Barbara Mikulski

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. I am going to wrap up. Remember, there are 15 reasons why the new public-private competition is unfair. It does not allow Federal employees to submit their best bids. It fails to end the unfair advantage given to contractors who provide their employees with inferior health benefits. It allows the use of quotes instead of actually soliciting bids from contractors. It doesn't consider alternatives to privatization giving Federal employees the right to come up with streamlining. It is very bad for diversity in the Federal workplace. Many of these jobs are clerical. I have already gotten feedback from constituents who refer to the clerical workers as ``let's get rid of them; they will be low-hanging fruit.'' Is that the way we refer to the clerical people who are willing to work 24/7 in keeping the FBI or keeping the DOD going? And guess what. Once it goes, it does not allow the Federal workers to rebid to get it back. All I am saying is, stop the implementation of the May 29 circular. Let's have a better process. Let's have a better plan. I am not opposed to privatization, but I am opposed to this May 29 circular. I yield back such time as we may have remaining, and I am ready to vote.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, we now come to the Mikulski amendment. Know that the amendment that just passed with the support of my side of the aisle corrects 5 and only 5 of 15 egregious problems with the May 29 circular. That amendment was a downpayment. But if you want to correct all the grievances, vote for the Mikulski amendment. It does not end privatization. It ends the harsh, punitive, and egregious problems with the May 29 circular. Stand up for America, stand up for the Federal employees, stand up for the Mikulski amendment and vote aye.

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

Ms. MIKULSKI. I reserve 2 minutes, waiting for Senators Byrd and Lautenberg. Does the Senator from Wyoming wish to speak?

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes of my time to my colleague from Maryland.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, first, again I wish to make clear what I said about my two colleagues and my great respect for them. And I know of their work on civil service. I am particularly aware of the work of the Senator from Ohio. But I must say, the Thomas-Voinovich amendment proves my point that the May 29 A-76 circular on the new framework for contracting out is deficient. And it is deficient because it is unfair. It absolutely tilts the bidding process, to almost rig it to the fact that private contractors would win the bid. Their corrections of the A- 76 that they offer in their amendment point out how deficient May 29 was. So they make my point. No. 2, I note also that they call for more reporting and more accountability. I think that is great, but, guess what, we are going to contract out Federal employees like the fire department at NIH, like the people with mental disabilities in the kitchen at the Bethesda Naval Hospital, and then we are going to hire people to watch the contracts. Why are we contracting people out and then hiring people to watch the contracts that we have contracted out? Where are we going? What is the point? Where is the management reform in that? So I respect the need for greater accountability and oversight. In fact, I think it is called for. Know that I know that the old A-76 also had some potholes in it. What my amendment does is it says: You cannot implement May 29. Go back to the drawing boards. Work with the Commission that the Senator from Ohio described. But let's implement all of the recommendations, not only the selective ones that tilt the playing field to the contracting out. So that is where my amendment is. I ask my colleague from Ohio and my colleague from Wyoming, am I right in saying that your amendment would want more accountability; it would allow an appeals process, which now they do not have; that they would not bid every 5 years; and they cannot contract overseas? I ask either the Senator from Wyoming or the Senator from Ohio, have I grasped your amendment? Have I? What are your five points? I will repeat it: Greater accountability; reporting requirements; the right for Federal employees to have an appeal, just like the private contractors; that they would not have to compete every 5 years; and this wonderful one that says they cannot contract out to move jobs overseas. Is that what I understand your amendment to be? Well, I salute you. I think those are excellent improvements, but they are not a substitute for my amendment because even if your amendment goes through, I identified 15 things that were wrong with A- 76. Now, you are willing to correct five. I was not as prescriptive. But you are willing to correct five. There are 10 others that need correcting. And I am just going to give a few, as I hear your arguments. When I look at the ones that are not in there, the ones that are not included: One, it does not require appreciable cost savings. A contract out does not have to show that it is saving money. The other one is it does not end the unfair advantage given to contractors who provide their employees with inferior health benefits. So when there is a competition between the Federal employees and this so-called private contractor, the Federal employee's health benefits will count in the contract but not for the contractor. Also, what it does is it does not consider alternatives to privatization; in other words, to give them the chance to reorganize and to streamline. That has been done at NIH. It has been done at other agencies. It also encourages the privatization of inherently Government work. This is a big sticking point.

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

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I am sponsor of the amendment that is currently pending on the Senate floor. I ask unanimous consent Senator Akaka also be added as a cosponsor.

Ms. MIKULSKI. The Senator from Wyoming would be protected and we would be expediting the process?

