Barbara Mikulski

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. I ask unanimous consent the rollcall on the Mikulski amendment be postponed until such time to be called up as agreed upon by the two managers. We think we can work something out.

Ms. MIKULSKI. There is objection. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, the Senate is not in order.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my colleague, Senator Harry Reid, be added as a cosponsor of the amendment.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, my amendment will prevent the arbitrary privatization of almost a million Federal workers. It prevents agencies from establishing or applying or enforcing any numerical goal, target, or quota for the contracting out of Federal jobs either by public-private competitions or by directly converting jobs to the private sector. I want to be very clear, I am not against privatization, but I believe the privatization should be based on thoughtful criteria, not arbitrary numerical quotas. This administration has stated, in another arena, they are absolutely against quotas. So am I. But they seem to use quotas when it is convenient. I do not understand why OMB wants to use quotas to get rid of Federal employees. Let's not use quotas at all, whether it is to get into college or to get rid of Federal workers. Right now, many people are thinking about how to reform the Federal workforce. Excellent thinking. Former Federal Reserve Chairman Volcker and Senator Voinovich--leaders in this area--have put a lot of work into this issue. What they are saying, loud and clear, is, we need to be able to recruit the best, we need to be able to retain the best, we need to be able to maintain the integrity of the civil service system and make sure it never lapses into cronyism or political patronage. I am for their approach. Why am I offering this amendment? And why would that go against the thinking I have just talked about? Because the Office of Management and Budget has issued a directive calling for bounty hunters in Federal agencies to get rid of 850,000 jobs over the next 3 years. That is nearly half of the Federal workforce. No agency would be immune from these cuts. And, more importantly, there is no criteria for the cuts. Managers will be forced to meet arbitrary targets, sometimes against their will or even their better judgment--without careful criteria, without rationale, without guidelines; and without considering: Would privatization of these jobs affect national security? Is it cost- effective for the taxpayer? What is its impact on the mission of each agency? And what would arbitrary, cavalier, swashbuckling privatization mean? I think it is a dangerous trend with our Federal employees. Look at the Customs Service. Recently, they were made part of the Homeland Security Department. Their top priority should be protecting our borders and our ports, like stopping the millennium bomber. They should be searching for terrorists instead of wasting their time searching for private companies to do part of their job. Next let's look at DOD. We may be going to war. Yet the Army would have to contract out as many as 200,000 jobs. Transferring these jobs to the private sector could seriously erode morale and readiness. While the military is fighting a war against terrorism, and maybe even a war in Iraq, let's not have a war within the Pentagon over who gets to keep their job. Who are the kinds of people I am talking about? I am thinking about a secretary at the FBI in the Baltimore field office who has worked there for close to 50 years. During the terrible sniper case that gripped our whole Capital region, the FBI was on the job with our local law enforcement, along with the BATF, and it was the people in the back office keeping the agency support. What are we going to say to that secretary who has worked with field officers, who has helped keep the FBI going for over 48 years and went to the same high school I went to and, by the way, Congresswoman Pelosi? Hello. Thank you very much. You are part of a quota. You are going to be replaced by a Kelly Girl. There is nothing wrong with Kelly Girls, but there is nothing wrong with a dedicated secretary who stuck with the FBI for 50 years so they could be effective and out there on the job protecting us. So I am not seeking an end to privatization, but I think we should follow the FAIR Act. I think we should follow OMB's A-76 circular on these kinds of things. Privatization is a code word to go after Federal employees. I do not know why OMB wants to do this. There is even a question of whether it will save money. First of all, we have now the smallest Federal workforce since the 1960s. Also, at the same time, we know, from Federal managers themselves, that they are really nervous about this OMB directive because they think it will, first, undermine morale; and, second, there is no clear criteria. And instead of doing the job, they now have to justify the job. I do not know why we are so prickly, hostile to our Federal employees. Who are the Federal employees? They are the Customs inspectors, they are the nurses at our VA hospitals, and they are the people at Social Security who make sure the seniors get their checks on time. I am a Senator from Maryland, and I am really proud of it. I represent over 100,000 Federal employees. I wish you could meet them the way I do: on the job, at supermarkets. I represent people who are Nobel Prize winners at the National Institutes of Health and the National Institute of Standards and Technology. I represent people who work for the Coast Guard who are out there protecting our coast. I represent FBI agents. I represent the National Security Agency, the faculty at the United States Naval Academy that is getting our next generation of leaders ready. They work hard every day to guard our borders, protect our homes, get America ready for the future. Workers in the FDA are protecting our food supply and making sure our pharmaceuticals are safe. They are also the Federal employees in other parts of America, the ones who died at the World Trade Center. How about the ones who died at the Pentagon? How about the ones who lost their lives in Oklahoma City? They were protecting our Nation. They were protecting our communities. We said a grateful Nation will never forget. Well, let's not forget them when it comes to pushing out their colleagues from the Federal workforce. I know what Federal employees do. They work hard. They think for themselves first as citizens of the United States and second as workers at missions-driven agencies. Let me just close by saying this. We need to have a civil service in this country. And we need to have a civil service that is reliable and has integrity and is independent. We have gone from an age of patronage politics to an age of partisan politics. I believe the American people want us to be in an age of performance politics. That means keeping a civil service. Do not fool around with the civil service. Don't just contract it out and reward your pals through cronyism or a new form of patronage. I fought a political machine to get into politics, and I will fight a political machine that will try to destroy the civil service of the United States. Let's keep a strong nonpolitical Federal workforce. Let's get rid of the quotas for the OMB circular, and let's take a rational approach maintaining the civil service but privatizing those jobs that are appropriate. I yield the floor and reserve time that I might need for rebuttal.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, if the other side yields back its time, I therefore yield back my time and know that there will be an agreement to vote on my amendment that will be concluded at the end of the evening. I thank my colleague from Alabama. I hope all my debates are that easy.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 61 dealing with the contracting out of employment of Federal employees.

