Barbara Mikulski

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise as a cosponsor of the Specter- Harkin-Feinstein amendment to increase funding for the National Institutes of Health, NIH. I fought hard to make sure that Congress kept the commitment it made 5 years ago to double Federal spending for the NIH. I am proud that Congress kept its promise. I strongly support the NIH. I believe that it is an investment that saves lives and that Congress must continue this valuable investment. The underlying Senate bill that funds health programs would increase funding for NIH by $1 billion, or just 3.7 percent in 2004. This would be the smallest percentage increase for NIH since 1995. The Specter- Harkins-Feinstein amendment would increase funding by $1.5 billion, for a total of $29.5 billion. this is the wrong time to cut the Federal investment in NIH. Congress and the American people have invested in the NIH. We must allow scientists to continue the great work they are doing and translate the research they have been working on over the past 5 years into treatments and cures. If this amendment fails there would be in increase of only 26 new and competing research grants in fiscal year 2004. That is approximately one grant for each NIH Institute and Center. Also, nonbiodefense grants would actually drop, from 9,902 in fiscal year 2003 to 9,607 in fiscal year 2004. This means that more promising research on cancer, diabetes, or other devastating diseases may go unfunded. The research conducted at NIH today can help lead to longer, more productive lives for people struck with countless conditions and diseases. Whether it is Alzheimer's, cancer, cardiovascular disease, autoimmune diseases, or diabetes, this research can help lead to a higher quality of life for Americans. I am proud to have NIH in Maryland. NIH's impact in Maryland is quite profound. We have excellent research centers and private companies that exist and grow because of the unique synergy between the Federal labs in Maryland, like NIH, and the ingenuity of the private sector. Yet the benefits of investing in NIH are not limited to Maryland. NIH funds research at universities across the country. Patients across the country, their loved ones, and those who someday may be diagnosed with diseases all benefit from these critical investments. We cannot afford to lessen our commitment to medical research. I thank Senator Specter, Senator Harkin and Senator Feinstein for their leadership on this critical issue. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important bipartisan amendment.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I support the Dodd amendment to add $500 million to the Head Start Program. I have heard from communities all over Maryland that are being forced to make tough choices because funding for Head Start is inadequate. Communities have to choose between two bad options: diluting the quality of Head Start, or shutting the doors on some eligible children. And what does President Bush propose to solve this problem? Instead of putting the resources in the budget, he proposed dismantling Head Start by handing it over to the States. Head Start is already one of the more successful Federal programs. Head Start can be even more effective than it already is. But you know what? It is going to take Federal leadership and a serious investment--not a block grant and a prayer. That is why I am proud to cosponsor the Dodd amendment. Currently, only 60 percent of eligible preschool children are in Head Start, and only 3 percent of eligible infants and toddlers are in Early Head Start. In Maryland, about 25 percent of eligible children under 5 are in Head Start and Early Head Start. At the same time, we are trying to improve Head Start by requiring stricter teacher qualifications, by improving academic instruction, and by maintaining vital health and social services. Yet this bill provides only $148 million more for Head Start. That is not even enough to cover inflation. The Bush budget puts communities in a tough position. They have to choose between diluting the quality of their Head Start programs or serving fewer children. In my own State of Maryland, we are facing this kind of impossible choice. For years, Montgomery County contributed $16 million of its own money to run a very high quality Head Start Program. But they still didn't have enough money to serve to all the low-income children in Head Start. Recently, the county proposed using its money for a pre-K program that would serve more children. But they also proposed making cutbacks and sacrifices. They proposed cutting back on comprehensive health and family services for the new pre-K classes. They proposed shortening pre-K classes, which would mean teachers couldn't accomplish as much. And they proposed reducing the number of children in Head Start by almost half. The Bush budget forced Montgomery County into this situation by not providing the resources to serve all children in Head Start. I think we need to put the money in the Federal checkbook so that communities won't have to make bad choices between bad options. The Dodd amendment is a step in the right direction. You can't get more for less. You get what you pay for. We need to increase Federal funds so that all eligible children can benefit from high-quality Head Start. I urge my colleagues to support the Dodd amendment.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Byrd amendment to fully fund title I. America's strength is our opportunity ladder. One of the strongest rungs on the ladder is our public schools. Education is what gives parents hope for their children. That is why it is so important to continue our commitment to improving public schools. When Congress passed the No Child Left Behind Act, we placed the burden on schools to improve. It is a worthy goal--but it will be a difficult task. We knew this when we passed No Child Left Behind, and so we promised to give schools adequate resources. Yet only 1 year later, the Senate Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education bill falls far short of our commitment to providing the resources needed to make the reforms work. I have heard from teachers and parents from all over Maryland. They all tell me that they are worried about whether their school will make the grade. They are worried about how they're going to meet all the requirements in No Child Left Behind--especially in this time of budget cuts and budget crunches. This bill shortchanges our schools and our students. I am concerned that we have lost track of what America stands for--empowerment, hope, and opportunity. Instead of funding for our schools, this Congress passed a tax cut for the rich. And guess what? The tax cut left us shackled. It left us with no money in the Federal checkbook for education. That is why I am proud to cosponsor this amendment, which would provide an additional $6.15 billion for title I. Title I is vital to the success of No Child Left Behind. Reforms without resources is a hollow opportunity. Fully funding title I will help our Nation's poorest schools hire more teachers, buy more computers, and implement the kind of reforms they need to improve student achievement. There is a lot of talk about leaving no child behind. Yet today we are still fighting to make sure our children go to good schools with good teachers and up-to-date books and facilities. The No Child Left Behind Act will be a hollow promise if we don't match our rhetoric with resources. That is why this amendment is so important. We must make sure no child is left out of the budget. I urge my colleagues to vote for the Byrd amendment.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, I rise to join with my colleague from Maine, Senator Collins, to introduce a bipartisan amendment to increase the funding for nursing programs. I send this amendment to the desk.