Floor Statements

Madam President, here I am in the Chamber again exactly 24 hours 30 minutes from when I was gaveled down from trying to complete the VA-HUD bill. I was on the floor 24 hours 30 minutes ago, standing up for veterans, trying to protect the environment, and working very closely and enthusiastically on a bipartisan basis with the chairman of the subcommittee on appropriations for veterans, housing, the environment, and other independent agencies.

We were only 2 hours and about five or six amendments from being gaveled to come to cloture on the bill. As I was gaveled down, I was just heartsick that we could not take 2 more hours to finish the bill. Instead, this went on for 30 hours, and I am puzzled what has been accomplished by it.

I know what wasn't accomplished by it. We did not finish the appropriations bill yesterday. Because we didn't finish the appropriations bill yesterday, we essentially said to millions of American veterans that we are going to put you on hold. We said to those thousands of faith-based organizations that build housing for the elderly--oh, no, we have to worry about a filibuster for judges; oh, no, we cannot move the bill. For those people who are trying to bring criminal prosecutions on polluters in the environment, we said we cannot really fund that, even though you don't have the right computers and enough staff. We have to talk about four judges. Millions of veterans, housing to be built for the elderly, the environment to be protected, getting our astronauts back to space safely, investing in science and technology at the National Science Foundation--that is the stuff of the VA-HUD subcommittee. That is why I am so passionate about it. It is one of the greatest subcommittees in Appropriations because it meets compelling human needs and yet gets America ready for the future.

But oh, no, we could not finish it yesterday, we could not take 2 hours--oh, no, we had to talk about four judges and a process.

I am very disappointed in that, and I have to express my gratitude for the way Senator Byrd pushed for completion of the bill. I also express my gratitude to Senator Ted Stevens, who obviously worked out something where tomorrow we can come back and attempt to finish the VA- HUD bill. But this could have been done in the spirit of comity. We had momentum yesterday. It is the way the Senate ought to work. We had a bipartisan bill. We were forging bipartisan compromises, because when it comes to standing up for veterans, we cannot be the Republicans and Democrats, we have to be the red, white, and blue party.

Today, I was at Walter Reed talking to Marylanders who will forever bear the permanent wounds of war. We were in wards with young men who have put themselves on the line. They didn't lose their lives, but they have lost a limb. You see their families. You say hi to a young lady who is a wife or to a mother of one of those wonderful soldiers getting great treatment at Walter Reed. You have a 22-year-old wife and a 42- year-old mother trying to be there with her husband and her child, the man they love, so he can get well and get back on his feet.

They are doing a fabulous job at Walter Reed. We are going to do all we can to support them. Those men and women look so young, so fragile. They are so brave and they cannot wait to get back on their feet. Some want to get back to their unit. They are going to come back to the VA. We cannot abandon these soldiers, sailors, and marines who are coming back from Iraq either bearing permanent wounds of war or the permanent impressions of war on them. We have to have a VA. This is why we need to move our legislation forward promptly, expeditiously, on a bipartisan basis.

I know, working with the distinguished Senator from Missouri, the chairman, we can do this. But oh, no, we could not do it last night. We had to put it aside. I didn't tell the guys at Walter Reed that we didn't fund veterans health care last night. It would have broken my heart to tell them we are going back to the Senate to argue about a filibuster, to argue about four people of questionable qualifications to sit on the Federal bench.

I didn't say that to them, but I say this to you. We have to get serious about the agenda for the United States of America. We need the right priorities. Do we need a good judiciary? You

bet we do. That is why we passed 168 judges already. With these four, with the qualifications that are so thin and troubling and these other issues, I don't think so.

I want to talk about the priorities. Fortunately, again, because of the vigor of Senator Byrd and the cooperation of Senator Stevens, we are going to be in the Chamber tomorrow. We do have priorities. I spoke about veterans health care. You also know we have really significant issues in housing. Our communities need help. We are ready to move funds such as the community development block grant. This is money that goes into local communities, whether it is a big city such as New York or the small communities of Alaska, providing help to build childcare centers, rehabilitation of dilapidated properties. CDBG, last year, created over 100,000 jobs. When we asked for 2 hours, we were standing up for that. When we look at housing for the elderly, most of it is built and operated by faith-based organizations, such as the Associated Jewish Charities, Associated Catholic Charities, the Lutherans. It is wonderful because they take small amounts of Federal dollars and leverage them with philanthropy. They not only run programs, they run them with great compassion.