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

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. I thank the Senator from Connecticut. Mr. President, I rise as a proud cosponsor of the Dodd amendment which I believe is a first step to full funding for IDEA in 6 years. The President has requested a billion dollar increase for IDEA. That might sound like a lot, but at that rate, it will take 32 years to get full funding for IDEA. The administration is proposing tax breaks for zillionaires, and I believe that is a misplaced priority. We don't need tax breaks for those who do not need help while we are delaying help for those who need it the most--the children with special needs, their parents, and the teachers of the school system that wants to support them and make sure they have the right educational program. It is so disappointing that the Federal Government is not looking out for the day-to-day needs of the American people. The Dodd amendment increases IDEA by $1.5 billion. That is a total of $10 billion, $2.5 billion more than last year. Under the Dodd program, if we followed that approach, we could fully fund IDEA in 6 years. What a great way to get to the first decade of this new century. The Federal Government is supposed to pay 40 percent of the cost of educating children with disabilities, yet it has never paid more than 16 percent. That means local school districts have to make up the difference, often by cutting educational programs or raising taxes. Either one of those are unacceptable options. Full funding for special education will give local governments the resources they need to improve education for all children. Everywhere I go in my home State, I hear about IDEA. I hear about it regardless of the community, from the rural communities, whether it is the mountain counties or the Eastern Shore, whether it is the suburban counties which at first blush seem very prosperous and certainly my own Baltimore city, from Democrats and Republicans, from fiscal conservatives to social activists, they all talk about how the Federal Government is not living up to its promise about special education. In Maryland, on average, we get only 10 percent. Schools are suffering and parents are worried. If you talk to parents, they are under a lot of stress, sometimes working two jobs just to make ends meet, trying to find daycare for their kids or elder care for their parents. The Federal Government should not add to their worries by not living up to its obligations. If you have a special needs child with a chronic condition, whether it is asthma or autism or Down's syndrome or juvenile diabetes, you have significant stress in your family. One of the ways to alleviate that stress is to make sure they have an educational program they can count on and a local school system that will be able to work to meet those needs. Parents have real questions in their minds. Will they have adequate teachers? Will they have up-to- date textbooks or technology? Will they be learning what they really need to know? Parents of disabled children face a tough burden already. Caring for a disabled child at any age can be exhausting. Just think about what they have to do to pay for their prescription drugs, if you are a juvenile diabetic. The federal government should not make it any harder, particularly when the laws are already on the book to guarantee their child an adequate education. The bottom line is, the Federal Government is shortchanging parents, children, and local school districts. By providing $1.5 billion more than what is already in the legislation, we can fully fund this by 2009, freeing up money in local budgets for hiring more teachers, textbooks, technology that would help schools improve education for all children. This will help children with disabilities and their families by providing enough money. More money means parents have to worry less. Full funding of IDEA is essential. We don't like being the Federal nanny. We don't like being the Federal schoolmarm. This is not about a new program with a new bureaucracy and new regs and new mandates. This is about living up to our promise, the promise to the children, the promise to their parents, and the promise to the local community that we will meet our responsibility if we give an obligation to a school district. I think the Dodd amendment is a terrific idea, and I want to support it. The Senator from New Hampshire also says we need to take a look at special education--no two ways about it. In my home State, there is a disproportionate number of African-American young men and Latino young men being placed into special education. Is it the right place or is it the wrong assessment? I don't know. But what I do know is there are challenges to the legislation that we need to address, new thinking for a new century, particularly with new technology breakthroughs. If you are a mom or a dad, you are exhausted from meeting your family needs, and the least we can do is help bear the financial cost while they are coming out with what is the best plan and sharing the emotional responsibility, the family responsibility. It is time we have some Federal responsibility. I yield the floor.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Kennedy amendment to increase funding for vital education programs. There is a lot of talk about leaving no child behind. Yet the No Child Left Behind Act, which we passed just last year, will be a hollow promise if we don't match our rhetoric with resources. We must make sure no child is left out of the budget. This amendment increases funding for two of the most vital educational programs--title I and Pell grants. The No Child Left Behind Act placed the burden on schools to improve. It is a worthy goal, but it will be a difficult task for our schools. We knew this when we passed the No Child Left Behind Act, and so we promised to give schools adequate resources. I am outraged that only 1 year later, we are already falling behind in our commitment to providing the resources needed to make the reforms work. By increasing funding for title I, our Nation's poorest schools will be able to hire more teachers, buy more computers, and implement the kind of reforms they need to improve student achievement. Increasing funding for Pell Grants is equally vital. In the 21st century, a college education is the key to moving up the opportunity ladder. Yet the average Pell grant doesn't come close to covering tuition at a State college, and the gap between the cost of college and the amount of financial aid available to the neediest students is only getting bigger. In my own State of Maryland, colleges have had to raise tuition by 5 percent this year because of the State budget shortfall. This amendment raises the maximum Pell grant from $4,000 to $4,500. That is a big step on the way to making college more affordable for students of all backgrounds. Education and the opportunity to go on to higher education are what give parents hope for their children. 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. That is why this amendment is so important. It will help the neediest students of all ages, elementary school, middle school, high school, and college.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, there is nothing more important than America's homeland security. I support Senator Byrd's amendment because it provides essential funds for hometown security. It will improve our ability to prevent terrorism, through stronger port security, border security, and transportation security. And it will improve our ability to respond to acts of terrorism by giving first-responders the tools they need. Local communities are on the front lines in our war against terrorism. They must not bear the full cost of this war. This means Congress must do its share by providing funds for: local law enforcement, first responders and public health professionals; extra security for critical infrastructure like public water supplies; and improved communications systems. This amendment accomplishes six important things. First, it improves port security, airplane cockpit security, and airport security by giving the Transportation Security Administration $1.64 billion. It permits INS to better monitor who is coming into our country by giving them $363 million to develop an entry/exit system. It enables community law enforcement agencies to upgrade communications equipment by providing $100 million through the COPS program. It ensures that the Children's National Medical Center here in DC can expand their quarantine and decontamination facilities for children and families by giving the Center $8 million. Senator Byrd's amendment allows states to enhance their chemical response capabilities by giving them $9.5 million. Finally, the amendment assures that 10 million doctors, nurses, and first-responders will receive the smallpox vaccination this year by giving $850 million to state and local health departments. Without this additional funding, States will be forced to cut back on other