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, this amendment concerns procedures for contracting out. I ask that the cosponsors be Senators Landrieu, Reid, Sarbanes, Lautenberg, Lieberman, Kennedy, Leahy, Akaka, and Byrd. I rise to offer an amendment that does several things. First, it protects the egregious abuses and unfair practices that are now into a new procedure for contracting out the work of Federal employees. That contracting out procedure is called an A-76, which is the circular that describes this methodology. You need to know. I understand reform is necessary, but abuse is not necessary. I must say I am very concerned that the White House is pursuing a political agenda masquerading as management reform. In the administration's plan for privatization, the costs are too great. It costs money. It costs morale. It costs the integrity of the Civil Service system. When I say it costs money, do you know that when we were foraging funds for veterans health care, the administration wanted to spend $75 million to figure out how to contract out the work being done at the VA? What jobs am I talking about? Radiologists, social workers, core essential medical personnel. The administration wants to spend $75 million, while we have veterans waiting in line to figure out how we can contract out the health care we promised them. It costs too much. Then it costs morale. The minute you hear you might be contracted out, you have to write a job description. Then you have to wait around to see if you are contracted out. Then, even if you win it, you might be contracted out because you will again have to compete in 5 years. Morale in key agencies such as the National Institutes of Health is completely in disarray. It also costs the integrity of the Civil Service system. Every democracy in the world has a civil service system that is absolutely independent and has absolute integrity to carry out the core functions of government, regardless of what political party is in charge. That is why democracies have civil service, to administer the core functions of government. That is why we always wanted to be sure that it wasn't patronage that determined who became an FBI agent, that it was not crony politics that decided who got a Social Security check. We would have an independent civil service that would administer these things. That is not where we are going. We are heading to cronyism and political patronage. At the very time we are fighting a war against terrorism, I don't understand why the White House is spending its time figuring out how we can undermine our Civil Service. Make no mistake, I am not opposed to privatization. In some instances, privatization works very well. In my own State of Maryland, in an agency called the Aeronautics and Space Agency, of which I am a ranking member for funding, we have privatization. Let's look at Goddard Space Agency in my own home State. We have 3,000 Civil Service jobs and 9,000 private contractor jobs. Both are doing an outstanding job, and I am proud of them. What I am opposed to is that this new A-76 is inherently unfair to Federal employees. The deck is stacked against them to pursue an ideology driven agenda, not a management reform agenda. My amendment is simple. It throws out these new crony rules, these new unfair rules which stack the deck against Federal employees, and asks that the administration go back to the drawing board to come up with new guidelines for competition that are truly fair. Why is this important? OMB is pushing contracting out, even when it doesn't make sense, or even when it puts our Nation's security at risk, or the integrity of medical research on the line, or even when it costs more to conduct competitions than it saves in the long run. Did you hear what I said? Even when it doesn't make sense, even when it puts national security at risk, and in some instances now they have some cockamamie scheme that could even put the integrity of medical research on the line. Hello. Where are we going? I think we need to go back to the drawing boards. Let me say why this is unfair. Let me go through some very specific reasons. No. 1, it does not allow Federal employees to submit their own best bids. The new rules create something called streamlined competitions. That is just a code word for employees not having a chance to come up with their own cost-saving ideas. I don't know how you can call it competition if you don't even allow the employees to form a team and to come up with ideas on how to save money, as well as how to save jobs. No. 2, guess what, in all of this contracting out it does not even require contractors to show they are saving money. The old A-76 required contractors to show they would save the Government significant money, at least $10 million or 10 percent, whichever is less. This new A-76 has gotten rid of this requirement. Guess what. The competitions themselves cost money. To do an evaluation on what should be contracted out by and large costs $8,000 an employee. So now Federal workers who might be losing their jobs to contractors do not even do it to save the taxpayer any money, let alone the integrity of the Civil Service. It is also destabilizing. This is really a morale buster. Boy, you talk about a morale buster; it is just to say: You know, every couple of years we are going to put you up for grabs. This new A-76 forces Federal workers to recompete every 5 years for their jobs, but it does not require contractors to recompete every 5 years for the contract that is won. How will the Government attract and keep bright young workers if their jobs are at risk every 5 years? And if the Federal employees should be up for bid every 5 years, why shouldn't the private sector bid every 5 years? If you want to destroy agencies such as NIH and VA, just do it this way. Also, it provides an unfair advantage to contractors that provide lesser benefits. If a contractor saves money by shrinking wages and eliminating health care, that is not improving Government efficiency. But that gives them an unfair advantage when they bid. Their bids do not show efficiency; they win contracts because they either eliminate or shrink health care. That is not the way we should go. It is bad 46 million Americans do not have health care, let alone now forcing Federal employees not to have it. To be sure everybody understands this, I would like to give three examples. Let's take the National Institutes of Health. This is one of the most beloved agencies in our country. If anything would ever happen to the National Institutes of Health, it would be devastating to the American public. This is one of the agencies everyone loves. Why do we love NIH? Because out there every day there are people working to find cures to save lives. So guess what. OMB took a look at NIH. Guess what they wanted to contract out. OMB wants to contract out lots of things, but one of the things they want to end is the NIH fire department. Why do they have their own fire department? Because of all the research going on, we need not only brave first responders but those who are best at handling chemical, biological, and