These are the things we should be spending hours on the floor advocating. That is why we also worked to have funds to protect the environment. I wanted to talk about the Chesapeake Bay. Last night, I didn't talk about how we needed to protect the bay because we were short of time. People wanted to stand up on how they want to protect something about these four judges in the filibuster.

How about the National Science Foundation? That needed attention last night, too. This is the one that invests in groups such as biotechnology and infotech and nanotech. Nanotechnology is a whole new field of inventing subatomic particles. I said to the Senator from North Carolina yesterday when she was presiding, our earrings, Madam President, this will contain all the books in the Library of Congress 20 years from now. That is what nanotechnology means. Taking one pill-- you can take everything from your heart rate to your blood sugar, and also make new metal that is 10 times lighter than steel and 10 times stronger.

I just lost thousands of steel jobs--thousands--and they are losing their pensions and their health care. Maybe with nanotechnology, we will have a new kind of metal mill and we can bring manufacturing back to our country. Instead, we are sending our jobs on a fast track to Mexico and a slow boat to China while we are slowing the Senate down in this 30-hour process and squandering time and not focusing on national priorities.

I don't want to diminish what we are doing on judges. The judiciary is a separate and independent branch of Government. This is why we need to have the best of the best.

Our courts are charged with safeguarding the very principles America stands for: justice, equality, individual liberty. That courthouse door must always be open, and when someone walks through that door they have to find an independent judiciary. I want to be sure when somebody walks through that courthouse door they not only get a fair trial and a fair hearing, but they know that person providing it is the best of the best.

The Senate does have an important and coequal role in the confirmation of judges. There is an advise-and-consent clause. It doesn't say sit around and rubberstamp. There is nothing in the Constitution that talks about 180 deadlines. It says give advice and consent.

We gave advice, but we do not give our consent on four individuals. When I look at judges, I have three categories: judicial competence, integrity, and commitment to the core constitutional principles.

My senior colleague and I have just supported three Republican judges from Maryland. We did it with enthusiasm. One was Judge Titus, whom the Senate confirmed just a few days ago. He is a brilliant man, very esteemed, involved in the Maryland bar. He could go on the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Another we backed in committee and on the floor was Judge William Quaries, an African-American jurist who I predict will go far. A scholar with a touch of the people. He has a unique touch.

We also backed someone unique, a man who chaired the Republican Party in Maryland. He actually ran against a Democratic attorney general and Senator Sarbanes and I signed the blue slips with a flourish and appeared before the committee. Why would we do that? Because Judge Robert Bennet is a fantastic person and an excellent judge. He was fabulous as the U.S. Attorney. He brings legal ability, writings, et cetera. Look, we said, let bygones be bygones, he would make a great judge, and we are not going to stand on the party. This is the way Sarbanes and Mikulski have operated.

But guess what. Now we get to the court of appeals. What a process this has been. First they sent us a gentleman who wasn't even a member of the Maryland bar. He lived in Maryland, but we don't think ZIP Codes are the only qualification. We think you have to be a member of the Maryland bar and participate in the Maryland legal community. So we rejected him.

The next person they sent was on the staff of Judge Gonzalas. We felt that was a little--it was an excellent job for him, but a little thin for the court of appeals.

Guess what. Now we have been sent a Virginian. You might say, Is there anything wrong with being from Virginia? No, as long as it is the Virginia seat. It is by tradition that there are geographic seats on the court of appeals and we want ours. My colleague Senator Sarbanes and I are going to fight that on the basis of geography. There are many other things about Mr. Allen that are troubling about his background, but right now our battle will be because this should be a Maryland seat.

I have voted for Republican judges and I voted for Republican judges on the court of appeals in Maryland. There is Judge Niemeyer, an excellent judge. I supported him for the district court and now on the court of appeals.

When Judge Dianna Motts went to the court of appeals I didn't even know what party she was. I didn't know. You know what, I didn't care.