critical public services, such as putting more police officers on the streets to fight ``everyday'' crime, or tracking West Nile virus cases. I have received dozens of letters pleading for promised Federal assistance for first-responders. For example, Laurel, MD continues its efforts to organize and prepare their regional emergency services to respond not only to terrorism but to all local emergencies. Since September 11, Laurel has had to use their limited resources to respond to several critical events, a tornado on September 24, 2001, and the sniper shootings that required them to be on extended heightened alert. Despite this, Laurel continues to prepare its emergency service providers to respond to the various alerts and incidents that continue to occur. Baltimore, MD also has the additional task of securing large public arenas such as Camden Yards and Ravens Stadium against terrorist attacks. This is why it is so important that we pass this amendment. Cities are on the front lines in preparing for, and responding to, acts of terror. Who are the people on the front lines? They're police, firefighters, EMS and public health responders. Firefighters in Maryland alone need $40 million for equipment, training and personnel protective gear. Our law enforcement officers play a critical role in detection and prevention, and must also have equipment, training, and better information from federal agencies to do their jobs. By investing this money today, we get double value, more money to prepare for terrorism means more money to fight crime and fires. My own State of Maryland has made great strides in preparing our Nation against a terrorist attack, but communities need this additional funding to make sure they are combat ready and fit-for-duty. Let's protect the protectors and keep our promises to the warriors on the front lines of this new war against terrorism. That is why I support homeland, and hometown, security, and I encourage my colleagues to vote for this amendment.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I want to say a few words to commemorate the life and legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King. Yesterday was Dr. King's birthday, and on Monday we celebrate the National Holiday of Dr. King. He had a dream: Equal opportunity for all Americans. That dream is unfulfilled today. In the 1960s, Dr. King spoke out against segregation and dehumanization. He stood up for workers' rights and voting rights. He won a Nobel Prize. I often think what Dr. King would call for today. He would say there is still injustice in America; there is still more work to be done. As we look at what we need to do, we need to know that we need an independent judiciary. In order to protect our civil rights, we need to make sure we have judges who respect the 14th amendment and the civil rights laws. When someone walks in the courthouse door, they must be able to count on everyone being treated fairly. They must be able to trust that the law on the books will be enforced and that their constitutional rights will be respected. Let's make sure we have an independent judiciary. America needs judges on the bench who will enforce the laws on the books, the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act. Courtrooms across the country need to protect against redlining and discrimination. The courts must not undo, rewrite, or reinvent the spirit of our laws protecting America's civil rights. Dr. King fought not only for equality under law but for economic justice. When he came for his famous Walk on Washington, it was about jobs and freedom. In 1968, Dr. King marched with 1,300 sanitation workers in Memphis. Let me tell you what he said that day on that march. He said he was fighting for decent wages, fair working conditions, livable housing. He said that old-age Social Security, health and welfare measures should be at the top of our national agenda and that education for the children and respect for the community should be No. 1. I say to my colleagues, if we choose to honor Dr. King, let's fight for economic justice. I am so pleased we passed the unemployment insurance. Now we need to raise the minimum wage. The minimum wage is $10,700 a year. That means a full-time job still leaves you in full- time poverty. Let's keep the dream alive and raise the minimum wage. The first civil rights battles were over education. At that time, education was separate and unequal. Today, we are still fighting to make sure our children go to good schools with properly trained teachers and up-to-date books and technology. We need to make sure we back our educational system. This can mean technology training at a community college, Ph.D.s or MBAs, but at the same time, while we look at higher education, make sure we focus on that elementary and secondary level. Let's leave no child behind but make sure no child is left out of the budget. Dr. King's legacy for America must be a living legacy. We in the Senate must continue to fight for the values Dr. King stood for and make sure the American dream is a reality for others.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to the life and legacy of Mayor Clarence Henry Burns. Mayor ``Du'' Burns was born to an economically poor family--but he was rich in hope and spirit. No one gave Du Burns anything on a silver platter. What he had and what he became--he did on his own--using his God-given skills. He used his grit and gifts to make life better for the people of Baltimore. He went from being a locker-room attendant to become the first African American Mayor of Baltimore, and he took his whole community with him. I had the pleasure of serving with Du Burns on the Baltimore City Council. I had such great respect and affection for him. We worked together to strengthen neighborhoods and built communities. He believed, as I do, that the best ideas come from the people. His mission was to meet the day to day needs of the people of Baltimore. Mayor Burns was a coalition builder, forging an alliance for East Baltimore that included the different communities that give our city its strength. He started Baltimore's first homeless program. He strengthened schools and libraries and public housing. He made our city work. Mayor Du Burns left an indelible mark on the city of Baltimore. He also left a strong and loving family--and so many friends, including me. His wife Edith and his family are in my thoughts and prayers.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Emergency Unemployment Compensation Act. On December 28, 2002, the Federal Government played Scrooge to nearly 800,000 Americans. We left town, and we left a lot of people holding no money for the new year. Because the House of Representatives failed to pass an extension of unemployment benefits, 780,000 unemployed Americans--including 10,000 unemployed Marylanders--had their benefits abruptly cut off just a few days after Christmas. Yet the story gets even worse. One million Americans have already exhausted both Federal and state aid without finding a new job, and 2 million are expected to run out of state benefits in the next five months. We must act now to help these working Americans who have been hardest hit by the economic downturn. That is why I am proud to cosponsor the Emergency Unemployment Compensation Act. This bill will give immediate assistance to those who need it most and it will put money back into the economy to keep it going. The Emergency Unemployment Compensation Act will help nearly 2.85 million Americans who are facing the highest unemployment rate since the recession during the first Bush Administration. It will restore benefits for those who were unfairly cut off in December and it will help those who will lose their benefits in the next five months. It will provide relief for approximately 30,000 people in my own state of Maryland who still have not been able to find a job. Extending UI not only helps those who are hardest hit by bad economic times, it also helps turn the economy around. A good economic stimulus puts money in the hands of the people who will spend it. That is precisely what the Emergency Unemployment Compensation Act does. Workers who have lost their jobs because of September 11th or the economic downturn will spend this money. They will spend it on necessities, like rent and food, to keep the economy going. This bill will inject $7.25 billion into the economy as an immediate stimulus. I believe this will do more to help the people and stimulate the economy than the across the board tax cuts for the wealthy. I am so pleased that the Senate is ready to pass this bill. But this measure doesn't go far enough. As long term unemployment balloons due to the weak economy, we can't forget about the 1 million Americans who have already exhausted both Federal and state unemployment benefits and have still not found a job. These people have no income, and now they have no safety net. I urge my colleagues to provide an additional 13 weeks of extended unemployment benefits for these Americans.