radiological events. In fact, the entire Capital region relies on them for emergencies and also training others. We need our own fire department at NIH because they know every building, they know every rack where the research is going on, and they know every mouse and what they have taken in tests to keep us alive. How do you bid on a fire department? I don't know how you contract out a fire department. I am telling you this is terrible. They not only go to the firefighters, but they go to scientists, scientific support, and other jobs at NIH which are slated for competition. There is a group called Senior Scientists Category 2. These are postdoctoral research fellows. OMB wants to contract out the decisionmaking process in selecting these scientists. They want to contract it out. They want to provide a bid for outside contractors to select these key scientists. I cannot believe it. I listened to Dr. Zerhouni testify. By the way, Dr. Zerhouni is a very eminent physician, an entrepreneur, formerly of Johns Hopkins, now the head of NIH, and an outstanding Bush appointee. He told me they had to spend $15 million at NIH to study how they could contract this out. That is $15 million that could have gone to find a cure for Alzheimer's and diabetes. Dr. Zerhouni and others said it took over 100,000 hours of staff time. Dr. Zerhouni protested. He went right to OMB and said don't contract out my fire department. It is a waste of time and a waste of money. Please let us select these postdoctoral fellows. He was overridden by OMB. We are grateful for this man who heads up NIH, and who because of his own research could be a candidate for the Nobel prize. But they overrode him under the guise of a political agenda masquerading as management reform that has absolutely left the morale at NIH in shambles. Let us take VA. I couldn't believe it. Just when Senator Bond and I are trying to come up with more money for our veterans, we got a request from VA saying they want to spend $75 million to study contracting out. Whoa--$75 million? I am the appropriator along with Senator Bond. Seventy-five million could have put up 75 new outpatient clinics. It could have provided prescription drugs for 77,000 veterans. Just when our men and women are coming back from Iraq, we want to contract out VA health care and things such as radiology, pathology, and pharmaceutical care. I am telling you: Boy, don't they feel good. We should be lucky to have these doctors and nurses and professionals. Guess what. They have tried this. The jobs they want to contract out are actually even held by veterans themselves. You are telling me we should take money from veterans health care to pay for studying how to contract out veterans' jobs to provide health to other veterans. By my calculation, one study they did didn't work out. Let me tell you about the most heartbreaking example. At the Medical Center in Bethesda--we all know about Naval-Bethesda. It is an outstanding facility. People here at the Senate have used it. Our own President goes there for his annual checkup, as has every President preceding him. It is great. At Naval-Bethesda down in the kitchen there are 21 custodial food service employees. They work in what they call the hospital scullery. They are a very unusual group of people. They are mentally challenged. There are 21 people who work there. They have worked there as a special unit. This Federal Government reached out using it as a model for hiring people with mental disabilities who could be self-sufficient and self-employed. Boy, have they done a good job. They clean up the kitchen. They prep the food. Everybody at Naval-Bethesda loves them. Devorah Shapiro has worked there for 10 years. She is in a group home. James Eastridge is from Hagerstown. He started working there 22 years ago, and he hasn't missed a day of work. He gets all kinds of awards. Guess what. At Naval-Bethesda working in the kitchen are people who are trying desperately to be self-sufficient. And we are going to contract out 21 jobs in the kitchen for people who wash the dishes and prep the food? I am telling you, shame on you, OMB. Shame on you, OMB, for what you are doing here. I think this is outrageous. That is why I have the Mikulski amendment. It is for those people. It is for those veterans who have gotten their education from the GI bill and who are serving there--our scientists, our seafood inspectors, the people who are doing the mapping at the FAA for our flight plans for our military and commercial planes. I could go on and on and on. Those are the kinds of people I am talking about. They aren't bureaucrats sitting there looking at their fingernails. They are not people just sitting around. They are people who work every day. They are people at NIH who win Nobel prizes. They are people out there in the Coast Guard who are protecting us from drug dealers and from terrorists. They are people like those who lost their lives in the Oklahoma bombing. That is why I am offering this amendment. I have told you my opinion on contracting out. But to the naysayers and those people who are fussbudgets, let me reassure you this amendment doesn't prohibit contracting out. It does not. It simply changes the rules to make them more fair. All it does is throw out the unfair May 29 version to give the administration a chance to rethink its one-sided, overly aggressive policy. Speaking of that, I know OMB has tasked every Federal agency to get rid of 400,000 jobs. You know my feeling about that. It is just outrageous. Instead, we should pass the Mikulski amendment and go back to the drawing boards. There are simple reasons why. This new process doesn't require appreciable cost savings. It allows contractors to make appeals but not Federal employees. It fails to track the cost and quality of contractors. It encourages it. It doesn't offer alternatives to progress. It is bad for diversity. The jobs being contracted out tend to be primarily service jobs and clerical jobs which are often women. It is also in the blue-collar jobs that have a very strong diversity group. It doesn't allow Federal workers to bid on contractor work. It doesn't give them an appeal process. I could go on and on. It is a new A-76. It is a dangerous trend to replace our Civil Service employees with cronyism and political patronage contracts. I believe this A-76 system is inherently unfair. We should send it back to OMB. Let us work in a very constructive way to get the best value for the taxpayer and make sure we have the best people operating our missions--driven not by money but by agencies. I yield the floor.

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

Ms. MIKULSKI. Reserving the right to object, are we possibly setting my amendment aside so that the language of the Senator from Wyoming could arrive from legislative counsel? It would enable the debate to proceed without waiting for legislative counsel and then return to the debate with the Senator from Wyoming.

Ms. MIKULSKI. I said I reserve 2 minutes to allow Senator Byrd and Senator Lautenberg to speak. Does the Senator wish to speak any longer?

