue than a content issue. I ask unanimous consent that upon completion of the offering of the amendment by the Senator from New Hampshire, the Senator from South Dakota's amendment be pending.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 5:15 p.m. today, the Senate resume consideration of the Ensign second-degree amendment, No. 715, and that the amendment be modified with changes at the desk and there be 2 minutes of debate equally divided and controlled in the usual form prior to a vote in relation to the amendment; that upon the use of that time, the Senate proceed to a vote in relation to the amendment; that upon the disposition of amendment No. 715, as modified, the Baucus-Grassley amendment, No. 692, as amended, if amended, be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that the Senate then resume consideration of amendment No. 693 and that the amendment be modified with the changes at the desk; that once modified, the amendment be agreed to, as modified, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; that the Senate then resume consideration of amendment No. 717, and that the amendment be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that no amendments be in order to any of the amendments covered in this agreement prior to a vote in relation thereto.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, we didn't know the Senator had an amendment. We need to have a copy of the amendment. If we could have a copy, we would be willing to discuss it.

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

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from New Hampshire, along with her colleague, the senior Senator, Mr. Gregg, for offering this amendment. It does make sure that service programs in the Education Corps are also allowed to incorporate art and music. We in the committee on both sides of the aisle support this. We support it both for content reasons and process reasons. In the area of process, what the Shaheen-Gregg amendment does is actually incorporate art and music as eligible for funding, as do our colleagues in the House. So it puts it in symmetry with the House. This is what we like. It is when we are out of symmetry with the House that we do not like it. This makes it a high note for art and music. Second, we know that for many of our boys and girls, the involvement in art and/or music can have a profound impact on, No. 1, school attendance--they really want to come to school to follow their passion; No. 2, it also seems to have a particularly positive effect in the area of behavior for special education children. Special education children seem to have a real affinity in engaging in music and art activity and often by the enrollment in those activities. What we see in our public schools is that art and music programs have been the first on the budget block when it comes to the reduction of funds. Having talented young people come in with this kind of approach can really help school attendance, help with behavior problems in schools, and also unlock a talent in a child. If a child grows up, as I see in Baltimore in that show called ``The Wire''--where neighborhoods that are so drug saturated that there is constant police activity, and the informants become the wire--the children of those communities are so terribly disadvantaged. The teachers work under such Spartan circumstances that AmeriCorps being able to come in could change lives--could actually change lives. The Shaheen-Gregg amendment is an excellent concept to add to our Education Corps. We, under normal circumstances, would accept it, but we understand a vote will be required. But when they call my name, I am going to be in the ``aye'' column. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, if I could comment on the Thune amendment, it is a sense of the Senate that Congress and Federal law should continue the current tax deduction rate of 35 percent, and we understand the thrust of the argument behind the Senator's sense of the Senate. I wish to comment both on process and on content. This is a Finance Committee and a Budget Committee matter; this is not a national service matter, though I can see why the Senator would say that, because the uniqueness of America is that we have always had these great public-private partnerships. In fact, so many of the AmeriCorps volunteers will work exactly in the nonprofits that benefit from the charitable giving. Boys and Girls Clubs would be an example of that type of work. Now, the budget will be on the floor of the Senate next week. Why is that not the right place for the Senator to offer his amendment, not only as to the sense of the Senate, but to actually make a change? The President has recently proposed to limit the tax benefits of itemized deductions for those in the top two income brackets--to limit it to 28 percent. So in the President's budget we will be considering, there is the change in tax deduction rates from 35 percent to 28 percent. Next week is the right time for not only a sense of the Senate but actually direct action. I actually hope that the Senator from South Dakota would consider withdrawing his amendment and dealing with it on the budget when the budget is before us next week. We believe that the President's proposal would retain a generous benefit. There still would be a tax deduction equal to 28 cents on the dollar for every dollar contributed to charity. Less than 10 percent of the taxpayers who do claim a charitable deduction are in that 35- percent category the Senator from South Dakota has outlined. We believe these taxpayers, fortunate enough to be doing well, and who also wish to do good, will continue to give, even if it is at a 28-percent rate. I could debate the substance, but I would prefer that the substantive debate come from the Budget Committee members and the Finance Committee members who have poored over this. No one on either side of the aisle wants to limit charitable giving or penalize people for giving. We understand that this is exactly what we need during these tough times. I believe this amendment should be debated and voted on in the budget bill, but if it is going to be here, again, I will have to oppose it, not necessarily on substantive grounds, though. I will support the President's budget. We are proud of the tradition we have with giving. We should encourage people to keep on giving. One of the ways we do that is through an itemized deduction for charitable giving. I think both sides of the aisle agree on that. We very much support the idea of an itemized deduction for charitable giving. Both sides of the aisle agree on that. Certainly I do. But what the Senator's amendment misses is that all Americans give, all Americans who itemize deductions as well as Americans who don't. In fact, CRS says that only 30 percent of taxpayers claim a deduction for charitable giving. Yet we know that many more than 30 percent of taxpayers give to charity. In fact, the independent sector the Senator has quoted has a study that indicates 89 percent of households in America give in some charitable way. Isn't that wonderful. I mean isn't that fantastic. So many taxpayers make charitable contributions, even though they are not getting a tax benefit at all. So to place the national service bill in one more quagmires with the House--because when we send this over, it means that national service will not only be conferenced by our counterpart in the Education and Labor Committee, but it is going to have to go to the Finance Committee--excuse me, their Ways and Means Committee. Once again, because of a sense of the Senate, we are going to be put in a quagmire, when the Senator wants to deal with the policy of 35 percent versus 28 percent, and he would have that opportunity on the budget debate. I disagree with this amendment not only because it is bad policy, but it is absolutely the wrong place to bring this up. I am going to oppose this sense of the Senate and I encourage the Senator from South Dakota, who has many excellent points to be made, that he bring it up on the budget bill. So I oppose the amendment based on process as well as on substantive grounds. Mr. President, before I yield the floor, I note that the Senator from Oregon is standing. May I inquire what the purpose of his statement will be--because the Senator from Louisiana has been waiting to offer an amendment. Did the Senator wish to speak on the Thune amendment?