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, I rise to offer this amendment so that we can really get behind our nurses in this country and deal with the critical nursing shortage facing acute care facilities and other important facilities that need nurses. This is a bipartisan amendment to the Specter substitute amendment. I am joining with Senator Collins to offer this amendment, along with the other cosponsors. Let me tell you what this amendment would do. It would provide $63 million to fund programs that recruit and retain nurses by helping them pay for becoming nurses. This was created by last year's bipartisan effort to pass something called the Nurse Reinvestment Act and also other important programs to educate nurses. The Nurse Reinvestment Act was an important bipartisan accomplishment in which we came together across party lines to deal with the nursing shortage. This is a crisis that affects patient care across the country. So, what did we do? We created scholarship programs and we created loan forgiveness programs to bring more nurses into the profession. But while the legislation, the Nurse Reinvestment Act, created the authorizing framework, it did not put money in the Federal checkbook. That is our job in appropriations. We salute Senator Harkin and Senator Specter for trying to fund this, but they are funding it at $15 million. You cannot keep nurses, you cannot get nurses, and you cannot educate nurses to be nursing faculty on $15 million. We need more money. Where there is the wallet, there is a will on the part of many women and men who want to come into nursing. We are in a crisis. There are 125,000 nurse vacancies in hospitals nationwide. This does not even deal with nursing homes, home health agencies, schools, and other sites. The Senator from Maine and I have been champions of home health care. She has the rugged terrain of Maine and I have the mountain counties of Maryland, where we know our nurses get on snowmobiles to get out there to visit patients who need them. There are just not enough of them, and we need to make sure we deal with this. In my home State of Maryland, there is now a 13 percent hospital nursing shortage; 2,000 full-time nurses are desperately needed, not only in the bustling metropolitan area of the Baltimore-Washington corridor but in our rural communities. The nursing shortage will only get worse and we expect it will double by 2010, to 275,000 nurses. While we have people who want to come into nursing, we have a nursing faculty shortage because nurses have so much student debt that they really do not have the wherewithal to go on to the master's and doctoral levels to do this. I note the Senator acting as the Presiding Officer, Madam President, is from North Carolina. She knows we have the wonderful urban areas of Raleigh and Duke University, but I have talked to her about going out to those rural communities. They just do not have what they need in the way of nurses. Yet we teamed up to make sure they could use the community college programs to get people into nursing and to stay in those communities. What we are talking about is helping people who will come into nursing. We will provide either scholarships or loan incentives if they will come into those critical shortage areas. Isn't this terrific? What we know is many young women and even young men are coming into nursing later in life and they have other responsibilities. This is why we need to help them by making nursing education more affordable, providing scholarships in exchange for 2 years, and also financial assistance to obtain advanced degrees in order to be able to get our people ready for nursing education. Our amendment funds other important nursing programs to educate and train advanced-education nurses, such as nurse practitioners, and also in other areas. Our chairman and ranking member of the subcommittee faced a very tight allocation. They did a fantastic job. What we need to do, though, is get the Senate behind them and increase the funding for these nursing education programs. We have all of the nursing groups behind us. We have groups such as the Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation, the Men's Health Network, the Federation of American Hospitals, and AARP. Why? Because we know behind every great doctor there is an outstanding nurse. We need it for patient care. Where there is a nursing shortage, there is going to be an impact on patient care. Our patients need it. The baby boomers are getting older. The need for nurses is only going to expand, and certainly by making a public investment to make nursing education more available and more affordable, we are helping not only to educate the nurse but I believe we are making an investment in saving lives, in preventive health care, and home health care. I hope my colleagues will join in supporting this amendment and I yield the floor so others may speak about it.

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

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, on rollcall vote No. 319, I was recorded as voting aye. I intended to vote ``no'' on the passage of H.R. 2738, the Chilean Free Trade Agreement. I ask unanimous consent to change my vote. This will not change the outcome of the vote.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, in a few minutes the Senate will consider the supplemental. I wish to say a few words about the issue around AmeriCorps and other issues within the supplemental. The hour is late, so I will be brief. The outcome is preordained, but I wish to say the fight will go on. This urgent supplemental does not meet the compelling human needs of the United States of America. The supplemental the Senate is about to pass will replenish the urgent need that FEMA has at only 50 percent of what the Federal Emergency Management Agency needs to be ready for the hurricane season. They need about $1.6 billion, and there is about $900 million included. The supplemental also will not include money for wildfires ravaging the West. It will not include the funds to complete the NASA investigation of what went wrong on Columbia, so NASA will have to forage for funds within their agency. It will not include additional money for AmeriCorps. I have been waiting and willing to compromise to get the emergency funding for AmeriCorps. I was willing to compromise to save the school- based programs that start in September. I knew I could not save the AmeriCorps ship because of the penny-pinching attitude of the House towards AmeriCorps. I want to be clear that although the House left town with a take-it- or-leave-it attitude and we had to swallow it, the needs of our community will not go away. The fight will not go away, and I will continue in September to fight for the full funding for AmeriCorps, both in an emergency supplemental and even in the way of the Budget Act, if I have to, in order to get the help for AmeriCorps. AmeriCorps, because of the clumsy and inept headquarters, overenrolled 20,000 volunteers, but we should not punish those volunteers because of the people at headquarters. In my home State, Maryland will lose 400 volunteers. Let me tell you what they are: In rural western Maryland, an AmeriCorps program called Star, in which 34 volunteers participate. They serve 6,000 people, meeting the needs of the mountain counties of: Allegany, Garrett, and Washington. Do you know what they do? They tutor children, they help children to read, and they help them get ready for school. Without these 34 volunteers, over 6,500 people will lose the help they need. In Baltimore City there are 50 Jump Start volunteers. These are AmeriCorps volunteers who work in Head Start to make sure the kids get a head start. And they also recruit other volunteers. That means, again, there will be over 400 preschoolers who will not get the help they need. I could go on in these school-based programs. Nationally, 2,700 volunteers, ready to go to work for Teach America, will not be able to go and start in September because we are leaving town without AmeriCorps funding. I thank Senator Stevens for trying to help on this program. He understood the needs we had. He worked very hard with me. I regret we had a take- it-or-leave-it with the House. Also in Baltimore, we have 40 Notre Dame volunteers. These 40 Notre Dame volunteers help 1,842 elementary school children. They work in Baltimore schools tutoring children and providing after- school activities to help kids learn and keep them out of trouble. Notre Dame is a success story of a faith-based organization making a difference for our communities. But without additional AmeriCorps funding, Baltimore will lose 40 Notre Dame volunteers. And 1,842 children in Baltimore will not be tutored or mentored. These are some examples in Maryland. But communities all around the country will be hurt because the House leadership would not approve emergency funding for AmeriCorps. How did we get here? The leadership of the House of Representatives has blocked adequate emergency funding for FEMA disaster relief, fighting wildfires, the NASA Columbia investigation, and AmeriCorps. The Senate acted quickly on the President's supplemental request. The Senate approved $1.55 billion for FEMA, $253 million to fight wildfires, $50 million for the NASA Columbia investigation, and $100 million for AmeriCorps. But the House sent us a supplemental that is totally inadequate. There is only $984 million for FEMA. At the last minute before recess the House supplemental did not include funding for fighting wildfires, the NASA Columbia investigation, or AmeriCorps. Then, the House left town for the month of August. In April this year, the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Homeland Security Subcommittee became very concerned about a shortfall of FEMA disaster relief funding. Senators Cochran and Byrd asked President Bush to request emergency funding for FEMA disaster relief. But the President didn't request funding until July 7. When he did, the Senate acted quickly. We passed it within 4 days. The President asked for $1.55 billion and we approved it, But