Here we are, arguing over a process. We are squandering our time, while pressing national needs are here. I would say, let's move on. Let's get back to the business America wants us to focus on. We can't have food fights and so on in the Senate. I have worked with so many of my colleagues on a bipartisan basis that I would like to get the momentum back for that type of action.

Tomorrow when I get another chance at VA-HUD, I look forward once again to returning to work in the Senate that tries to move bipartisan legislation. When it comes particularly to national security and the people who defend America, we put party aside and we are the red, white, and blue party. Maybe we need to start acting like that in the Senate on every issue.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to express my enthusiastic support for Roger Titus, a dedicated and well-qualified Maryland lawyer, to be a Federal district court judge for the District of Maryland.

When I review nominees for our Federal courts, I consider three criteria. They must have the utmost legal competence, the highest integrity and have a staunch dedication to protecting core constitutional values and guarantees. Mr. Titus meets all of these standards. I believe he will represent Maryland well on the District Court.

Mr. Titus is recognized as one of the best lawyers in Maryland. He has been awarded Century of Service Award by the Bar Association of Montgomery County and has been recognized for his leadership in the legal community with the Leadership on Law Award from The Baltimore Daily Record.

He is committed to serving the community and his profession. For over 16 years he served city attorney's office of Rockville, rising to position of city attorney. He is also a member of Board of Trustees of Suburban Hospital and pro bono counsel to Mobil Medical Care, Inc., a nonprofit dedicated to bringing health care services to Maryland's homeless population.

The position that Mr. Titus is nominated for is important to protecting the rights of all Marylanders. Mr. Titus will join two other distinguished nominees that the Senate confirmed earlier this year, whom I strongly supported, Judges Bennett and Quarles.

These nominees represent the types of lawyers that we should be putting on our Federal courts. They have strong bipartisan support, distinguished legal careers in the state from which they are selected and they are in the mainstream of legal thought.

One of the things that impresses me about Mr. Titus is his strong ties to the community. Mr. Titus was raised in Maryland, attended Bethesda/Chevy Chase high school and went to college at Johns Hopkins University. He was the first in his family to go to law school. In fact, he was an electrical engineering major and had not really had any exposure to lawyers until he eloped with the daughter of a lawyer in college. From there the rest is history. He is now one of many in a family of lawyers.

As a young lawyer, he worked as assistant city attorney in Rockville defending and representing the city. In 1972, he was appointed to be the city attorney of Rockville were he continued to represent the city in matters of complex municipal law. He also served as adjunct law professor at Georgetown Law School and then went on to establish his own successful law firm.

In 1988, his firm merged with one of the top law firms in the United States, based right here in Washington DC--the firm of Venable, Baetjer and Howard, LLP. Mr. Titus is a leader in the firm as the partner in charge of the Montgomery County office and as a member of firm's Management Board.

Roger Titus has had a distinguished legal career both working in the public sector as the advocate for the city of Rockville before the courts, and then in the private sector where he is known for his expertise in complex civil litigation. It is because of his service to the bar and his outstanding legal skills and intellect that Mr. Titus has received a ``well qualified'' rating from the American Bar Association.

Mr. Titus' dedication to the law is also seen in his work as a volunteer counsel for Mobile Medical Care, Inc. This is an organization that provides free medical services to poor and homeless persons. Some of the most vulnerable citizens in our society. As their legal counsel, he helped them resolve legal hurdles which enabled them to set up a headquarters in Bethesda, MD. His commitment to the law is also reflected in his service to the bar. As a member of the Standing Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure of the Court of Appeals of Maryland, he worked to secure guidelines for legal representation of minors in proceedings terminating parental rights.

I mentioned before the awards that Mr. Titus has received. These accolades from his colleagues are proof of the respect he has in the legal community and his intellect and ability. They demonstrate his service to bar and community and how much he has accomplished in career.

I do not know how Mr. Titus will vote on every issue that comes before him. I know he has been nominated by a Republican President, and it is likely that my beliefs and Mr. Titus' beliefs on certain issues will differ. But I am confident that he will use his expertise and legal experience to guide him as he makes important decisions affecting Marylanders. I am also confident that his legal background and respect for the law will be his foundation as he serves on the Federal District Court in Maryland.