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, there is nothing more important than America's national security. I will vote for the Homeland Security Act because it organizes our Government to better detect, prevent and respond to acts of terrorism. This bill organizes twenty-two very different agencies into a one- stop-shop for homeland security a single, mission-driven agency whose primary goal is protection of the homeland. Why is this important? Because it will improve our ability to detect terrorism before it occurs, by strengthening immigration systems, better coordination of intelligence. It will improve our ability to prevent terrorism, through stronger port security, border security, transportation security. It will improve our ability to respond to acts of terrorism through the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Yet I am disappointed that this legislation has been politicized in addressing an issue as important as national security. Congress and the President shouldn't be Democrats or Republicans. We should be the Red, White, and Blue Party. In recent weeks, I've seen some cynical actions. I've seen Federal employees treated as if they're the enemy. I've seen a Vietnam War hero's patriotism questioned. I've seen this administration claim that the creation of a Department of Homeland Security was its idea and its priority, though we all know they long opposed it--just as they opposed the creation of a national commission to look at what went wrong on September 11. I've seen a package of special interest goodies forced into a bill for no other reason than pay-back politics. Let's consider some of these issues. First, on Federal employees, I resent that I am being forced to chose between Homeland Security and protecting the rights of those who guard the homeland--our Federal employees who have the constitutional right to organize, to have freedom of assembly, to do collective bargaining. In standing up for America, why aren't we also standing up for those who are protecting America? Our brave and gallant Federal employees who are out there every day on the front line wanting to do their job, whether they are customs inspectors, border agents or FEMA's emergency workers. Federal workers stand sentry every day to protect America. When our firefighters ran up those burning buildings at the World Trade Center, nobody asked if they were union. They didn't look at the clock or check their work rules. When our emergency workers from Maryland dashed over to be part of the mutual aid at the Pentagon, they were mission driven. They were there because they were union members. They belong to a union. They belong to a union called the United States of America. That's the union that they belong to, and that's the union they put first. America is in the midst of a war against terrorism. We have a long way to go. Yet instead of focusing on the war effort, we're waging war on Federal employees. The administration must use this new flexibility responsibly and judiciously. It is not a blank check. If anyone takes undue advantage of this new flexibility, I will lead the charge to change it. But it is sad and disgraceful that the rights of our Federal employees were held hostage in an effort to make our Nation secure against terrorism. I'm also disappointed with the special interest provisions that were added to this bill. The late Senator Wellstone added a provision on companies that move overseas to avoid paying U.S. taxes. His amendment would have prevented these corporations from being able to contract with the new Department of Homeland Security. Why does the House of Representatives insist on helping those companies who make their money in the U.S. but then turn their backs on the U.S.? What about their responsibility to the U.S.? This legislation also provides immunity from liability for manufacturers of products or technologies that harm Americans. Why did the House think it's important to protect companies that are grossly negligent, and how does this improve the security of Americans? Another special interest provision would provide liability protection for pharmaceutical companies that are being sued for using vaccine preservatives that some people believe have caused autism. This should be decided by scientists and the courts: not by Members of the House of Representatives trying to sneak unrelated provisions into a bill on homeland security. The list of special interest pay backs goes on and on. I strongly oppose the provisions of this bill that limit the rights of Federal employees, as well as the administration's plan to privatize much of the Federal workforce. I will continue to fight these proposals. I'm also disappointed that the House Republicans have used the need for homeland security to sneak so many special interest give backs into the bill. Yet despite the serious problems with this bill, I will vote for it because it will enable our government to better detect, prevent and respond to terrorism. Nothing the Senate does is more important than providing security for America. That is why I will vote to create the Department of Homeland Security--for America's national security. I'm tired of the cynical manipulation of the legislative process. I'm tired of the politicization of something as important as Homeland Security. I hope this is the last time that an issue of national security is politicized. Let's put these politics and hard feelings behind us. Let us get our act together, and let's show America we can govern. Let's show the bullies of the world we're willing to take them on.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, there is nothing more important than America's national security. I will vote for the Homeland Security Act because it organizes our Government to better detect, prevent and respond to acts of terrorism. This bill organizes twenty-two very different agencies into a one- stop-shop for homeland security a single, mission-driven agency whose primary goal is protection of the homeland. Why is this important? Because it will improve our ability to detect terrorism before it occurs, by strengthening immigration systems, better coordination of intelligence. It will improve our ability to prevent terrorism, through stronger port security, border security, transportation security. It will improve our ability to respond to acts of terrorism through the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Yet I am disappointed that this legislation has been politicized in addressing an issue as important as national security. Congress and the President shouldn't be Democrats or Republicans. We should be the Red, White, and Blue Party. In recent weeks, I've seen some cynical actions. I've seen Federal employees treated as if they're the enemy. I've seen a Vietnam War hero's patriotism questioned. I've seen this administration claim that the creation of a Department of Homeland Security was its idea and its priority, though we all know they long opposed it--just as they opposed the creation of a national commission to look at what went wrong on September 11. I've seen a package of special interest goodies forced into a bill for no other reason than pay-back politics. Let's consider some of these issues. First, on Federal employees, I resent that I am being forced to chose between Homeland Security and protecting the rights of those who guard the homeland--our Federal employees who have the constitutional right to organize, to have freedom of assembly, to do collective bargaining. In standing up for America, why aren't we also standing up for those who are protecting America? Our brave and gallant Federal employees who are out there every day on the front line wanting to do their job, whether they are customs inspectors, border agents or FEMA's emergency workers. Federal workers stand sentry every day to protect America. When our firefighters ran up those burning buildings at the World Trade Center, nobody asked if they were union. They didn't look at the clock or check their work rules. When our emergency workers from Maryland dashed over to be part of the mutual aid at the Pentagon, they were mission driven. They were there because they were union members. They belong to a union. They belong to a union called the United States of America. That's the union that they belong to, and that's the union they put first. America is in the midst of a war against terrorism. We have a long way to go. Yet instead of focusing on the war effort, we're waging war on Federal employees. The administration must use this new flexibility responsibly and judiciously. It is not a blank check. If anyone takes undue advantage of this new flexibility, I will lead the charge to change it. But it is sad and disgraceful that the rights of our Federal employees were held hostage in an effort to make our Nation secure against terrorism. I'm also disappointed with the special interest provisions that were added to this bill. The late Senator Wellstone added a provision on companies that move overseas to avoid paying