the House only wants to give FEMA $984 million, only 60 percent of what the President says is needed. We have never let FEMA's Disaster Relief account fall to such a low level. Right now, FEMA only has $89 million to respond to disasters. It is irresponsible to shortchange FEMA when we are at the height of hurricane season. The House bill also eliminates funding to help Western states fight wildfires. The President requested $253 million and the Senate approved it. But the House provided nothing. Right now, there are 42 major fires burning in 12 Western states consuming over 400,000 acres. The Forest Service is $420 million short of what they need to fight these fires, but the House didn't provide any funding. The House also eliminates funds to complete the investigation into the loss of the Space Shuttle Columbia. The President requested $50 million. The Senate approved it. This funding is to keep our promises to the families of the 7 astronauts killed that we will find out what went wrong and we will fly again. Without the $50 million NASA will have to borrow from other programs in order to finish the investigation. The House supplemental does not include funding to save 20,000 AmeriCorps volunteers. I offered the amendment to add $100 million for AmeriCorps to this urgent supplemental. With bipartisan support of Senators Bond, Stevens, Byrd and many others, the AmeriCorps funding was voted on by the full Senate and was sustained by an overwhelming 71 to 21 votes. But the House refused to follow the usual and customary process to resolve differences. The House didn't want to face the Senate in conference. Because a small minority of House members want to scuttle the $100 million for AmeriCorps even though an overwhelming majority of the Senate supports it, a majority of the House supports it, and 43 Governors support it. I want to give my sincerest thanks to my colleagues in the Senate who supported emergency funding for AmeriCorps. I appreciate it and so do our volunteers and the communities they serve. How did the AmeriCorps shortfall happen? There was a bureaucratic boondoggle. AmeriCorps overenrolled 20,000 volunteers. Every year, the VA-HUD subcommittee funds 50,000 AmeriCorps volunteers but AmeriCorps enrolled 70,000. How did we know about it? Senator Bond chaired the subcommittee leading the fight for reform in fiscal responsibility and uncovered the mismanagement at our April 10 hearing. We started GAO and IG investigations. Senator Bond called for a new Chief Financial Officer. I called for new leadership. And we wrote a bipartisan bill to fix the accounting and mismanagement problems. Our bill passed the Congress in 2 days and was signed into law. So while the House puts out press releases about how they want to punish volunteers and communities they serve, the Senate puts out performance. This is an emergency today. The law says funding for volunteers and the awards that help pay off their student debt must be in the Federal checkbook when the volunteers begin their service. Without emergency funding AmeriCorps can't sign up volunteers now to start in school- based programs in September. Teach America, for example, will lose education awards for 2,700 volunteers who are going to start teaching in September. We cannot wait until October for fiscal year 2004 and I won't wait until October. I will continue to fight in September for AmeriCorps. The President has called for a new spirit of voluntarism. Young people have responded, but the House leadership wants to squander volunteer opportunities to punish volunteers and communities because of a bureaucratic boondoggle. Mr. President, it is regrettable that the House leadership won't resolve differences in the usual and customary way. But I will continue to fight for our communities that need disaster assistance and depend on help from volunteers. The needs won't go away and I will continue the fight in September. I want to reiterate that the need continues. Because the need continues, the fight will go on. I promise every AmeriCorps volunteer, every community that is dependent on those volunteers, and every member of the American family looking to those volunteers, I am going to fight for them and I will stand up for them. I am going to turn to the Senate and say let's not take what the House says when they give it a take-it- or-leave-it stamp. I yield the floor.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise as a cosponsor of the Bond-Levin amendment to provide a reasonable compromise on CAFE standards. Our amendment provides a strategy for energy conservation while safeguarding American jobs. I strongly believe in energy conservation, and I support the effort to build more fuel efficient cars. Yet I also believe in job conservation. I believe we can improve the fuel efficiency of our cars without making it even harder for American workers to compete. In considering any fuel efficiency standard proposal, I apply four criteria. Any proposal must achieve real savings in oil consumption. Secondly, it must preserve U.S. jobs. The goals for increased CAFE standards must be realizable and achievable by giving companies a reasonable lead time to adjust their production. And finally, it must create incentives to enable companies to achieve these goals. The Bond- Levin amendment meets this criteria. I strongly agree with the underlying goals of greater fuel efficiency and energy conservation associated with increases in CAFE standards. We desperately need to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. We use about 20 million barrels of oil a day. About 40 percent of that goes to fuel cars and light trucks. Half of our oil is imported, a quarter of which from the Persian Gulf. It is imported from countries like Saudi Arabia, which sits on roughly two-thirds of all the oil reserves in the world. A reduction in our dependency on foreign oil would also greatly increase our flexibility in the war against terrorism. That's why I supported the Landrieu amendment. This amendment requires the President to submit to Congress a yearly report on the progress made toward reducing our dependency on foreign petroleum imports by 2013. This amendment also requires the Administration to develop and implement strategies to reduce our dependency by 1 million barrels of oil per day by 2015. I support the key provisions in the energy bill that will help us conserve fuel. We need to build on these innovative provisions that encourage better fuel economy. And we must do it in a way that doesn't cost American jobs. That's why I oppose legislating arbitrary increases on CAFE. Arbitrary Increases in CAFE would be counterproductive. Any increase should be a question of science, not the result of legislative compromise. The NAS study said the most efficient small car could achieve 35.1 mpg within 15 years and the most efficient small truck could achieve 30 mpg within 15 years. One standard for small cars, one for small trucks. The study said nothing about a combined calculation for cars and trucks. There was no recommendation for an entire vehicle fleet. Other proposals which call for an arbitrary increase in CAFE would have a devastating effect on our Nation's biggest industry--the automobile industry. It is unfair to the American auto worker. In my State of Maryland, 1,500 people work at the GM plant at Broening Highway in Baltimore building mini-vans. The workforce at the Broening Highway plant is down from 2,700 workers in the mid 1980's. Arbitrary increases would give an unfair advantage to foreign car manufactures and penalize U.S. automakers and auto workers, like the hard-working men and women at the Broening Highway plant, for selling vehicles that Americans are actually buying. Large vehicles represent a small portion of the total fleet of European and Japanese auto companies. These companies produce so many smaller cars because that's what their customers buy. Most of their markets are in Europe and Asia where the landscape is much different. Consumers pay as much as $4 or $5 per gallon of gas. They have narrower roads and a limited highway infrastructure. Bringing a small fleet into the U.S. allows them to easily comply with our fuel economy standards. Even when you include their SUV's and light trucks, the average fuel efficiency standard for their fleet is still low. When a foreign auto maker exceeds our fuel efficiency standards they also earn CAFE ``credits'' to buffer them in future years. These credits can be shifted to offset shortfalls for up to three model years. This means that if companies have a banner year selling smaller, more efficient vehicles, they can buffer future sales of larger trucks and SUVs. But this does not mean that foreign manufacturers sell more fuel efficient trucks and SUVs. In fact, the difference is usually 3-4 mpg. Their dependence on a smaller fleet allows them to enter the truck and SUV market without worrying about the CAFE standards of the larger vehicles. Over the past decade, U.S. manufacturers