I am impressed with Mr. Titus' commitment, expressed during his hearing before the Judiciary Committee, to adhering to the law. His dedication to following precedent and a statute's requirements, even where it is inconsistent with his own personal beliefs or is unpopular. It is the ability to put the law first, to know that personal views are irrelevant, that will serve him and Maryland well when he is a Federal district judge

I am proud to support this distinguished Maryland lawyer for a seat on the prestigious Federal court in Maryland. It is well qualified, distinguished members of the bar, who are respected in their legal community and who are in the mainstream of legal thought, like Mr. Titus, that this administration should be nominating. These are nominees who have excelled in their profession and who are looked up to by Republicans and Democrats alike. Like Judges Quarles and Bennett, Mr. Titus is a nominee who both of Maryland's Senators can support. We support him because we are foremost concerned with protecting the integrity and excellence of the Maryland Federal judiciary.

That concern has lead both Senator Sarbanes and myself to work with and support the choices of the administration for these District Court nominees. That concern is why I wish the administration had looked to the Maryland legal community when it nominated someone to fill the vacancy left by the death of Judge Francis Murnaghan, an esteemed jurist who served on the Fourth Circuit for over 20 years.

Today, as I rise to enthusiastically support the nomination of Mr. Titus and as I have risen to support the other nominees for the district court, I believe these individuals are a model of the types of lawyers that should be nominated to fill Judge Murnaghan's seat on the Fourth Circuit. These nominees show that the President could easily nominate someone from Maryland who is fit for the bench and will serve with pride and excellence. They also show that the administration would not have to look far for a qualified nominee from Maryland.

Mr. President, this week marks the close of National Breast Cancer Awareness Month. During the month of October, dedicated advocates, breast cancer survivors, and health professionals commemorate the tremendous progress we have made in the fight against breast cancer, as well as raise awareness about the progress we hope to make in the future.

In the last 10 years, we have accomplished many things. We have increased funding for breast cancer research by 700 percent, passed the Breast Cancer Research Stamp Act, which has raised more than $30 million, and made sure that Medicare and Medicaid are required to cover mammograms. We have accomplished a lot, but we must continue to fight.

Breast cancer is second only to lung cancer in cancer deaths among women. An estimated 211,300 new invasive cases of breast cancer are expected to occur among women in the United States during 2003. An estimated 39,800 women will die from breast cancer. While incidence among men is rare, we know that 400 men will also lose their lives this year to breast cancer, an area in which we still have much to learn.

I wrote the Mammography Quality Standards Act more than 10 years ago to save women's lives. Before MQSA became law, there were no national quality standards. Image quality varied widely and there were no inspections. Now, when women get mammograms, they know the equipment meets Federal safety and quality standards. Currently, I am working to reauthorize this important law before Congress adjourns.

In 1990, I fought for the Breast and Cervical Cancer Screening Program to make sure women without health insurance have access to lifesaving tests like mammograms. Also, I fought for the Breast and Cervical Cancer Treatment Act to help these women get the treatment they need if they are diagnosed with breast or cervical cancer. My colleagues and I on both sides of the aisle have worked together, especially the women Senators and the Galahads of the Senate, like Senators Kennedy, Harkin, Grassley, and Specter.

For all that we have done, there is still more to do. We need to make sure women have the information they need about the importance of screenings, make sure we have the best tools and best trained doctors for diagnosis and treatment, and make sure uninsured women have access to health care. Also, we must be steadfast on research. I came to the U.S. Senate to change lives and save lives. I will continue to fight to eradicate breast cancer.

Today, I commemorate the progress we have made and look towards the future. I will keep fighting to make sure

women's health is on the agenda, and breast cancer survivors, and the health professionals can make a difference in the lives of thousands of women. Each one of us can make a difference. Together we make change.

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

Mr. President, I have an amendment that I send to the desk and ask its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. President, this amendment concerns procedures for contracting out. I ask that the cosponsors be Senators Landrieu, Reid, Sarbanes, Lautenberg, Lieberman, Kennedy, Leahy, Akaka, and Byrd.

I rise to offer an amendment that does several things. First, it protects the egregious abuses and unfair practices that are now into a new procedure for contracting out the work of Federal employees. That contracting out procedure is called an A-76, which is the circular that describes this methodology.