U.S. taxes. His amendment would have prevented these corporations from being able to contract with the new Department of Homeland Security. Why does the House of Representatives insist on helping those companies who make their money in the U.S. but then turn their backs on the U.S.? What about their responsibility to the U.S.? This legislation also provides immunity from liability for manufacturers of products or technologies that harm Americans. Why did the House think it's important to protect companies that are grossly negligent, and how does this improve the security of Americans? Another special interest provision would provide liability protection for pharmaceutical companies that are being sued for using vaccine preservatives that some people believe have caused autism. This should be decided by scientists and the courts: not by Members of the House of Representatives trying to sneak unrelated provisions into a bill on homeland security. The list of special interest pay backs goes on and on. I strongly oppose the provisions of this bill that limit the rights of Federal employees, as well as the administration's plan to privatize much of the Federal workforce. I will continue to fight these proposals. I'm also disappointed that the House Republicans have used the need for homeland security to sneak so many special interest give backs into the bill. Yet despite the serious problems with this bill, I will vote for it because it will enable our government to better detect, prevent and respond to terrorism. Nothing the Senate does is more important than providing security for America. That is why I will vote to create the Department of Homeland Security--for America's national security. I'm tired of the cynical manipulation of the legislative process. I'm tired of the politicization of something as important as Homeland Security. I hope this is the last time that an issue of national security is politicized. Let's put these politics and hard feelings behind us. Let us get our act together, and let's show America we can govern. Let's show the bullies of the world we're willing to take them on.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, I rise today to join with Senator Kennedy, Senator Hollings, Senator Gregg, Senator McCain, and Senator Bond to urge passage of the National Science Foundation Doubling Act. On July 12, 2002, Senator Kit Bond and I joined together and called on our Senate colleagues to join us in an effort to double the budget of the National Science Foundation over five years. We said at that time, that just as we worked collectively to double the NIH budget, now was the time for a parallel effort on behalf of the fundamental research supported by the NSF. NSF's impact over the past half century has been monumental-- especially in the field of medical technologies and research. The investments have also spawned not only new products, but entire new industries, such as biotechnology, the internet, and e-commerce. Medical technologies such as biotechnology, the internet, and e- commerce. Medical technologies such as magnetic resonance imaging, ultrasound, digital mammography and genomic mapping could not have occurred, and cannot now improve to the next level of proficiency, without underlying knowledge from NSF-supported work in biology, physics, chemistry, mathematics, engineering, and computer sciences. Today, with this bill, we take an important step to ensure the well- being of this Nation and its citizens with passage of this bill to double the funding for the basic research and science education activities of the National Science Foundation over the next five years. Some might ask, ``Why should we do this now?'' Let me try and answer that question. We have seen some dramatic increases in research and development investments during the past decade, largely from industry. These investments have contributed to this country's standing as a global economic powerhouse. However, according to the National Science Board--in its latest report on science indicators--developments abroad could affect U.S. preeminence in the years to come. The Board says that the United States finances 44 percent of the total worldwide investment in R&D--equal to the combined total of Japan, the United Kingdom, Canada, France, Germany and Italy. But other nations are increasing their R&D investments and focusing on areas such as physical sciences and engineering, which receive comparably less funding in the United States. Those changes could lead to the creation of new centers for research excellence abroad, which will encourage many of those who have come here from other countries and have become a part of our science enterprise to return home. The fact is that this country's future competitiveness rests on our ability to develop a U.S. work force that has the skills necessary to meet the increased competition coming from abroad. In this country, R&D investments by U.S. industry have contributed to a steady stream of innovations and economic growth. We are seeing new partnerships develop that connect firms and universities, nonprofit organizations and government. Meanwhile, the balance of R&D investments continues to shift. As industry R&D grew to nearly 75 percent of the national total by 2000, Federal expenditures remained essentially flat over the past decade. At the same time federal research expenditures in life sciences have grown, from 41 to 47 percent of the federal total between 1990 and 2000. However, the combined share of physical sciences and engineering in federal research total dropped from 37 to 29 percent in the same period. Changes in the U.S. economy have spilled into the workforce. Information- and technology-based changes in the economy have created new opportunities for highly trained workers. Science and engineering occupational fields are growing faster than the overall growth of the American work force. the Bureau of Labor Statistics predicts that during this decade, hi-tech occupations will grow by 47 percent, compared to 15 percent for the labor force as a whole. Despite many state and national reforms initiated during the last decade, the quality of mathematics and science education at the precollege level is not where it should be. America's high school students continue to lag behind in international achievement measures in science and mathematics. U.S. high school students taking physics lag behind students in Norway, Sweden, the Russian Federation, Denmark, Germany, Australia and seven other countries. A persistent issue in science and mathematics education remains the size and adequacy of the teaching force. According to the National Commission on Mathematics and Science Teaching for the 21st Century, the nation's schools will need to hire 2.2 million teachers, including 240,000 middle and high school mathematics and science teachers, in the next decade. The need for teachers is most pronounced in urban and rural areas and within specific disciplines and grade levels of mathematics and science. A survey of urban school districts, by the Council of the Great City Schools and Recruiting New Teachers, Inc., in 1998-99, indicated that up to 95 percent of our urban school districts had an immediate demand for high school science and mathematics teachers. A high percentage of science and mathematics teachers lack even a minor in their teaching field, with 56 percent of public secondary students receiving instruction in the physical sciences from teachers without a major or minor in the physical sciences. And as many as 50 percent of new teachers in urban school districts leave the teaching profession within their first three years, further exacerbating shortages. Solving the problem of producing more high-quality, homegrown scientists and engineers--and a well educated workforce--depends upon solving the math and science education problems we have at the elementary and secondary levels of our school system. The bill before us today authorizes substantial growth in all areas of basic research--including the physical, engineering, biological, and computer sciences--fields vital for progress in just about every other area of science including biomedical research. The bill also puts a high priority on cutting edge programs such as information technology, nanotechnology and plant genome research. Under this bill, the NSF budget would grow from today's level of $5 billion to nearly $10 billion by fiscal year 2007 which should allow for substantial growth in both the size of the average award as well increase the number of awards NSF is able to make. Increasing the size of the grants will benefit those currently conducting research. Increasing the number of awards should help those individuals who are just starting their careers in science as well as attract more women and minorities into our science and technology enterprise. In the area of math and science education, the bill firmly establishes the President's Math and Science Partnership program at the National Science Foundation. This is a new effort