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, I rise today in support of the Roe v. Wade decision that was made by the Supreme Court over 30 years ago, and in opposition to the late term abortion conference report before the Senate. The Supreme Court's acknowledgement of the fundamental ``right to privacy'' in our Constitution gave every woman the right to decide what to do with her own body. Since that historic day, women all across the country and the world have had improved access to reproductive health care and services. However, Congress is on the brink of turning back the clock. Last month, my colleague from California, Senator Boxer, led a fight on the Senate floor to keep Senate passed language in support of Roe v. Wade in the late term abortion bill, S. 3. I was disheartened to hear that the conference committee stripped the Senate passed Roe v. Wade language. The Roe v. Wade decision is important to women's rights, women's health, and public health. I believe that this bill is the first step in a plan by the leadership of this Congress to overturn Roe v. Wade. When President Bush signs this bill, he will become the first President since Roe V. Wade to recriminalize abortion procedures. As I have stated previously on the Senate floor, the bill before us is unconstitutional. Just 3 years ago the Supreme Court ruled in Stenberg v. Carhart that a Nebraska State law that bans certain abortion procedures is unconstitutional. The Supreme Court ruled it was unconstitutional for two reasons. First, it did not include an exception for a woman's health. Second, it does not clearly define the procedure it aims to prohibit and would ban other procedures, sometimes used early in pregnancy. S. 3 is nearly identical to the Nebraska law the Supreme Court struck down. The proponents of this legislation say they have made changes to the bill to address the Supreme Court's ruling. They have not. It still does not include an exception to protect the health of the woman. It still does not clearly define the procedure it claims to prohibit. Let me be clear about this. S. 3 is unconstitutional. That is why I supported the Durbin substitute when the Senate considered this legislation. I supported the Durbin amendment because it was consistent with my four principles. These are my principles: It respects the constitutional underpinnings of Roe v. Wade. It prohibits all post- viability abortions, regardless of the procedure used. It provides an exception for the life and health of a woman, which is both intellectually rigorous and compassionate. And it leaves medical decisions in the hands of physicians--not politicians. The Durbin alternative addressed this difficult issue with the intellectual rigor and seriousness of purpose it deserves. I strongly support a woman's right to choose and have fought to improve women's health during the more than two decades I have served in Congress. Whether it is establishing offices of women's health, fighting for coverage of contraceptives, or requiring federal quality standards for mammography, I will continue the fight to improve women's health. Congress must protect a woman's freedom of choice that was handed down by the Supreme Court over 30 years ago. This Congress must not turn back the clock on reproductive choice for women. I urge my colleagues to vote against the conference report for the late term abortion bill.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, along with Senator Bond, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. It provides $1.3 billion for veterans medical care. It is necessary for three reasons: One, it will deal with the growing long lines in which some of our veterans have to wait in order to see a doctor or a specialist. Second, it rejects the concept of having to pay a membership fee to get veterans medical care if they are a category 7 or a category 8. Third, it also rejects the ballooning copayments that were suggested by the administration. First, in the administration's budget, the request was to charge veterans $250 a year to be able to pay their dues. Well, Senator Bond and I believe the veterans did pay their dues. They paid them at Iwo Jima, Pork Chop Hill, the Mekong Delta, and now the burning sands of the Iraqi desert. We are working on a bipartisan basis to reject these new co-fees and these new toll charges. We need this amendment to ensure that the VA can care for returning service members. Under the legislation that was passed by this Congress, the law requires the VA to provide 2 years of medical care for returning service members. You bet we ought to do that. But if we are going to pass the legislation, we should not only put it in the Federal law books, we have to put it in the Federal checkbook, and that is what Bond-Mikulski does. The VA has already treated 2,000 returning soldiers from the war, but this VA system, with its wonderful doctors and nurses, is strained to the limit. There are now many who are waiting for care. There are many who ought to get care. They should not have to pay membership fees. Adopt Bond-Mikulski and keep the promises made to America's veterans.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I have introduced an amendment to provide for recovery of the United States Naval Academy from damage caused by Hurricane Isabel. I appreciate Senators Cochran, Sarbanes, and McCain cosponsoring this amendment. The four of us serve on the U.S. Naval Academy's Board of Visitors. We share a commitment to this outstanding institution to educate and develop America's future military leaders. On September 18, Hurricane Isabel struck the eastern seaboard. It was one of the worst storms in the last 100 years. Isabel left some Marylanders homeless and most Marylanders without electricity. From Bowley's Quarters to Shadyside, the storm surge caused by Isabel flooded homes and businesses. I appreciate the help that FEMA has provided to so many of my constituents in their time of need. The U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis, MD was one of the places most devastated by Hurricane Isabel. Over 8 feet of water surged through Bancroft Hall, where the midshipmen live, as well as the kitchens and dining hall where they eat. Classroom and laboratory facilities were flooded, leaving them unusable. I went to Annapolis to see the damage with the new Naval Academy Superintendent, ADM Rod Rempt. Bancroft Hall still had several feet of standing water. A few midshipmen were boating across the yard. Boats and debris littered the fields. Labs were under water. The chiller and electrical systems were flooded. Mold and rot was beginning to set in, despite great efforts to contain the damage. The U.S. Naval Academy was not shut down by a storm. Classes are being held on a barge tied up on the Severn River. But we must get the Naval Academy repaired and restored. As the Senior Senator from Virginia has pointed out, the military can't turn to FEMA, they have to turn to Congress. I joined with Senator Warner and others in offering an amendment which provides $500 million to address storm damage to military and NASA facilities. I believe that amendment covers what I intended with my amendment. The Warner amendment was accepted last night. The funds should be sufficient to provide the Navy Operations and Maintenance and Military Construction funding needed to make the Naval Academy whole. I would appreciate the distinguished chairman of the Armed Services Committee, and the former Secretary of the Navy, confirming that that was his intent in offering his amendment. But first I would yield to one of the Naval Academy's distinguished alumni, the Senator from Arizona.