You need to know. I understand reform is necessary, but abuse is not necessary. I must say I am very concerned that the White House is pursuing a political agenda masquerading as management reform. In the administration's plan for privatization, the costs are too great. It costs money. It costs morale. It costs the integrity of the Civil Service system.

When I say it costs money, do you know that when we were foraging funds for veterans health care, the administration wanted to spend $75 million to figure out how to contract out the work being done at the VA? What jobs am I talking about? Radiologists, social workers, core essential medical personnel. The administration wants to spend $75 million, while we have veterans waiting in line to figure out how we can contract out the health care we promised them. It costs too much.

Then it costs morale. The minute you hear you might be contracted out, you have to write a job description. Then you have to wait around to see if you are contracted out. Then, even if you win it, you might be contracted out because you will again have to compete in 5 years. Morale in key agencies such as the National Institutes of Health is completely in disarray.

It also costs the integrity of the Civil Service system. Every democracy in the world has a civil service system that is absolutely independent and has absolute integrity to carry out the core functions of government, regardless of what political party is in charge. That is why democracies have civil service, to administer the core functions of government. That is why we always wanted to be sure that it wasn't patronage that determined who became an FBI agent, that it was not crony politics that decided who got a Social Security check. We would have an independent civil service that would administer these things.

That is not where we are going. We are heading to cronyism and political patronage. At the very time we are fighting a war against terrorism, I don't understand why the White House is spending its time figuring out how we can undermine our Civil Service.

Make no mistake, I am not opposed to privatization. In some instances, privatization works very well. In my own State of Maryland, in an agency called the Aeronautics and Space Agency, of which I am a ranking member for funding, we have privatization.

Let's look at Goddard Space Agency in my own home State. We have 3,000 Civil Service jobs and 9,000 private contractor jobs. Both are doing an outstanding job, and I am proud of them.

What I am opposed to is that this new A-76 is inherently unfair to Federal employees. The deck is stacked against them to pursue an ideology driven agenda, not a management reform agenda.

My amendment is simple. It throws out these new crony rules, these new unfair rules which stack the deck against Federal employees, and asks that the administration go back to the drawing board to come up with new guidelines for competition that are truly fair. Why is this important? OMB is pushing contracting out, even when it doesn't make sense, or even when it puts our Nation's security at risk, or the integrity of medical research on the line, or even when it costs more to conduct competitions than it saves in the long run.

Did you hear what I said? Even when it doesn't make sense, even when it puts national security at risk, and in some instances now they have some cockamamie scheme that could even put the integrity of medical research on the line. Hello. Where are we going? I think we need to go back to the drawing boards.

Let me say why this is unfair. Let me go through some very specific reasons. No. 1, it does not allow Federal employees to submit their own best bids. The new rules create something called streamlined competitions. That is just a code word for employees not having a chance to come up with their own cost-saving ideas. I don't know how you can call it competition if you don't even allow the employees to form a team and to come up with ideas on how to save money, as well as how to save jobs.

No. 2, guess what, in all of this contracting out it does not even require contractors to show they are saving money. The old A-76 required contractors to show they would save the Government significant money, at least $10 million or 10 percent, whichever is less. This new A-76 has gotten rid of this requirement. Guess what. The competitions themselves cost money. To do an evaluation on what should be contracted out by and large costs $8,000 an employee. So now Federal workers who might be losing their jobs to contractors do not even do it to save the taxpayer any money, let alone the integrity of the Civil Service.

It is also destabilizing. This is really a morale buster. Boy, you talk about a morale buster; it is just to say: You know, every couple of years we are going to put you up for grabs. This new A-76 forces Federal workers to recompete every 5 years for their jobs, but it does not require contractors to recompete every 5 years for the contract that is won.

How will the Government attract and keep bright young workers if their jobs are at risk every 5 years? And if the Federal employees should be up for bid every 5 years, why shouldn't the private sector bid every 5 years? If you want to destroy agencies such as NIH and VA, just do it this way.

Also, it provides an unfair advantage to contractors that provide lesser benefits. If a contractor saves money by shrinking wages and eliminating health care, that is not improving Government efficiency. But that gives them an unfair advantage when they bid. Their bids do not show efficiency; they win contracts because they either eliminate or shrink health care.