designed to create strong connections between state and local school districts with our institutions of higher education. This bill also includes a provision for a new undergraduate ``tech talent'' program. The ``tech talent'' program is designed to provide financial support to undergraduate students to pursue bachelor degrees in science and engineering--all in an effort to help meet today's and tomorrow's workforce needs. The funding in this bill will also help increase the graduate student stipends in both the NSF fellowship programs as well as in the support graduate students receive as research assistants on the NSF research grants. Under this bill, NSF's entire education and human resources program would grow from $875 million in fiscal year 2002 to almost $1.8 billion by fiscal year 2007. Finally, this bill includes two provisions that relate to the National Science Board. These are ``good government'' provisions that give the National Science Board, the policy making body of the Foundation, the authority and funding to hire its own staff. Our rationale is to ensure that the Board remains independent with respect to its policy making and oversight responsibilities. This is particularly important as Congress attempts to double the NSF over the next five years. Finally, it is equally important to know that these provisions do not preclude the Board and the NSF from continuing to work closely together as they have over the years such as in the staffing of NSB committees, subcommittees, and task forces and the development of the biennial Science and Engineering Indicators report. As a Nation, we have a big challenge ahead of us as we enter the new millennium. Our world has changed and we must do what is necessary to meet the new challenges that will surely come our way. The sustained and effective investment in our Nation's research and education enterprise is one of the keys to meeting those challenges. I urge all my colleagues to join us in enacting this important investment in the future of our country. NSF reauthorization: NSF doubling act

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, this past year has been a challenging time for residents of the capital region. First there was the September 11 attack on the Pentagon. Then there were the anthrax attacks, and now a serial sniper is terrorizing the national capital region, attacking innocent people going about their daily lives. These attacks affect each and every one of us. Here in the capital region especially, there have been seven attacks in Montgomery County and in Prince George's County in my own home State of Maryland. The sniper has also made three attacks in Northern Virginia. Our friends and our neighbors have been either injured or killed. Our schools are now locked down. Eleven of our neighbors have been shot, nine people have died, two others are still fighting for their recovery, including a child who was shot as he walked into his school in the accompaniment of his aunt, a nurse. These senseless and brutal murders have left grieving families and terrified our communities. I wish to express my sympathy for the families of the victims. I want them to know they are not alone; that I am on their side and at their side; and also that the resources of the Federal Government are at the disposal of local government and local law enforcement to catch this criminal. We in Maryland are deeply grateful for the support of President Bush, who has pledged the support of every Federal agency to be at the disposal of local government and local law enforcement. I thank the Attorney General, Mr. Ashcroft, and the FBI Director, Mr. Mueller, for their immediate response when these attacks on our civilians occurred. This killer must be brought to justice. It is going to take persistence and patience. It is going to take great detective work, which is already underway. I want everyone to know that just like the manhunt is not going to go away, Federal support is not going to go away, and the resources are not going to go away until this criminal is brought to justice. So many of my colleagues have expressed their support. They have asked me how my constituents are doing. Well, let me tell everyone what I know about the Marylanders I so proudly represent. We Marylanders strongly believe when times get tough, the tough get going. We are unflinching in our determination to get through these attacks, to stand with each other, and to do all we can to support law enforcement to catch the criminal, to keep our businesses open, and also to make sure our children are safe. We are particularly sensitive to these issues, but our grief and shock must be coupled with action. Congress must respond with deeds, not just words. This is why I believe one of our first actions should be to pass something called the BLAST Act. The BLAST Act deals with ballistic fingerprinting. It was introduced by our colleague, Senator Kohl. It would keep a database that includes the fingerprint of every bullet and shell to enable law enforcement to solve crimes by providing a scientific link between gun crimes and their owners. Ballistic evidence has already helped us determine that these shootings were linked to the same killer. We now need the kind of legislation that just as we take fingerprints of criminals, we need to have the same type of fingerprinting on guns. I know this is controversial, but let's begin the debate. Let's move this legislation through the committee. I know there are issues related to technology, there are issues regarding those who want to tamper with a gun in some way, but this is the United States of America. We have the genius in regard to technology. Let's solve the problems by doing something to make ballistic fingerprinting available, reliable, and accurate. Let's not solve it by doing nothing and saying there are too many problems. My constituents want action. They want us to not only find the criminal, but they want us to prevent these type of deeds from being done again. So this is why I support the BLAST Act. I am a proud cosponsor and hope to vote for it in the Senate. Unfortunately, the sniper is not the only killer who attacked our region and the people living in it. One year ago today, a letter containing the deadly anthrax was opened in the Senate. Before that letter reached the Senate office building, it passed through the Brentwood postal facility, exposing workers to its deadly contents. On this anniversary, I want to express my deepest condolences to the families who suffered in these attacks, particularly the families of two postal workers who died from anthrax exposure, my two constituents, Joe Curseen, Jr., and Thomas Morris, Jr. Both of these men lived in Maryland. They were public servants. They were patriots. They died in the service of their country. I want them to know I will continue to stand sentry to make sure we will not forget them. America must not only remember the sacrifices they made and the pain felt by their families but the fact that every single postal worker continued to work, show up for duty, deliver the mail and was unflinching and unabashed in fulfilling their duty as postal workers. I was proud to join with my colleagues in the House, Representatives Wynn and Norton, in passing a bill to rename the Brentwood facility after Mr. Curseen and Mr. Morris, but I want to do more. The postal workers are scared. Little is known about the long-term effects of possible exposure to anthrax. Some are quite ill and continue to be ill. This is why I will be offering legislation calling on HHS to examine the effects of anthrax exposure on the long-term health of our postal workers. I also want to thank every Senate employee who, though we have been faced with anthrax, continue to keep the doors of the Senate floor open. Thanks to our personal staff, our professional staff, to the pages, to the elevator operators, everybody, we survived that attack, and we survived it because we stuck together. God bless them, and God bless America.