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

Ms. MIKULSKI. I object.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, this is not only a good amendment, it is a fantastic amendment. I really compliment the Senator from Louisiana not only for the amendment but for her steadfast commitment to children in foster care, and also children in need of adoption--not only the cute, cuddly infants but the older children and the children who are handicapped. The Senator has also been a leader in the international field, working on a bipartisan basis. This amendment is fantastic because it will help more foster children get the social and academic mentoring they need. It doesn't create a new corps. We are going to put it under AmeriCorps and leave it to the flexibility of government at the local level to do this in a way that coordinates with their departments of human services. It is true there are 500,000 children in foster care in this country. When I started out my career as a social worker, after I graduated from college, I worked for Associated Catholic Charities. I was a foster care worker, so I know this up close and personal. I was also a home worker, so I know it personally. When I was in my twenties, I often worked with children being cared for by nuns in group homes. The nuns themselves were in their forties, fifties, or older. They were sweet, caring, and compassionate. We could not do it without them. But those young preteens and adolescents needed different kinds of help. I organized women I graduated with at my Catholic college, and we did hair-dos and curlers and lipstick with them and the kinds of things young girls needed to do. I was once in that age group myself. But those preteen girls were transitioning to womanhood. My classmates and I helped them, and it increased their interest in school, their interest in working with the sisters. When those girls were ready to leave the group home, either to go out into the world or to return to their parents, they were in a better place because of the nuns and their loving care and the work of Catholic Charities, and because of what the volunteers did. I think what the Senator is offering is going to make a difference. I look forward, when we have the vote, to supporting it. Our colleague from Oregon has been waiting to offer a very compelling speech, which I eagerly await to hear. I yield the floor.