struggled to meet CAFE requirements across a full-line of vehicles--both cars and trucks. Because a higher proportion of the U.S. automakers' fleets are trucks, raising CAFE standards will have more severe adverse effects on GM, Ford, and DaimlerChrysler than on other manufacturers. Proposals to increase CAFE standards are also unattainable. They set aggressive standards on too short a timeline. This is in direct contrast to the NAS panel, which states ``Technology changes require very long times to be introduced into the manufacturers' product lines.'' Within any argument on CAFE, we must not forget to take into account the demands of consumers. A drastic increase in fuel efficiency standards causes a drastic change in the types of cars, which causes a limited choice of available cars and trucks for consumers. Alternate proposals set a default level for light trucks that is not achieved by ANY light truck on the road today. This would effectively cap the sales of light trucks--it would curb consumer choice. I believe we can find other ways to achieve fuel conservation that won't cost American jobs. Our domestic automakers have already been weakened by the current recession, and we can't rely on foreign manufacturers to provide American jobs. The numbers don't lie. The NAS reports that the United Auto Workers has seen its membership drop from 1.4 million members to 670,000 from 1980 through 2000. This loss was countered by the creation of only 35,000 jobs in assembly plants built in the U.S. by foreign automakers although imports have risen by 9 percent over the past 8 years. Our domestic auto share is falling. Only 64 percent of cars bought in America today are built in America compared to 73.9 percent in 1994. 1,000 workers were recently laid off at the GM plant in Baltimore, and the plant went through another shutdown after slow sales. In fact, GM shut down 14 of its 29 North American assembly plants for at least a week last year. Today, all manufacturers have advanced technology programs to improve vehicle fuel efficiency, lower emissions and increase occupant protection. A return to a flawed regulatory program of higher CAFE standards would divert resources from these efforts. Raising CAFE standards to levels that effectively squash the American auto industry is not the only solution. Senators Bond and Levin have an alternative that is reasonable and fair. It brings together two common goals of Increasing fuel efficiency and protecting jobs and the American economy. The Bond-Levin amendment directs the Department of Transportation to increase CAFE standards for cars and light duty trucks based on several factors. These include the desirability of reducing our dependence on foreign oil; the effect on U.S. employment; impacts on motor vehicle safety; cost and lead time required for introduction of new technologies; and the effects of increased fuel economy on air quality. It also directs the Department of Transportation to complete two rulemakings. First, they must complete a rulemaking within 30 months to increase standards for passenger cars. Second, they must complete a rulemaking to increase standards for light trucks no later than April 2006. This will go into effect for model year 2008. Each rulemaking is to be given on a muliti-year basis, but cannot exceed 15 model years. This amendment also directs Congress to take action on CAFE should the DOT not take action in the required timeframe. This bi-partisan amendment also includes expanded research and development into the production of hybrid electric vehicles and to improve diesel combustion. It authorizes $50 million per year over the next three years to conduct the hybrid electric technology research, and $75 million per year over the next three years for advanced combustion engine research and development. Finally, the Bond-Levin amendment requires the Federal Government to purchase advanced technology vehicles, beginning in 2005. Hybrid vehicles must be purchased or leased for light duty truck fleets and alternative fuel vehicles must be purchased or leased for passenger car fleets. We can have both energy conservation and job conservation. But it cannot be done by changing a number. It will take innovative solutions, improved technology, and the setting of realistic, achievable goals. The Bond-Levin amendment accomplishes these goals. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Bond-Levin amendment. Thank you.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I join with my colleague, Senator Stevens, and other colleagues from the West to protest what the House is about to do in the urgent supplemental bill. Mr. President and colleagues, and all Americans who are listening, you have to understand what is happening. The Senate passed an urgent supplemental bill to deal with shortfalls in funding where America is facing disasters. No. 1, our Federal Emergency Management account, which responds to disasters such as hurricanes, earthquakes, and other natural disasters, and even a terrorist attack, is in danger of running out of funds within a matter of days. As of July, they were down to $89 million, and we acted swiftly to send a bill to the House that would include $1.6 billion to replenish the account. Also, the West is enduring wildfires of unbelievable magnitude because of a combination of fire and drought. Again, as fellow Americans, we joined with our western Senators to put money in the Federal checkbook to deal with these wildfires. We also included funds to deal with the shortfall in the committee that is investigating what went wrong in the Columbia disaster. Guess what. We also added $100 million to deal with the shortfall in AmeriCorps that occurred because of bureaucratic mismanagement, so that volunteers would not be penalized and they could come into our school- based programs. Well, guess what is happening now in the House. This very minute they are debating a rule that, No. 1, limits debate and prohibits amendments. If the rule passes, the House will take up a bill that will essentially strip-mine the urgent supplemental the Senate passed. The House only wants to pass almost half of what the President says he needs for FEMA, and take out all of the other programs. My message to the House is: Don't do it. Don't pass that rule. It is an embarrassment to you and to the people in desperate need. If you pass the rule, for gosh sakes, don't pass the bill. I cannot believe the House of Representatives will pass us a take-it- or-leave-it supplemental that takes out help for FEMA, takes out help for wildfires, will not let the NASA commission go on, and essentially pokes AmeriCorps volunteers in the eye, when we are ready to harvest their idealism and put them to work in Teach America and other education programs. House of Representatives: Don't go out for a 5-week break without helping these desperate situations. What is an urgent supplemental? An urgent supplemental says when the Federal Government runs out of funds in key programs, because of unintended consequences, we, somewhere in the spring, pass legislation to deal with that. That is what we are supposed to be dealing with now. It is urgent, it is supplemental, and it is desperately needed. I express my disappointment that the House of Representatives has blocked emergency funding for disaster assistance for wildfire assistance, for AmeriCorps volunteers. We saw this coming. Who spotted it? Our very able chairman of the Homeland Security Subcommittee on Appropriations, Senator Cochran, and Senator Byrd saw this emergency disaster coming. In April of this year, Senator Cochran and Senator Byrd asked President Bush to help with emergency funding for FEMA disaster relief. They rightly calculated FEMA would be down to $89 million at the end of July, just when we are heading into high hurricane season, and there would be the possibility of other natural disasters. And God forbid we have to have the money if there is another attack on the United States of America. They asked for the money in April. Silence from the White House. Silence from the White House. Silence from OMB. Silence--where the clock was ticking, as the money dwindled down. The President did send Congress a request on July 7. He did say FEMA would run out of money. So the Senate acted very quickly with the President's request, led by Senator Stevens and Senator Byrd, the chairman and ranking member of the Appropriations Committee. Expeditiously, within 48 hours of the President's request, the Appropriations Committee in the Senate acted. We approved money for disaster assistance. We approved $1.6 billion for disaster relief. We approved money to help with the Space Station Columbia. We approved money to help with the wildfires facing our Western States and possibly even Alaska itself, and much-needed help in mountain counties of West Virginia. We helped with AmeriCorps. We did it. And I was a proud sponsor of adding $100 million for AmeriCorps. There were Senators who had disputes