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, after careful consideration, I have decided to oppose the Bush resolution on Iraq. This resolution would give President Bush the unilateral authority he seeks to go to war against Iraq without international support or international resources. The resolution includes only tepid language supporting diplomatic efforts at the United Nations. The Senate is making a grave decision: Whether to give the President unlimited authority to go to war and send American military men and women into harm's way. I take this responsibility very seriously. I have listened to the President and his advisors. I have consulted with experts and wise heads. I have participated in hearings and briefings as a member of the Senate, and particularly as a member of the Intelligence Committee. I have listened intently to my own constituents. The American people are deeply ambivalent. The American people want a safer world, a world in which distant tyrants can't threaten us and our bases and our embassies and our treasured allies. The American people are counting on us to assess the Iraqi threat and to confront it with our allies. They and I firmly believe that Saddam Hussein is duplicitous, deceptive, and dangerous. Iraq has grim and ghoulish weapons to carry out his evil plans. As part of the Gulf War cease-fire agreement, Saddam Hussein committed to destroying its chemical and biological and nuclear weapons programs and longer-range missiles. Instead, Saddam Hussein is trying to add nuclear weapons to an arsenal that already includes chemical and biological weapons and ballistic missiles. These threats cannot be ignored and allowed to grow. But these are not only threats to us. These are threats to the international community, and the international community must share the responsibility of addressing them. I support a robust multinational response to the Iraqi threat. That's why I supported the Levin resolution, urging the United Nations Security Council to fulfill President Bush's request to demand Iraqi disarmament, verified by unfettered inspections, and to authorize the use of multinational force if Iraq refuses to comply. If the UN refuses to act, then Congress would consider a request from the President to authorize acting alone against Iraq. Let me be very clear on one point. The United States always has the authority to take military action in self-defense. That is our right under international law, included as Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, and I support that. President Bush says he has not yet decided whether the use of military force is necessary, and I take him at his word. The United States should first exhaust all diplomatic and other non- military means. The United States should give the United Nations the opportunity to fulfill its responsibility to address the Iraqi threat. The United States should fully pursue whether the UN Security Council will authorize the use of multinational force. The Bush resolution, the White House resolution, would authorize the President to send our Armed Forces to war against Iraq without any further consideration by Congress. Under the Levin resolution, which I cosponsored, Congress would remain in session, standing ready to promptly reconsider if the UN does not meet the challenge. I have had to ask myself, 'Why should the Senate wait to see what the United Nations will do before deciding on the unilateral use of force? The answer is this: Voting now in support of unilateral action would take the international community off the hook. Why would the other members of the United Nations Security Council make the tough decision to effectively authorize war against a member state if they know the U.S. will do it by ourselves? I believe this resolution would actually weaken the negotiating position of the President and the Secretary of State at the United Nations. Why would other nations send their troops into harm's way if America is ready to send our troops without them? Why would other nations join us to rebuild Iraq after a war if Uncle Sam is willing to bear the financial burden, as well as the dangers? I'm concerned about the prospect of America going it alone because I've thought about the risks and consequences. The risks and consequences of acting alone are so much greater than they would be for multinational action. The risks to our troops are greater if allied forces do not join the mission. The challenge in post-conflict Iraq is greater if other nations do not share the burden and the cost. The consequences for the war on terrorism are greater if we lose the essential cooperation of other nations in the effort to pursue al-Qaida and other terrorist groups. The consequences on our economy would be severe. A mandate from the United Nations would mean the international community against Saddam instead of the United States against Iraq, and other countries in the region would join our coalition rather than obstructing or opposing us. I recognize that I will likely be in the minority on this vote. The Senate and House of Representatives will probably grant the President the broad authority he now seeks. I will vote differently than the majority, but I want my constituents, particularly our men and women in uniform, to know that I believe my vote represents the wisest, most prudent course with them in mind. America's soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines will always have my full and steadfast support. I stand accountable to the oath I took to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. I hold myself accountable to my constituents, and I am prepared to defend this vote because I think when history is written, it would have been wiser not to give authority to go it alone right now. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Going where, sir? Going to the U.N. or going back to Saddam? I am sorry, who is negotiating with whom? Are you talking about the U.N. negotiating with Saddam or Secretary Powell negotiating within the U.N.?

Ms. MIKULSKI. I say to the Senator, I did not hear his comments at the press conference. I applaud Secretary Powell. I think his is a vigorous effort to try to resolve the situation through diplomatic means, to send a message to Saddam that he should voluntarily disarm and let the inspectors in. That might not work. But it is then up to the U.N., as the President said when he spoke to them, to take responsibility; to therefore authorize action to enforce their own resolutions so the United States of America is not doing this all by ourselves. It is not America versus Saddam. It should be the international community against Saddam because, I think you would agree, he is a despicable cad.

Ms. MIKULSKI. I see. I thought you were talking about sending a message to Saddam. No. I understand. I believe the Levin amendment is a pretty muscular amendment, saying back to the U.N., you passed those resolutions, you should really step up to those resolutions, and putting the pressure back on them; and also saying, we are not going to adjourn until we hear what you are going to do. And we will be ready to respond promptly. So I think the Levin amendment is a fairly muscular amendment. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of the Levin amendment in terms of determining our action in Iraq. As a graduate of West Point, the Presiding Officer knows how great a decision it is for the U.S. Congress to decide about war. Now this Senate is considering the gravest decision we will ever be called upon to make, which is to give the President unlimited authority to go to war, to make a decision to send American military men and women in harm's way. I say to my constituents, to the people of this country, and to the military, I take this responsibility very seriously. I have listened to the President and his advisers make their case. I have consulted with experts and wise heads. I have participated in hearings and briefings as a Member of the Senate, and particularly as a member of the Intelligence Committee. I have listened very intently to my own constituents. I know that the decision we are about to make will affect the lives of America's sons and daughters, and the future of the United States of America. But first, let me say a word about our troops. Each and every member of our military is part of the American family. Their service is a tremendous sacrifice and also a great risk. These are ordinary men and women, often called upon to act in a very extraordinary way, and they have never failed us. Whatever the Nation asks them to do, I know they will do it with bravery, fortitude, and gallantry. Therefore we, all Americans, owe them a debt of gratitude. But we owe them even more. The Congress owes it to them to choose the wisest, most prudent course in this matter. As Senators, we must keep in mind the men and women of our military. That is why I support Senator Levin's resolution on Iraq. I support that because it meets my principles. Have all diplomatic and other nonmilitary means been exhausted? The Levin resolution turns to the United Nations and its Security Council to make a decision in terms of the enforcement of its own resolutions. It calls for international legitimacy, international cooperation, international support, and, I might add, international resources. It urges the Security Council to fill President Bush's request to demand Iraqi disarmament and to authorize the use of a multinational military force if Iraq refuses to comply. If the U.N. refuses to act under the Levin amendment, Congress would then promptly consider whether America should act alone. Senator Levin's is not the only resolution before the Senate. As I have looked at all of them, I asked questions. First, what really is Saddam Hussein's intent? Second, does he have the means to accomplish this intent? Does he have weapons of mass destruction: chemical, biological, and nuclear? Third, how grave and imminent is the threat? Is the Iraqi threat best met by a unilateral approach or a vigorous international