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

Ms. MIKULSKI. I will comment that the Ensign amendment would make an unnecessary, divisive change to the bipartisan amendment offered by Senators Baucus and Grassley. Senators Baucus and Grassley create a nonprofit, capacity-building program that would fund grant programs to provide technical assistance to small charities: how to manage finances, accurately file tax returns, et cetera. There is no limitation in the Baucus-Grassley amendment on the type of charities that can access these training opportunities. Therefore, the Senator from Nevada's amendment is unnecessary. Therefore, I move to table the Ensign amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I believe we can wrap up this bill. I am not aware of many more amendments on our side of the aisle. We will be able to come to closure on ours, I believe, even before noon tomorrow, acknowledging what will happen in the Budget Committee. So we would like to be able to move expeditiously. I would hope we would not have to be in session late on Friday or on Saturday. And, in fact, I would suggest that Members go home to their communities and volunteer. There is always some good work to be done. This is about national service. We have heard about the good 'ol platoons all over America. There are communities that need our help more than they need long-winded speeches on the Senate floor. So let's do some heavy lifting in the Senate, and let's do some heavy lifting in our communities. But let's bring this bill to an end tomorrow night. I really want to thank my colleague, Senator Hatch, for the excellent cooperation he and his staff have given us, along with Senator Enzi, who I know continues to be snowed-in in Wyoming. We do not want to be snowed-in in the Senate. We have now filed cloture. Let's get this bill done. Mr. President, questions have been raised about the intent of section 1705 giving the chief executive officer authority to delegate specific programmatic authority to the States. In particular, strong concerns have been raised that corporation officials would use this authority to eliminate the State offices of the corporation and adversely impact the operation of VISTA and the Senior Corps. The committee intends that the chief executive officer will use this authority judiciously to improve the operation of the all of the corporation's programs by using a consultative process that includes all of the stakeholders in the affected programs. The committee expects the corporation to continue the staff from State offices at an operational level that is at least equal to the current one.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, the Ensign amendment would make an unnecessary and divisive change to the bipartisan amendment offered by Senators Baucus and Grassley. The Baucus-Grassley amendment would create a nonprofit capacity building program. It would fund a grant program to provide education opportunities to small charities, primarily designed for those in rural areas. The education opportunities would teach charities how to manage finances and fundraise effectively, how to accurately file complicated tax forms, adopt new computer technologies or even plan a long-term budget. Capacity in rural communities, such as I see in my own areas, do need help. I think the Grassley-Baucus amendment has merit. In the Baucus-Grassley amendment, there is no limitation on the types of charities that can access these training programs. Therefore, the amendment of the Senator from Nevada is unnecessary. Support for the Baucus-Grassley amendment is quite broad. The National Council of Nonprofits, the Independent Sector, and the Alliance for Children and Families have voiced their strong support for this amendment. I urge colleagues to oppose the Ensign amendment. I wish to also comment on his desire to include crisis pregnancy centers. That is a broad definition. I am not sure what he means by a crisis pregnancy center. There are those that are ones with a particular philosophical viewpoint as compared to broad pregnancy information. These centers are already covered by language in the current bill. The amendment is not needed. There is a question about adding that explicit language. I urge Members not to adopt the Ensign second-degree amendment. It is unnecessary and unneeded and would cause quite an intense negotiation with the House when we go to conference. The whole idea of the way we have been working so faithfully on a bipartisan and even bicameral basis is to not to have a long conference so we are able to move the national service bill to signing by the President so it could be included in this year's appropriations. By adding the Ensign second degree, this would result in jeopardizing the passage of the bill. I urge defeat of the Ensign amendment and would so recommend to my colleagues. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, if I may say to the Senator from South Dakota, we are looking at his amendment to see if there is something we can accommodate. Would it be agreeable to him if the Senator from New Hampshire offered a bipartisan amendment that she and the other Senator from New Hampshire are offering? She will offer it and speak briefly, understanding that the Senator had sought recognition before she did.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I say to my colleague from Nevada, there seems to be some confusion about this matter. We do want to address his amendments. We have been working on his side trying to queue up those amendments. Perhaps during this vote he and I can talk. I think there was confusion about where there are some roadblocks. Let's talk during the vote.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, we can appreciate this amendment and the thrust behind it. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 3 p.m., the Senate resume consideration of amendment No. 688; that if a budget point of order is raised against the amendment and a motion to waive the applicable point of order is made, that immediately thereafter the Senate proceed to vote on the motion to waive the point of order.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.