on this, so we had a separate vote on AmeriCorps, kind of the American way. I thought: majority ruled. I would have been disappointed if the Senate had defeated my amendment, but we followed usual and customary procedures, and the Senate sustained the AmeriCorps funding by a vote of 71-21. Then we passed the urgent supplemental as part of the legislative branch appropriations 85 to 7. Again, majority ruled. The Senate quickly appointed conferees. Remember, the Senate moved very quickly. The President made a request on the 7th. We went to committee on the 9th; to the Senate floor on the 11th. Isn't that just terrific. We knew we had to move fast because it is an urgent supplemental. Then we went to conference. Well, guess what. There was no conference. The House has delayed, delayed, delayed, delayed. And so now at the very last minute they want to leave town for a recess. They want to leave 1 week before we are. Well, they don't have to go this week. There is nothing that says the House has to evacuate Washington. They could stay another couple of days. But all of last week, ever since we passed this bill on July 11--and it is now the July 25--for 14 days I have been waiting to go to conference to work on this supplemental. I was ready to go during the day. I was ready to go during the night. I was ready to go on weekends. I would have come here on my birthday. I was ready to stand up for America and to stand up for this supplemental assistance. But, no, now they are going to wait for the last minute, pull kind of a parliamentary shenanigan, take it or leave it. What are they sending over? What an embarrassment. They are sending over $984 million for FEMA assistance, and that is it. Not only are they taking out AmeriCorps, wildfire money, and NASA money to complete the investigation of what went wrong, they are reducing the FEMA account requested by the Senate by $700 million. We have never let FEMA fall to such a low level. I am sorry that the House is falling to such a low level as well. We don't need low levels at FEMA. We don't need low levels from the House of Representatives. I am concerned that the FEMA account is nearly bankrupt. It is unconscionable and irresponsible for we on the Atlantic and gulf coasts who are at the height of the hurricane season, and they know it. When it comes to looking at the whole issue of wildfires, they know what the West is facing. It is not a TV item. It is brave people willing to put themselves on the line. States are at a financial crisis, and now they are facing the fire crisis. As an east coast Senator, my heart goes out to those in the West. Then when we look at NASA--we went to the memorial. We said: A grateful nation will never forget. We are going to get to the bottom of this. We are going to fly again. I hope we do. Hats off and salutes to the commission being led by Admiral Gayman. It is thorough, it is rigorous, it is leaving no stone unturned. We are going to get great results. But they need the money to finish the commission. And where will they get the money? Go back to NASA, take it out of the shuttle? Take it out of space science? It is a slap in the face for the families of those astronauts we promised we would get to the bottom of this. We have a great commission with an outstanding leader, and we should put the money in the Federal checkbook. Then when we talk about AmeriCorps, 20,000 volunteers will lose their slots within a matter of days. Why? Because the mismanagement at headquarters overenrolled by 20,000 volunteers. We have discussed this. Why punish the volunteers and the community for headquarters? Headquarters is not going to lose their jobs, though I did call for new leadership, and the President has responded. Senator Bond is the one who has been a champion of fiscal reform. He has stood sentry over the issues related to AmeriCorps. The House was silent on it. And the uncovering of the debacle occurred in the Senate under Senator Bond's leadership with my assistance. The reform effort was led by Senator Bond for fiscal accountability and greater transparency, again with our assistance, on a bipartisan basis. When we put $100 million in the committee, there was a vote on the Senate floor to take it out. Seventy-one Senators voted to keep it in. We have been working in such a bipartisan way. I am so agitated about what is going on in the House. We have had bipartisan cooperation to deal with the urgent supplemental. We have had bipartisan support to deal with the issues. We have conducted ourselves in a way that I thought was civilized and constructive. I recall the evening where the junior Senator from Alabama rose and said he was going to oppose the $100 million. He had a markup on asbestos. We accommodated each other so the Senator could offer his debate; I could offer my rebuttal. The Senator wanted to return to the asbestos markup. We were crisp. We were cogent. We were civilized. We were collegial. We each had our day. Then the Senate, the next day, had a vote. How unlike the House. They can't even offer an amendment. Then they didn't even have the backbone to face us in conference. I don't know how they are going to go back and face their constituents with the fact that they have short-funded FEMA. They have taken out the wildfire money, which I cannot understand. Why punish the West that has been hit by drought, hit by wildfires, and hit by a budget crisis? I don't think Americans should do this to other Americans. I have spoken about the NASA commission. When it comes to the AmeriCorps volunteers, let me tell you what is going to happen if we don't do this. On August 1, Wendy Kopp, one of the true leaders of America, is going to tell several thousand volunteers ready to go into classrooms: The U.S. Congress didn't think you were important enough or valued enough to put in the grant funds for you to go into those classrooms, authorize the working in PAL programs, literacy programs, all of the education stuff that needs to start in September. We didn't think it was urgent enough. We wanted to have a temper tantrum over a bureaucratic snafu, so we are not going to punish the bureaucrats. We are going to punish the volunteers. We are going to punish the programs that help on education, and we are going to punish our children. I know one volunteer in education who came to Baltimore. And he went into a very tough school under Teach America. When he came in, the reading levels were 23 percent. When he walked out, after he had finished his AmeriCorps commitment, those kids were reading in the 71st percentile, a 50-percent improvement. That young man changed those kids' lives, but those kids changed that young man's life. He is now a regular teacher in the Baltimore City school system. This is what this is all about. This isn't rich kids singing ``Kumbaya.'' These are kids trying to earn a voucher to pay for the high cost of tuition, give practical experience to America. They help our communities, and then in turn the communities have a great impact on them. It is a modest public investment. There was a bureaucratic snafu. It has been corrected thanks to the leadership of Senator Bond, with the cooperation of this side of the aisle. Why should we punish 20,000 volunteers who are already to go in September and won't be able to go because of what the House is going to do this afternoon? Shame on you, House leadership, for not at least giving them the vote. Shame on you for not voting sooner and bringing this to conference. I am very disappointed. I thought in America the majority ruled. There is a very small minority that is blocking this urgent supplemental, blocking following the rules of procedure of the Senate. This isn't about rules. This is about people. It is about people who could be hit by a hurricane, people who are already hit by a wildfire, volunteers who are ready to roll into our classrooms. ``Ready to roll,'' I use those words deliberately. A promise made should be a promise kept for the families who lost their loved ones in the Columbia disaster. I really object to their sending back a conference report without these items in it. When this is raised, if this comes back under this draconian circumstance, I will object to it being brought up. I think we ought to send back to the House the Senate bill, which we agreed upon with an overwhelming majority of 80 to 20. I thank the Chair for his very kind attention. I thank Senator Stevens very much for his leadership on this issue, and the leadership provided by Senator Byrd, and for the collegiality in which we participated in our debate. My heart goes out to the Western Senators who are about to be nailed by this, and to the AmeriCorps volunteers. I think we need to stand up for America, and we ought to stand up for this urgent supplemental. I yield the floor, but I will not yield my perspective on this supplemental.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask the chair of the Subcommittee on Homeland Security if he has a copy of the amendment.