That is not the way we should go. It is bad 46 million Americans do not have health care, let alone now forcing Federal employees not to have it.

To be sure everybody understands this, I would like to give three examples. Let's take the National Institutes of Health. This is one of the most beloved agencies in our country. If anything would ever happen to the National Institutes of Health, it would be devastating to the American public. This is one of the agencies everyone loves. Why do we love NIH? Because out there every day there are people working to find cures to save lives. So guess what. OMB took a look at NIH. Guess what they wanted to contract out. OMB wants to contract out lots of things, but one of the things they want to end is the NIH fire department. Why do they have their own fire department? Because of all the research going on, we need not only brave first responders but those who are best at handling chemical, biological, and radiological events.

In fact, the entire Capital region relies on them for emergencies and also training others. We need our own fire department at NIH because they know every building, they know every rack where the research is going on, and they know every mouse and what they have taken in tests to keep us alive.

How do you bid on a fire department? I don't know how you contract out a fire department.

I am telling you this is terrible.

They not only go to the firefighters, but they go to scientists, scientific support, and other jobs at NIH which are slated for competition.

There is a group called Senior Scientists Category 2. These are postdoctoral research fellows. OMB wants to contract out the decisionmaking process in selecting these scientists. They want to contract it out. They want to provide a bid for outside contractors to select these key scientists. I cannot believe it.

I listened to Dr. Zerhouni testify. By the way, Dr. Zerhouni is a very eminent physician, an entrepreneur, formerly of Johns Hopkins, now the head of NIH, and an outstanding Bush appointee. He told me they had to spend $15 million at NIH to study how they could contract this out. That is $15 million that could have gone to find a cure for Alzheimer's and diabetes. Dr. Zerhouni and others said it took over 100,000 hours of staff time. Dr. Zerhouni protested. He went right to OMB and said don't contract out my fire department. It is a waste of time and a waste of money. Please let us select these postdoctoral fellows. He was overridden by OMB. We are grateful for this man who heads up NIH, and who because of his own research could be a candidate for the Nobel prize. But they overrode him under the guise of a political agenda masquerading as management reform that has absolutely left the morale at NIH in shambles.

Let us take VA. I couldn't believe it. Just when Senator Bond and I are trying to come up with more money for our veterans, we got a request from VA saying they want to spend $75 million to study contracting out. Whoa--$75 million? I am the appropriator along with Senator Bond. Seventy-five million could have put up 75 new outpatient clinics. It could have provided prescription drugs for 77,000 veterans. Just when our men and women are coming back from Iraq, we want to contract out VA health care and things such as radiology, pathology, and pharmaceutical care.

I am telling you: Boy, don't they feel good. We should be lucky to have these doctors and nurses and professionals. Guess what. They have tried this. The jobs they want to contract out are actually even held by veterans themselves. You are telling me we should take money from veterans health care to pay for studying how to contract out veterans' jobs to provide health to other veterans. By my calculation, one study they did didn't work out.

Let me tell you about the most heartbreaking example.

At the Medical Center in Bethesda--we all know about Naval-Bethesda. It is an outstanding facility. People here at the Senate have used it. Our own President goes there for his annual checkup, as has every President preceding him. It is great. At Naval-Bethesda down in the kitchen there are 21 custodial food service employees. They work in what they call the hospital scullery. They are a very unusual group of people. They are mentally challenged. There are 21 people who work there. They have worked there as a special unit. This Federal Government reached out using it as a model for hiring people with mental disabilities who could be self-sufficient and self-employed.

Boy, have they done a good job. They clean up the kitchen. They prep the food. Everybody at Naval-Bethesda loves them. Devorah Shapiro has worked there for 10 years. She is in a group home. James Eastridge is from Hagerstown. He started working there 22 years ago, and he hasn't missed a day of work. He gets all kinds of awards.

Guess what. At Naval-Bethesda working in the kitchen are people who are trying desperately to be self-sufficient. And we are going to contract out 21 jobs in the kitchen for people who wash the dishes and prep the food? I am telling you, shame on you, OMB. Shame on you, OMB, for what you are doing here. I think this is outrageous.

That is why I have the Mikulski amendment. It is for those people. It is for those veterans who have gotten their education from the GI bill and who are serving there--our scientists, our seafood inspectors, the people who are doing the mapping at the FAA for our flight plans for our military and commercial planes.