Ms. MIKULSKI. The House also provides funding in its bill to address Hurricane Isabel's damage to military facilities. I would appreciate assurances that the conferees will work to ensure that the needs of the U.S. Naval Academy will be funded as this supplemental bill goes to conference.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, I rise as an enthusiastic advocate of the Bond-Mikulski VA medical care amendment. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Debbie Stabenow be added as a cosponsor.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, 1 year ago, America was on the brink of war. One year ago, Congress debated whether America should go it alone to confront Saddam Hussein or get international support to bring the world with us. Now we are finishing work on the President's request for $87 billion for Iraq. Again we have debated whether we go it alone or find a way to share the burden and the cost of war. Today, I will vote in favor of the supplemental bill for Iraq and Afghanistan because I will not fail in my commitment to support our troops and because the Senate voted to provide loans and not just giveaways. Through this debate, I fought for five principles I continue to believe are critical for the Iraq supplemental: First, we need to support for our troops. The men and women putting their lives at risk to serve our country deserve our support. Second, we need international burden sharing. If the stability of Iraq is in the world's interest, then the world should help pay for the reconstruction. Third, we need to give Iraq loans, not giveaways. Iraq has the world's second-largest oil reserves and is capable of pumping out millions of barrels a day. This oil revenue should help with the reconstruction. Fourth, we need accountability and responsibility with the money we provide. We need to stop waste, cronyism contracting and profiteering. Fifth, we need for a plan to end the occupation of Iraq. There was a plan for war. Now we need a plan for peace. I have used my voice and my vote in the Senate to stand up for these principles as we considered the supplemental bill. America's Armed Forces are made up of ordinary men and women that are called upon to do extraordinary, difficult and dangerous things. Last year, when we debated whether to send our troops to Iraq, I asked whether they would be met with flowers or with land mines. Now we know. Our troops are at risk and they need our help. Our troops need equipment and gear, like modern body armor and replacement vehicles to help them complete their missions as safely as possible. Military families need financial support to make ends meet. The men and women putting their lives at risk to serve our country deserve our support not just with words but with deeds. That Is why I voted for amendments to increase combat pay, to end the practice of charging wounded soldiers for hospital meals, and to improve veterans health care. I believe we need international burden sharing to share the risks and share the costs of occupying and rebuilding Iraq. We need more troops, but not more American troops. We need more money, but not just American money. Last year, when we debated the war, I voted to go to the United Nations, to have international legitimacy and international burden- sharing. If the stability of Iraq is in the world's interest, then the world should help pay for the reconstruction. That is why I voted 12 times for amendments to promote greater burden sharing. Wherever possible, American aid should be loans, not give-aways. Iraq has the world's second-largest oil reserves. Iraqi oilfields are already producing close to 2 million barrels a day. That means billions of dollars a year in oil revenue. According to Ambassador Bremer, by 2005 Iraq will produce enough oil to take care of its basic needs and have additional funds. Congress already provided $75 billion for Iraq last April. It also included $2.5 billion for Iraq relief and reconstruction. That was grant aid. Now the President wants to give Iraq another $20 billion. A better solution would have been to loan Iraq the money and have it repaid from Iraq's oil. The facts are simple: There is a loan. $87 billion is added to our national debt. The question is whether the American taxpayer must pay it back or whether the Iraqi people will pay some of it back with their oil. That is why I cosponsored amendments to provide loans rather than grants. I am so glad the Senate voted to make $10 billion of the aid loans. These loans would only be forgiven if the rest of the world forgives its loans to Iraq. We need to safeguard our troops and safeguard our money. We need responsibility and accountability to stop waste, cronyism contracting and profiteering. We need to use American taxpayer dollars to invest in America. That is why I supported an amendment to require full and open competition for contracts in Iraq. That is why I voted for an amendment to end cronyism contracting by preventing these funds from going to a company in which the President or Vice President or a cabinet member has a financial interest. The administration must lay out a plan to end the occupation of Iraq. There was a plan for war. Now we need a plan for peace. The American people deserve full disclosure and a real assessment of where we are going and how long we will be there. We must not let Iraq turn into a quagmire. We cannot just send more money and more troops with no end in sight. The President needs to present a clear exit strategy. That is why I voted for an amendment to require a comprehensive plan for Iraqi reconstruction to include goals and timelines. I worked to fulfill my principles on this bill: to support our troops. International burden sharing; loans, not giveaways; accountability; and the need for a plan to end the occupation of Iraq. Marylanders are patriotic people, willing to do what's necessary to defend our country and help other people when we can. But they have children to educate, parents to support, houses to buy and retirements to fund. It is not fair to ask them to pay for the rebuilding of Iraq just because this administration made critical mistakes in foreign policy. I am going to vote for this bill because I will fulfill my commitment to America's men and women in uniform, who are risking their lives for the American people in Iraq and Afghanistan. I will continue to press for an exit strategy to bring our troops home. I will continue to fight for greater accountability. I will continue to demand that President Bush bring in other nations to share the burden, to share the risks by sending troops to Iraq and to share the costs by contributing to Iraq's reconstruction.