Ms. MIKULSKI. I would like to give a copy to the chairman, just as a courtesy. Mr. President, I rise to offer this amendment that is in support of our first responders. This amendment would provide an additional $150 million to the fire grant program for firefighter equipment and firefighting training. What would the Mikulski-Dodd amendment do? Well, first, it would provide protective gear for 150,000 firefighters. It would buy 500 new fire trucks, 300 new rescue vehicles, and 25,000 new breathing masks. But this is not about protective gear and fire trucks. It is about saving lives. When we talk about homeland security and when we talk about protecting our firefighters so they can protect us, this money is about protecting them. It is so our firefighters are prepared for any attack. It offers double value for the taxpayer, whether it is a terrorist attack or whether we are hit by a tornado. When these events occur in our community, firefighters are always the first on the scene. We all remember that horrific and melancholy day of September 11 with planes crashing into the World Trade Center and a plane crashing into the Pentagon. It was the Chevy Chase Fire and Rescue Squad, Rescue One, that rushed to the Pentagon from Maryland as part of a doctrine of mutual aid. It was the LaPlata Fire Department that was the first to respond to a deadly tornado last year. It was the Baltimore Fire Department that rushed into a smoldering tunnel fire that cut off train traffic on the east coast. When they went down into that hell hole fuming with toxic chemicals, they did not know if a terrorist had caused it or it was an accident. All they knew was they had to respond in the name of duty. Well, it is our duty to make sure they have the right equipment and the right gear to protect us. We know they have the right stuff, but they need the right stuff to protect themselves. This is not something Barbara Mikulski has just concluded. The Council on Foreign Relations recently issued a bipartisan, independent report. It was led by Senator Rudman. Actually, it was not bipartisan. The Council on Foreign Relations does not have parties. What were their findings? They were absolutely chilling. The report found that the United States remains dangerously ill-prepared to handle a catastrophic attack on American soil. Specifically, it means this, and this is what they found: Fire departments across the country only have radios to equip 50 percent of the firefighters on a shift. Imagine this: People running up to the World Trade Center responding to a towering inferno. The firefighters will only have 50 percent of the radios they need. When they go into these situations where there are toxic chemicals like in the Baltimore Tunnel, or whether they are running into a building where they do not even know what is in it--asbestos burning, PCBs burning, the building burning--there is only breathing apparatus for one-third, and only 10 percent of the fire departments in America have the personnel and equipment to respond to a building collapse. What do terrorists do? They blow up buildings and they blow up people. We have to make sure that when our first responders are there, they have what they need. We did a survey in Maryland, working with our State fire agency. We need $52 million to provide protective equipment for firefighters in my State. Yet my State is facing a budget deficit of over $1 billion. Services are being cut, tuitions are being increased, and we ask our State and local governments to take on more. Every time our Nation goes to code orange, our communities go to code red. Since September 11, my city of Baltimore has spent over $16 million on homeland security, including $1.3 million for extra personnel and equipment for our fire departments. In Baltimore, the recent heightened alerts have cost Baltimore City $750,000 in overtime. Maryland cannot bear this burden alone. Because it is a national threat, we have to make sure there are national resources to secure the homeland to provide not only homeland security but hometown security. There are over 1 million firefighters in the United States of America; 750,000 are volunteers. They are true heroes. They save lives. They save homes. They save communities. We need to make sure we save them. That is what protective gear is all about. Every day when they are on duty, they do not know what they will face. They might enter a house to save a child trapped on the second floor. They might put out the flames of a building consumed by toxic chemicals. Many of our volunteers work three shifts: Their regular jobs, their families, and at the fire station. For the help they need, we cannot do this on tip jars, bingo, or charity. They need to be able to have their Government on their side. It costs over $6,000 to staff a firefighter in something they call bunker gear. Bunker gear means what they need in terms of the protective suits they wear, the breathing apparatus, the special gloves that will snatch a person out, the boots they wear that are fire retardant and fire resistant. That is an awful lot in resources for local communities to bear, and they have to be ready, particularly in high-risk areas, to be able to do this. Last year, there were close to 20,000 applications for fire grants, and I compliment the Senator from Mississippi, the chairman of the subcommittee, as well as Senator Byrd, for keeping the fire grant program as a freestanding program. My $150 million amendment that I am offering with Senator Dodd really goes to the fire grant program. Last year, there were close to 20,000 applicants with over $2 billion worth of requests. The fire grant program, on a merit based, peer review, no pork, no partisan basis could have spent $2.5 billion. What our money does is restore to the $900 million authorizing level. After September 11 we did a lot. We said we will express our gratitude; a grateful nation will never forget our first responders. In the first place, we should not forget it is in the Federal checkbook. I know the chairman and the ranking member did everything they could to fully fund this program. I compliment them on their efforts. But it would take another $150 million to reach the authorized level. The fire grant program needs to be expanded. When we look at what we could do in our State, we have a fire department in Anne Arundel County. This county includes the National Security Agency, the capital of the State of Maryland, the U.S. Naval Academy, and the Baltimore-Washington Airport. Don't they need help for their first responders? Then there is the Chevy Chase Fire Department. We think of Chevy Chase as an affluent community but they cannot raise these funds from property taxes, fish fries, and bingo. We need help. Maryland needs help because we are in a high-risk area. I rise not only for my State. I rise for the Nation. We are not prepared. The facts speak for themselves. Our esteemed colleague, Senator Rudman, said 50 percent of the fire departments do not have radios; only one-third have breathing apparatus equipment. They need their bunker gear. That is what it is called. The cost is $6,000 each. Imagine what a public investment means. We give them the right gear. They have the right stuff. They should be able to count on us to do this. We need this amendment. I welcome the fact that my colleague, Senator Dodd, is also a cosponsor. He authorized the fire grant program as the appropriator. We have worked to keep it going. Now it is in Homeland Security. This is not about process, about who did what. It is about what our first responders do. We count on them to save our lives. They should count on us to make sure they have the right equipment to save their own while they are saving ours. I yield the floor for my colleague.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask that Mr. Harkin be added as a cosponsor.