I could go on and on and on. Those are the kinds of people I am talking about. They aren't bureaucrats sitting there looking at their fingernails. They are not people just sitting around. They are people who work every day. They are people at NIH who win Nobel prizes. They are people out there in the Coast Guard who are protecting us from drug dealers and from terrorists. They are people like those who lost their lives in the Oklahoma bombing.

That is why I am offering this amendment. I have told you my opinion on contracting out. But to the naysayers and those people who are fussbudgets, let me reassure you this amendment doesn't prohibit contracting out. It does not. It simply changes the rules to make them more fair. All it does is throw out the unfair May 29 version to give the administration a chance to rethink its one-sided, overly aggressive policy.

Speaking of that, I know OMB has tasked every Federal agency to get rid of 400,000 jobs. You know my feeling about that. It is just outrageous. Instead, we should pass the Mikulski amendment and go back to the drawing boards. There are simple reasons why. This new process doesn't require appreciable cost savings. It allows contractors to make appeals but not Federal employees. It fails to track the cost and quality of contractors. It encourages it. It doesn't offer alternatives to progress. It is bad for diversity. The jobs being contracted out tend to be primarily service jobs and clerical jobs which are often women. It is also in the blue-collar jobs that have a very strong diversity group. It doesn't allow Federal workers to bid on contractor work. It doesn't give them an appeal process. I could go on and on.

It is a new A-76. It is a dangerous trend to replace our Civil Service employees with cronyism and political patronage contracts. I believe this A-76 system is inherently unfair. We should send it back to OMB. Let us work in a very constructive way to get the best value for the taxpayer and make sure we have the best people operating our missions--driven not by money but by agencies.

I yield the floor.

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

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

I think that is a reasonable solution. I want to cooperate in any way I can to ensure the Senator's right to offer a second degree and to expedite the debate.

I withdraw my objection.

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

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

Mr. President, we are looking forward to moving this bill. I know the Senator from Wyoming wishes to offer a second degree. I note that he is on the floor.

I also note that the Senator from Ohio has done a great deal of work on the Civil Service. He has some very interesting ideas.

I wish we could continue the debate on these amendments. The Senator from Ohio will be offering an amendment. We are ready to debate and discuss it.

If we all work together, I think we can finish the bill in the interest of the

American public, the integrity of the Civil Service, and the taxpayer.

I will save my rebuttal until the pertinent parties are on the floor.

I am ready to go. If we could have the second degree, we are ready to debate it.

I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I feel at a bit of a disadvantage. I am all set to debate, but we keep waiting. We waited for the amendment. Now we have to wait for the Senator from Ohio to make his points in the argument and then he tells me to go ahead and make the argument. My argument is to rebut their amendment. So I am waiting for the Senator from Ohio to make his argument.

I have great admiration for the Senator from Ohio, particularly in the area of Civil Service. I know he has put in countless hours in terms of the Civil Service. Perhaps if he could explain his amendment. I listened carefully to Senator Thomas, but I am not sure I grasped the full extent of the amendment. There are many elements about the amendment I find attractive and I would like to comment on those. Those I find deficient I would like to identify.

I do want the Senator from Ohio to know I think you are an expert on Civil Service. I have great admiration for you.

Mr. President, I yield myself 5 minutes.

Mr. President, first, again I wish to make clear what I said about my two colleagues and my great respect for them. And I know of their work on civil service. I am particularly aware of the work of the Senator from Ohio. But I must say, the Thomas-Voinovich amendment proves my point that the May 29 A-76 circular on the new framework for contracting out is deficient. And it is deficient because it is unfair. It absolutely tilts the bidding process, to almost rig it to the fact that private contractors would win the bid. Their corrections of the A- 76 that they offer in their amendment point out how deficient May 29 was. So they make my point.

No. 2, I note also that they call for more reporting and more accountability. I think that is great, but, guess what, we are going to contract out Federal employees like the fire department at NIH, like the people with mental disabilities in the kitchen at the Bethesda Naval Hospital, and then we are going to hire people to watch the contracts.

Why are we contracting people out and then hiring people to watch the contracts that we have contracted out? Where are we going? What is the point? Where is the management reform in that?