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise as an enthusiastic supporter of this wonderful bipartisan agreement, the Bayh-Ensign amendment. I do it because it meets four of my principles on supplemental spending. No. 1, there must be international burden sharing. With international burden sharing, if the stability of Iraq is in the world's interest, then the world should help pay for the reconstruction. If we say we are going to go it alone, they are going to let us go it alone. If we say we are going to go grants, they will say fine with us. We need a coalition of the willing. We need a coalition of the wallet. No. 2, in helping Iraq, we should have loans, not giveaways. Iraq has the world's largest oil reserves, capable of pumping out millions of barrels a day. These profits should help pay for reconstruction. There are those who say Iraq has debt. Well, so does America. America has a lot of debt and we think that this debt, the very balanced approach of the Bayh-Ensign amendment, will provide 50 percent as a grant for $10 billion, including $5 billion for police and military, but the other will be converted to a grant only if 90 percent of Iraq's preliberation bilateral debts are absolved. That is what I call burden sharing. We need the world's help. Iraq needs the world's help. I am glad we have a legislative framework to do it. No. 3, is accountability to stop waste, cronyism contracting, and profiteering. No. 4, the administration must lay out a plan to end the occupation of Iraq. There was a plan for the war. Now we need a plan for the peace. What will this amendment do? Half the requested aid to Iraq will be provided as a grant, a total of $10 billion, including $5 billion to rebuild Iraq's police and military forces. The other half of the requested aid will be a loan. So the President can lend up to $10 billion to Iraq. The loan would be converted to a grant and only if 90 percent of Iraq's pre-liberation bilateral debts are absolved. The amendment also expresses the sense of the Senate that all countries should forgive the bilateral debts owed by Saddam Hussein's regime and provide robust levels of reconstruction aid at the Madrid Donors Conference. Why is this amendment important? I support this amendment because it is consistent with my principles for aid to Iraq: No. 1, international burden-sharing; No. 2, loans, not give-aways. The amendment clearly supports international burden-sharing, not just with words of encouragement but by providing an incentive for other countries to forgive Iraq's debts. Ambassador Bremer says Iraq can't afford to borrow more because it is already shackled with $200 billion in debt. I say America can't afford more debt, not when we're facing a $2 trillion deficit. The Iraqi debts were racked up by Saddam Hussein to pay for his wars against Iran. Most is owed to Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and other Gulf states, and to Russia and France. Saudi Arabia and Kuwait and Russia and France should forgive Iraq's debt as their share of rebuilding costs. If these countries let Iraq start with a clean slate then Iraq's oil income can be used to pay for Iraq's reconstruction. The amendment also promotes my principle that U.S. aid to Iraq should be loans, not giveaways. Until and unless 90 percent of Iraq's debts are forgiven, half of U.S. aid will be in the form of loans. I supported Senator Dorgan's effort to make all of America's new aid to Iraq loans rather than grants--the full $20 billion. Here's why. Iraq can afford to pay. Iraq oil sales can finance building Iraq's infrastructure so we can use American tax dollars to build America's infrastructure. Iraq already has a very developed infrastructure and suffered relatively little damage during the war. It's certainly the complete opposite of the situation in Afghanistan, where that's a country that has no prospect of being self-sufficient for quite some time to come . . . We're dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction and relatively soon. That's not just me talking. That's the testimony of Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz back in March. Iraq has the world's second-largest proven oil reserves and could have even more oil and natural gas. Iraqi oilfields are already producing close to 2 million barrels a day. That means billions of dollars a year in oil revenue. According to Ambassador Bremer, by 2005, Iraq will produce enough oil to take care of its basic needs and have additional funds. I understand that Ambassador Bremer doesn't want to delay reconstruction in Iraq until after Iraq has a constitution and an elected government. I remind the Senate that we have already provided aid to meet Iraq's immediate needs. Just this April Congress provided $75 billion requested by the President. That supplemental bill covered ongoing military operations in Iraq. It also included $2.5 billion for Iraq Relief and Reconstruction. That was grant aid. I believe the aid we provide now should be all loans, but half is better than none. America's taxpayers stand to get $10 billion back from Iraq's oil revenues under this amendment. I appreciate the efforts of the cosponsors, my Republican colleagues, Senators Ensign, Snowe, Collins, Graham, and Chambliss, and my Democratic colleagues, Senators Bayh and Nelson. They worked together on a bipartisan basis to improve this bill. I urge my colleagues to join in support of this bipartisan amendment to promote burden-sharing and to provide loans, not giveaways.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I will state some of my principles as we debate the supplemental appropriations on Iraq. One year ago, America was on the brink of war. Congress debated then whether America should go it alone to confront Saddam Hussein or get international support to bring the world with us. This week, Congress takes up a nearly similar debate: Do we go it alone or do we find a way to share the burden and the cost of the war? Who should pay for the occupation and reconstruction of Iraq? According to the Bush administration, the answer is the American taxpayer, to the tune of $87 billion. I agree that as we consider this debate, we should have four principles to guide our thinking. First, there must be international burden sharing. If the stability of Iraq is in the world's interest, then the world should help pay for the reconstruction. The administration must be more aggressive in the pursuit of reconstruction funds from other countries and other international institutions. Second, wherever possible, American aid should be loans, not giveaways. Iraq has the world's second largest oil reserves. These oil fields are capable of pumping out millions of barrels a day. That should translate into billions of dollars. Those profits should help with the reconstruction. Third, we must always be clear that we support our troops. These are ordinary men and women called to do extraordinary and dangerous and difficult missions. They put their lives at risk to serve our country. Our troops need the equipment, the gear, the backup. And their families need financial support. Military families, with loved ones are in Iraq, need financial support to make ends meet and the health care they should get. Third, the administration must lay out its plan to end the occupation of Iraq. There was a plan for the war. Now we need a plan for the peace. The American people deserve full disclosure: a real assessment of where we are going, how long we will be there. Iraq must not turn into a quagmire. We cannot pour in our funds and send more troops with no end in sight. Last year, when we debated about the war, I said if it is important enough to the world to go, the world should go with us. I voted to go to the U.N. to have international legitimacy and international burden sharing, to share the dangers along with our troops as well as to share the cost of rebuilding Iraq. During the debate I said: What is going to happen to our troops? And I asked it in classified situations and other briefings we received. I wanted to know if our troops were going to be greeted with a landmine or with a parade. Well, now we know the answer to that. Our troops need all the support they can get. I believe we need more troops, but I do not think we need more American troops; they should come from other countries. I believe there is money that needs to be spent in Iraq but not only our money. I think there needs to be international money. We had a coalition of the willing. Now we need a coalition of the wallet. Let them step to the plate to share the financial responsibility to create stability and a democracy in Iraq. You bet I am behind our troops. And we want to vote to make sure they have the help and the assistance