Ms. MIKULSKI. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record two letters of support, one from the International Association of Fire Fighters strongly supporting this amendment, and then another, a joint letter offered by the International Association of Arson Investigators, the International Association of Fire Chiefs, International Association of Fire Fighters, the International Fire Services Training Association, the International Society of Fire Service Instructors, the National Fire Protection Association, the National Volunteer Fire Council, and the North American Fire Training Directors.

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

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk on behalf of Senators Dodd, Stabenow, Sarbanes, Clinton, and Durbin.

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

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, I move to waive the applicable sections of that act for consideration of the pending amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I want everyone to understand what this amendment is. It is $150 million. That is what it is. We want to acknowledge, first, our appreciation to the chairman of the Subcommittee on Homeland Security and the ranking member for keeping the fire grant program separate so that whatever funds come forth don't get meshed into one group called homeland security. The second thing we appreciate, given the frugal allocation of the subcommittee, is they did fund it at $750 million. That was very much appreciated. At the same time, we note that the authorization is for $900 million. The Mikulski-Dodd-Byrd amendment says $150 million more over what the committee has allocated. What is $150 million worth? What would we have said on September 12? Would we have hung our heads in shame because we didn't add $150 million? I think about the Baltimore tunnel fire when we didn't know what caused it. We knew firefighters had to go down in the dark 6 feet through a manhole cover, then over a 4-foot platform, then down another 8 or 10 feet in the total darkness with toxicity and fire. Was that worth $150 million, not for them alone, but that they would have the breathing apparatus, the telecommunications if they got into trouble while they were figuring out the situation? We didn't know if Baltimore was going to explode. We didn't know if a toxic cloud was going to go over my city. But I know a group of very gallant, very brave, very selfless people were willing to go down into that dark inferno. I don't want to ever say to somebody: We couldn't come up with another $150 million to help you out. Then let's go to the Rudman report. Now, we remember our dear colleague from New Hampshire. He is a very frugal guy. I remember Gramm-Rudman, Mr. Balanced Budget. So if he says we need money, we really must need it because he is a tight-fisted, somewhat penny- pinching, very conservative on the fiscal spending kind of person. So if Warren Rudman says America needs more resources for homeland security, and he particularly places emphasis on the emergency responders, then I think we ought to listen. What he is saying is, it is an emergency to provide emergency help to the emergency responders. He starts his report by saying: If we knew that there was going to be another terrorist attack sometime in the next 5 years but didn't know what type it would be, who would carry it out, or where it would occur, what actions would we take to prepare, and how would we allocate our human and financial resources? This is not philosophy. This is a practical approach for the United States of America. So I appreciate everything the chairman has done, and the ranking member, who himself is now supporting this amendment. We are now shackled by our own allocation. But we do not have to be shackled. We have the parliamentary authority to waive that Budget Act that has us so constrained. And here is Warren Rudman, Mr. Balanced Budget, saying we need more resources. So I think the Congress and this Senate can vote to waive the Budget Act for $150 million to protect the protectors. The emergency responders are drastically underfunded. They are dangerously unprepared not because they want to be unprepared but because there needs to be the resources. I think we need to put the resources in the Federal checkbook. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I am proud to cosponsor this amendment to make sure that competitions between civilian Defense Department employees and private companies are fair. The Department of Defense has stacked the deck against Federal employees. The administration is seeking to privatize much of the Federal workforce--to replace dedicated Federal workers with cronyism and patronage. The Kennedy amendment does not stop privatization. Yet it ensures that competitions between civilian Defense Department employees and private companies are fair. It puts Federal employees on an equal footing with private contractors. It says that you cannot win competitions for Federal jobs by denying health care benefits to your employees. It makes sure privatization does not come at the expense of health benefits for employees. Government contracts should not be won by denying health benefits to hard-working Americans. The Office of Management and Budget has issued a directive calling for bounty hunters in Federal agencies to privatize 850,000 jobs over the next 3 years. That is nearly half of the Federal workforce. To speed up the process, the Bush administration changed the rules for public/private competitions. The new rules stacked the deck against employees, and made it harder for them to compete for their own jobs. It created streamlined competitions that are not even based on cost savings. The employees cannot even submit their own lowest bid. These new rules are unfair and inefficient. They will likely end up costing more to American taxpayers. I stand up for an independent Federal workforce. We should not replace good Government jobs with bad private sector jobs. A company should not be able to win a bid because it saves money by denying health care benefits for their employees. Privatization should not come on the backs of the employees. Our economy is in trouble. Health care costs are rising--and millions of Americans lack any health insurance. Why does this administration want to make this problem even worse? Our democracy depends on a strong civil service. We need a civil service in this country that is independent, reliable, and free of cronyism and political patronage. We are trying to spread democracy to Iraq and to nurture new democracies around the world. Yet right here at home, there are some who want to get rid of a pillar of democracy--our independent Federal workforce. As a Senator from Maryland, I am so proud to serve over 100,000 Federal employees. I wish you could meet them the way I do--on the job and at the supermarket. I represent people who are Nobel Prize winners at the National Institutes of Health and the National Institute of Standards and Technology. I represent FBI agents. I represent the National Security Agency, and the faculty of the U.S. Naval Academy. I know what Federal employees do. They work hard every day. They did not get their jobs because they volunteered on someone's campaign. The civilian employees at the Defense Department work hard to support our troops and to protect our Nation. They are committed to securing the homeland, and to making sure our soldiers are ready to protect us. If we are going to contract out Defense Department work, we need to be very careful. It is a matter of national security. It is a matter of homeland security. America's military bases and facilities are all potential terrorist targets. Those who work there must be trusted and carefully screened. Yet the Department of Defense wants to get rid of trusted employees who have served our Nation for years--and replace with who knows what. What would happen if the private company changed ownership, or is bought by a foreign company? What safeguards are there to protect our military and our military infrastructure? That is why I am cosponsoring the Kennedy amendment. This amendment simply calls for civilian Defense Department employees to be treated fairly when they are competing for their own jobs. Federal employees' jobs are on the line. The independence of our Federal workforce is on the line. At the very least, the competition should be fair. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. I claim such time for myself.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, how much time is remaining?