response? Finally, what are the consequences of our action? What will our military face in Iraq? What will be the impact on Iraq and the Middle East? What does this mean to the war on terrorism? These are the kinds of questions I am asking myself so I can make a wise decision. But make no mistake, I firmly believe that Saddam Hussein is duplicitous, deceptive, and dangerous. I despise him. Saddam is a brutal, totalitarian dictator and history shows us how dangerous Iraq is under his rule. He invaded Kuwait and used chemical weapons against his own people. I do believe he has developed chemical and biological weapons, and I also believe he is pursuing nuclear weapons, defying the will of the international community and also denying the agreement that he made at the end of the gulf war. I also really do not believe Saddam is going to change. The question then is, what does this mean for the future? I think Iraq does have the grim and ghoulish means to carry out its evil plans. I think if we look at declassified CIA reports and the British white paper, we can see that Iraq does continue to develop and produce and stockpile chemical and biological weapons, and is trying to get the technology and materials to produce nuclear weapons. So these threats cannot and must not be ignored. Therefore, what is the best way to proceed? My analysis further indicates that Saddam Hussein just doesn't threaten the United States or our assets or our people abroad. He threatens the entire region. He also threatens treasured allies. And because the threat is greater than ourselves, we must bring the international community with us, to share the responsibility and the burden of stopping these threats. This is why I support the Levin amendment. It is our best chance to forge a vigorous international response, and to also have the backing of a multinational military response. The Levin amendment requires four things. It urges the U.N. Security Council to promptly adopt a resolution demanding access to U.N. inspectors to destroy Iraq's missiles and weapons of mass destruction. We know that works. When the inspectors were in Iraq, they destroyed more weapons of mass destruction than we did during the gulf war. The Levin amendment authorizes member states to use necessary and appropriate force if Iraq refuses to comply. I understand the use of force might be necessary. It also very clearly asserts and affirms the U.S. right to self-defense. It authorizes the President to use armed force to fulfill the U.N. Security Council resolution, provided the President determines that diplomacy was tried and exhausted first. It also tells us not to adjourn so Congress can further consider action if the U.N. fails. That is what we are looking at. The consequences of committing American troops to war in Iraq are very serious and they must be carefully reviewed. The question is, will our American troops be welcomed with flags or will they be welcomed with land mines? Our troops could face an Iraqi military entrenched in cities instead of the open desert warfare of the gulf war. Iraq could use chemical and biological weapons right on our troops as we are engaged in battle. They could also do this against their own Iraqi civilians. This is why I believe America should not face these threats alone. If we go in, we should not go in by ourselves. If the threat is so real, the world should take it seriously and then vote to be able to come with us.

Ms. MIKULSKI. When I finish, yes. America cannot face this situation alone. The support and cooperation of allies would enable us to share the risks and the cost. We need international legitimacy, international support, and international manpower. What happens when we win the war? Military victory is only the start of U.S. engagement in Iraq. Fostering a new regime could take decades. Most people don't realize that Iraq is an artificial construct, formed in 1920 by a League of Nations mandate after the first World War. Iraq has no unifying history or culture or religion or language: Its population is deeply divided on ethnic and religious lines. The end of Saddam Hussein could mean the start of a civil war. Fostering the creation of new government in Iraq will not be easy. There is no real opposition group ready to take over because Saddam's totalitarian regime does not tolerate opposition. If Saddam is overthrown--we have to be prepared for what happens next. Will American troops become an army of occupation or will Iraq fall into chaos and civil war? America cannot face this situation alone. The support and cooperation of allies would enable us to share the risks and the costs. War on Iraq could also have unintended consequences for the Middle East. Some optimists see war in Iraq leading to democratization and peace in the Middle East. They predict the overthrow of undemocratic regimes in Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria and other countries. But there is a real risk that attacking Iraq would unify Arab countries and the wider Muslim world against us. We are already seeing signs of cooperation between Sunni and Shi'ite extremists and terrorist groups. A mandate from the United Nations would mean the international community against Saddam instead of the United States against Iraq. Other countries in the region would join our coalition, rather than obstructing or opposing us. I also worry that unilateral action could undermine the war on terrorism. Some special forces are already being withdrawn from the efforts to hunt al-Qaida in Afghanistan. Intelligence resources would be re-directed to cover Iraq, reducing our focus on Afghanistan and Pakistan. Arab and Muslim states may reduce their intelligence cooperation against al-Qaida and other terrorist groups. The focus of our top military and civilian leaders could shift away from bin Laden and al-Qaida. There are other issues. An international coalition helps address the impact of war in Iraq on the war on terrorism. By sharing the burden during and after a war, more of our troops and resources can pursue the war on terrorism by keeping together the global coalition against terrorist groups. I want to conclude by thanking President Bush for engaging in intensive diplomacy at the U.N. I know the Bush administration is being aggressive at the U.N. and in the key states, including Russia, China, and France. I applaud the President for this. President Bush also made it clear that the U.N. has a responsibility to address Iraq's threat to international peace and security. I absolutely agree with him on this. But also I agree we have to get the United Nations Security Council authorization to form an international coalition. We cannot fail to act if action is necessary, but we must take the time to see if we can minimize the danger and also build a coalition to share the risk. An international coalition would do that. The Senate faces difficult decisions on how to address the Iraqi threat. I believe the Levin amendment is by far the strongest option. It endorses the President's speech to the United Nations, strengthening the U.S. position in multilateral diplomacy and authorizing the use of force only if authorized by the U.N. Security Council without ruling out the possibility that Congress will authorize the unilateral use of force if that decision becomes necessary. Most importantly, the Levin resolution presents the best hope for the United States to achieve international support and a multinational military coalition to address the Iraqi threat to peace and security. Therefore, I look forward to voting for the Levin amendment. I urge my colleagues to join me in doing that because I believe the way to deal with this issue is international support and a multinational military coalition, should force be necessary. Before I yield the floor, I turn to the Senator from Colorado, who had a question.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, on behalf of the people of America, I thank President Bush and all Federal law enforcement agencies for the help, response, and support they have given to those who live in the Capital region as we face the threat of a predatory serial killer. The entire Nation knows six people have died. Some have been shot but are in recovery, like the 13-year-old boy who was so critically wounded yesterday. There is a serial killer out there. The President yesterday issued a statement extending his sympathies to those family members who have lost loved ones. He also directed law enforcement to be as responsive as possible. As soon as the first dastardly and despicable deed occurred, Federal law enforcement, in terms of FBI and ATF, were there offering voluntary and informal assistance. Last night I spoke to FBI Director Mueller. Through a request from the Montgomery County police chief, they are formalizing and coordinating this effort. So we in Maryland really want to extend our gratitude to the President, to Federal law enforcement, and to all of America that is sending their love and prayers to our region.

Ms. MIKULSKI. I am happy to yield.