they need, not only the right gear. We understand they do not even have the proper body armor they need. We also want to support their families here at home. They come back for 2 weeks for a breather, but their families' hearts are broken as the men and women go back to the war. We need to support those families financially, and we need to support those things in terms of health care. When it comes to burden sharing, we now know the other countries are not stepping up. They are tepid. They were timid about the war, and they are tepid about reconstruction. Only 61 countries have committed to helping. They have committed $1.5 billion to the reconstruction of Iraq, according to Ambassador Bremer's testimony. That is not enough. But we were also assured by Secretary Rumsfeld that we could get the money for reconstruction from Iraqi oil. Well, let's get it. I support the kind of thinking that Senator Dorgan has presented, which is to replace the $20 billion in grants for Iraqi reconstruction with loans, and to also create a framework for other nations to participate in those loans. On a bipartisan basis, Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison is working on an amendment to make $10 billion in American aid work via a loan through the World Bank, a $10 billion loan through the World Bank, with other nations contributing to the World Bank's Iraq reconstruction trust fund. That is the kind of thinking we need, and we need to work on a bipartisan basis. America needs to know we are trying to work on a bipartisan basis. But I repeat: We need loans, not giveaways. Now, there are others who say: Oh, my gosh, Iraq is shackled with debt. That debt was created by an illegitimate government in Iraq. And who is the money owed to? Well, the money is owed to Russia, to Saudi Arabia, to France. Why can't they forgive the debt? Make that their share. Just forgive the debt. Rather than giving more money, let France forgive the debt. Let Russia forgive the debt. Let Saudi Arabia forgive the debt. Let Iraq start with a clean slate and pay back America for what it is doing. My constituents in Maryland are very patriotic, and they will do whatever is necessary to defend this Nation. But they have families and children to educate, mothers and fathers who are grappling with the health care costs of being older, retirement plans to do, and homes to buy. It is not fair to ask the American taxpayer to share the full burden of fighting this war. While we are worried about Russia's debt, what about our debt? If we are worried about Iraq being too burdened with debt, what about our debt? Now we need a debt of gratitude for what we are doing around the world. I think the way it can be repaid is to forgive the Iraqi debt. Let them start with a clean slate just as they are starting with a clean government, and move on. When you look at the way they are spending money on reconstruction, they have money for schools, they have money for tech centers, they have money for job training and job centers, water and sewer grants-- all of what we need in our own communities. We know the people in Iraq have suffered. They have suffered under Saddam Hussein. They are now suffering under what looks like an internal civil war going on now among the different tribes. I know the children need health care, the communities need electricity, and they need to have an economy to get back on their feet. But, my gosh, I sure wish some of this money was also being spent here at home. The request for Iraq includes 250 tech centers with 20 laptop computers each, and computer training. They are going to build seven communities, with 3,500 units of affordable housing. And--guess what-- we are going to build a primary school, two secondary schools, a health clinic, a place of worship, and a market in each community. Yet at the same time, HOPE VI and other programs to revitalize American cities have been zeroed out. Technical centers to get our kids ready for the new century is sharply reduced. Infrastructure that we desperately need to protect public health and the environment, such as water and sewer grants, is so spartan and skimpy in my own VA-HUD bill. So we have to look at where we are spending our money, and we have to look at where we are creating debt. If we are creating debt to improve our economy, to get our jobs going, I think we know that a little borrowing today might create jobs tomorrow. But now we are doing massive borrowing to rebuild Iraq, while others tell us they cannot afford to send troops and they cannot afford to spend money. I am saying we are beginning to not be able to afford this war in Iraq. So I hope we can work on some solutions to have Iraq emerge as a democracy and bring our troops back home. We have to concentrate on how we can have our national honor abroad but restore our national Treasury. I look forward to working on a bipartisan basis with my colleagues. We have to get down to business and get strategy on how we are getting out of Iraq, and also how we are getting out of debt. I yield the floor.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I am proud to have voted for Senator McConnell's resolution commending America's Armed Forces. It is right for us to thank our troops for their service. It is right to thank military families for their sacrifice. It is right to thank great organizations like the USO for their support to our men and women in uniform. However, I am puzzled by some of the findings in the McConnell amendment. We were all told last year that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and was ready to use them. Well, the jury is still out on that. But press reports suggest that Dr. Kay's team has not yet found any actual weapons. So I am not sure it is accurate to say the war ended Iraq's WMD programs. The Bush administration now acknowledges that there is no evidence of ties between Saddam Hussein's regime and al-Qaida and the September 11 attacks. Yet the amendment seems to combine Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan and Operation Iraqi Freedom as ``two campaigns in the Global War on Terrorism.'' I am not sure what ``terrorist infrastructure'' was destroyed in Iraq. Some reports indicate the terrorist presence in Iraq has actually increased since the collapse of Saddam Hussein's brutal regime. I just don't want anyone to think my vote means I agree with every word of this amendment. I voted for the McConnell amendment because I absolutely stand behind our troops and their families.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Harkin/ Boxer motion and the Roe v. Wade decision that was made by the Supreme Court over 30 years ago. The Supreme Court's acknowledgment of the fundamental ``right to privacy'' in our Constitution gave every woman the right to decide what to do with her own body. Since that historic day, women all across the country and the world have had improved access to reproductive health care and services. In March, the Senate passed a resolution supporting Roe v. Wade during the debate of the partial birth abortion bill. The resolution should be retained in the bill during conference. The Roe v. Wade decision is important to women's rights, women's health and public health. Because efforts have been made over the years to educate and inform women about their choices, unwanted pregnancies are at their lowest levels since 1974. Teenage pregnancies have declined almost 50 percent since 1987. While Roe v. Wade is still the law of the land today, it has been systematically challenged and weakened. What stands today is a hollowed version of one of our Nation's most important accomplishments for women. What keeps Roe from vanishing altogether is our unwavering commitment to protect a women's right to choice. I strongly support a woman's right to choose and have fought to improve women's health during the more than two decades I have served in Congress. Whether it is establishing offices of women's health, fighting for coverage of contraceptives, or requiring Federal quality standards for mammography, I will continue the fight to improve women's health. I believe that this bill is the first step in a plan by the leadership of this Congress to overturn Roe v. Wade. Congress must protect a woman's freedom of choice that was handed down by the Supreme Court over 30 years ago. This Congress must not turn back the clock on reproductive choice for women. I urge my colleagues to retain the resolution in support of Roe v. Wade in the final bill.