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Michigan and then 10 minutes to myself.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to address the situation in Iraq. Right now, America is bearing the primary burden in Iraq. Almost every day another soldier dies--not in combat but in postwar occupation. Our American soldiers must not bear this burden alone. Quite frankly, the American taxpayer must not bear responsibility for the cost of nation building alone. I urge our President, President Bush, to build an international effort to participate in sharing the burden and the responsibility of bringing order out of chaos in Iraq. The occupation of Iraq is something we all have to face up to. Last year, when the Senate debated the Iraq war resolution, I said this: We do not know whether our troops will be welcomed with flags or with land mines. Now we know. Our troops are facing great and grave danger. They are facing snipers, ambush. One soldier was shot in the back as he waited to buy a soda. Another was standing in line to buy DVDs, and he was shot in the back. This is not combat with an opposing army. These are murders, these are assassinations, and we need to stand up for our troops and give them the help and the backing they need. We need to stand up for these troops who are so dedicated, so duty driven, so wanting to do the job that America sends them to do, but they should not bear this all by themselves, with a few treasured allies. Since the President declared the end of hostilities, 82 soldiers have died. Our troops in Iraq are not peacekeepers or nation builders. There is no peace to keep and there is no nation to build. We have to start from scratch. America's troops now are an occupying force, and they continue to face very fierce resistance in parts of Iraq. In some areas, it is guerilla war with house to house fighting with members of the Saddam Fedayeen or other groups still loyal to Saddam Hussein trying to kill them. They are trying to ambush our military convoys. Our forces are seeking to establish order and security. Yet they are very highly visible, whether they are guarding facilities such as power stations or delivering supplies or training the Iraqi police force. This puts them at grave risk. American soldiers must not face this danger all alone. About 148,000 American soldiers are still serving in Iraq, and we salute them. There are over 13,000 troops from the United Kingdom, Australia, Poland, and other countries, and we thank them for being there. Many Marylanders are serving there, including members of our National Guard and Reserves, and I stand up for them to make sure they get the backup they need and they can return home from their deployment. America should not stand with just a coalition of the few. We need to have the international force of the many. This is why we need to go to the U.N. and ask for help. We need to go to NATO and get them involved, and we need to go to the world to help pay for the cost of doing this. Occupying Iraq is not easy and it is not cheap. Rumsfeld has now doubled his estimates of the cost of occupying Iraq, from $2 billion a month to $4 billion a month. The Pentagon estimates that the total cost will be over $100 billion. The American taxpayers are bearing that responsibility, and they will bear that responsibility for some time to come. When we talk about responsibility, it should be the responsibility of the world to help rebuild the power stations while we are trying to work to create a new power structure. Last week I supported a burden sharing amendment to the State Department authorization bill. Ninety-seven Senators agreed to that. Not one disputed it. What did it recommend? That the President ask NATO to raise a military force for deployment in postwar Iraq, and to urge NATO allies and other nations to provide troops and police to the coalition efforts in Iraq, and that the President should call on the United Nations to urge its member states to provide military forces and civilian police to promote stability and security in Iraq. It also said go to the U.N. to ask for resources to rebuild and administer Iraq. Iraqi oil alone will not pay for this. We have to get these oil wells ready. When the President asked for authorization to go to war, I said that if it is important enough to go to war, if it is important enough to the world to go to war, then the world should come with us. We must bring the entire international community with us to share responsibilities and the burden of stopping these threats. I saw the situation we are in coming. That is what I worried about, that American troops would be there by themselves, with a few steadfast allies, and the American taxpayer would be the one facing this nation building. That was my position then and it is still my position. During the debate in the Senate, I urged the Senate to support the Levin amendment, which called for international legitimacy, for international cooperation, international support, including military and international resources, meaning real money. I spoke on the Senate floor about the threat of Saddam Hussein, and I spoke about the threats to our troops. I said then that I firmly believed Saddam Hussein was duplicitous, deceptive, and dangerous and that they had grim and goulish means to carry out their weapons plans. I did believe that they could develop, produce, and stockpile chemical and biological weapons, and I did believe that they had the means for delivering them in the region. Whether the information I was given in all my briefings was valid or not is something to probe in another forum. We are committed to doing that. Right now, we need to acknowledge Saddam threatened not only the United States, he threatened the region and he threatened the world. Now the region and the world have to get into this. It is not too late. President Bush should mount a new diplomatic effort, recruiting allies to share these burdens of occupying Iraq and to root out the remaining resistance. We have to go to the U.N. and NATO to get formal authorization, get international help for this rebuilding. This is an opportunity to reach out, even to countries that opposed the war, such as France and Germany, and get them involved. I hope we can answer this call before the Iraqi resistance fight grows, before more American soldiers die, without sending more troops into Iraq by getting our allies to join. If our allies join, they can help provide the troops, they can help provide the police, and they can help provide the money. To our troops--regular, reserve, and their families--I say thanks. Thanks for helping get rid of Saddam Hussein and his regime. They were international thugs. They have made tremendous sacrifices. Each and every member of our military is part of this American family. We thank them for their bravery, their fortitude, and their gallantry. They answered the call to duty. I salute every single member of our Armed Forces. I express my condolences to all Marylanders who lost their lives and paid the ultimate sacrifice. Captain Rippitoe, CPL Mark Evnin, SGT Kendall Waters Bey, PFC Juan Guadalupe, SP George Mitchell, and CPL Jason Mileo. I honor these men and their families, all the Marylanders wounded, and every American soldier right now either in Baghdad or in a hospital recovering. Our troops know we count on them. They have to count on us to get them the help they need, not only with the right resources for our military but to get more military from other nations to support them. The international community was divided over whether to go to war in Iraq. Now the world should unite in support of winning the peace our American men and women have fought so hard to win and for which they have given so many sacrifices. I yield the floor.