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Dodd-Jeffords amendment. I am proud to support this amendment--the first step to fully funding the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, IDEA, in 8 years. This bill adds about $1 billion over last year's funding level for IDEA. That may sound like a lot. But at that rate it will take at least 30 years to get to full funding. I think it is shocking that Congress passed tax breaks for zillionaires while delaying help for those who need it most--the children with special needs and their parents and teachers. This amendment increases IDEA funding by another $1.2 billion, for a total of $2.2 billion, on pace to full funding in 8 years. We must fully fund IDEA to ensure that children with disabilities are receiving the services they need to succeed with their classmates in public schools. In 1975, Congress promised to pay 40 percent of the cost of special education when it passed the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Yet it has never paid more than 17.5 percent. That means local districts must make up the difference, either by cutting from other education programs or by raising taxes. I do not want to force States and local school districts to forage for funds, cut back on teacher training, or delay school repairs because the Federal Government has failed to live up to its commitment to special education. That's why fully funding IDEA is one of my top priorities. Everywhere I go in Maryland, I hear about IDEA. I hear about it in urban, rural, and suburban communities, from Democrats and Republicans, and from parents and teachers. They tell me that the Federal Government is not living up to its promise, that special education costs about 18 percent of the average school budget, that schools are suffering, and the parents are worried. Parents today are under a lot of stress, sometimes working two jobs just to make ends meet, trying to find day care for their kids, and elder care for their own parents. The Federal Government should not add to their worries by not living up to its obligations. With the Federal Government not paying its share of special education, these parents have real questions in their minds: Will my child have a good teacher? Will the classes have up-to-date textbooks? Will they be learning what they need to know? Parents of disabled children face such a tough burden already. School should not be one of the many things they have to worry about, particularly when the laws are already on the books to guarantee their child a public school education. The bottom line is that the Federal Government is shortchanging these parents by not paying its share of special ed costs. This bill will give local governments the resources they need to improve education for all children. It will free up money in local budgets for hiring more teachers, buying new textbooks and technology, and repairing old school buildings. It will help the teachers who struggle with teaching the toughest students. It will help students with disabilities and their families by providing enough funding for special education programs so parents can have one less thing to worry about, and students get the opportunities they deserve. Full funding of IDEA is essential. It will give disabled children a chance to succeed in school and in life without shortchanging other vital education programs. It will give parents peace of mind about their children's education. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Ms. MIKULSKI. I oppose President Bush's plan to deny overtime pay to millions of workers. I am proud to cosponsor Senator Harkin's amendment to protect overtime pay for 8 million American workers. Millions of Americans depend on overtime pay to make ends meet and pay their housing, food, and health care bills. Yet the Bush administration wants to strip overtime protections for these hard-working men and women. I thought in this country, the best social program was a job. I thought in this country, we reward those who practice self-help. Eight million workers would lose overtime protection under the new Bush proposal. Who are these workers? They are nurses, firefighters, policemen, secretaries, and social workers. These men and women work hard to serve our communities. They protect us, and they help us when we are in need. They deserve extra pay for their extra efforts. If we do not stop the Bush proposal, workers will have to work long hours for less money because they will no longer be eligible for overtime pay. They might have to find a second job, because they will not be able to count on overtime pay to make ends meet. They will spend less time with their families but they will not get compensated. I think that is outrageous. America is facing a crisis in nursing. In Maryland hospitals, 12.6 percent of nursing jobs are vacant. They desperately need over 2,000 nurses. Nationwide, we will need about 2.8 million registered nurses by the year 2020, but only about 2 million will be available. Nurses work an average of 8.5 weeks of overtime each year, and 87 percent of Maryland nurses work overtime just to make up for the shortage. If the Bush proposal becomes law, nurses will have to work these same hours for no extra pay. Hospitals will have to get by without enough nurses to take care of patients. Lack of overtime pay will discourage young nurses from entering the profession and experienced nurses from staying. I worked hard to pass legislation to help eliminate the nursing shortage. Changing the overtime rules would be a huge step backwards. The Bush plan would also deny overtime pay for our first responders: our firefighters, policemen, and EMTs. Maryland has about 2,000 professional firefighters and 7,500 police. These men and women put their lives on the line to keep us safe no matter what time it is or how many hours they have worked already. When the Pentagon was on fire, the firefighters in my own State of Maryland dashed across the Potomac to help. They were there night and day. We say a grateful Nation never forgets. We give our heros parades, but now some want to take away overtime and make them work for free to protect the homeland. What a thing to say to first responders and their families. Every time a firefighter or police officer leaves their home, they do not know when they will be home. They do not even know if they will be home, and now the Bush administration is asking them to donate their overtime. That is no way to show our appreciation. We need to protect the protectors so that they can protect us. That means protecting their overtime pay. Nurses and first responders are just a few examples. The Bush proposal would deny overtime pay for workers in many industries. It would take money out of the pockets of hard working Americans and their families unless we do something to stop it. I urge my colleagues to vote to uphold overtime pay by voting for the Harkin amendment.