So I respect the need for greater accountability and oversight. In fact, I think it is called for. Know that I know that the old A-76 also had some potholes in it.

What my amendment does is it says: You cannot implement May 29. Go back to the drawing boards. Work with the Commission that the Senator from Ohio described. But let's implement all of the recommendations, not only the selective ones that tilt the playing field to the contracting out. So that is where my amendment is.

I ask my colleague from Ohio and my colleague from Wyoming, am I right in saying that your amendment would want more accountability; it would allow an appeals process, which now they do not have; that they would not bid every 5 years; and they cannot contract overseas?

I ask either the Senator from Wyoming or the Senator from Ohio, have I grasped your amendment? Have I? What are your five points? I will repeat it: Greater accountability; reporting requirements; the right for Federal employees to have an appeal, just like the private contractors; that they would not have to compete every 5 years; and this wonderful one that says they cannot contract out to move jobs overseas.

Is that what I understand your amendment to be?

Well, I salute you. I think those are excellent improvements, but they are not a substitute for my amendment because even if your amendment goes through, I identified 15 things that were wrong with A- 76.

Now, you are willing to correct five. I was not as prescriptive. But you are willing to correct five. There are 10 others that need correcting. And I am just going to give a few, as I hear your arguments.

When I look at the ones that are not in there, the ones that are not included: One, it does not require appreciable cost savings. A contract out does not have to show that it is saving money. The other one is it does not end the unfair advantage given to contractors who provide their employees with inferior health benefits. So when there is a competition between the Federal employees and this so-called private contractor, the Federal employee's health benefits will count in the contract but not for the contractor.

Also, what it does is it does not consider alternatives to privatization; in other words, to give them the chance to reorganize and to streamline. That has been done at NIH. It has been done at other agencies.

It also encourages the privatization of inherently Government work. This is a big sticking point.

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

Madam President, how much time remains on my side?

I yield myself 5 minutes and withhold 4 to see if Senator Kennedy or another Senator wishes to speak. Right now I would like to yield myself 5 minutes. I ask the Chair to confirm, as I get a little excited when I am talking about this.

Madam President, what I want to say in response to what my colleague has said is, No. 1, he says the May 29 circular is better. There is a fundamental difference between us on that. I don't believe it is better. I stand with the way the National Treasury Union Workers feel about it and the way the other Federal employees feel about it.

If you are on the side of the companies that are going to benefit from privatization, you like it. If you are the ones who are on the firing line or the chopping block, you don't like it.

What I do acknowledge is that the amendment offered by my two colleagues from the other side of the aisle does improve the A-76 process.

I also acknowledge that I know the Senator from Ohio did go ballistic. I am glad that he went ballistic. I thank him for standing sentry down in the Government Affairs Committee against bounty hunting, against quotas, and against sending jobs overseas. I salute him on that. But he is one man against

a whole tide here. This is why I think his amendment has merit.

But I tell you, deep down to my toes, I believe they want to privatize most of the Federal Government, and I do believe that deep down inside they want quotas to privatize. I don't believe that about him.

When we look at this whole issue that he raised about private sector contractors moving jobs overseas, the Senator knows they have already done it. If the call center at the Census Bureau is now in India, Hello? The United States of America calling India to find out about census?

I could go on with other examples. The time is late. I appreciate the fact that the Senator gives Federal employees a right to appeal when they lose a competition which they now don't have. I also acknowledge that his amendment removes the 5-year recompete competition, and I salute him on that, and also ensures contract oversight.

In other words, you have some good ideas here. But in my comments, I say, you can vote for both. I want my colleagues to know they can vote for both. They can vote for Voinovich-Thomas and they can vote for Mikulski. Voinovich-Thomas has ideas of merit. Theirs is a modest improvement.

My amendment improves it all. They improve five things about this. I have identified 15. If you want 15, you vote for Mikulski. But you can vote for them and you can vote for me.

The other thing I want to say is that the Mikulski amendment does not stop contracting out. It simply stops the May 29 circular, which is harsh, punitive, and unfair to Federal employees.

I said to the administration, back to the drawing boards, work with Voinovich and Thomas and Collins, and work with Mikulski, Kennedy, and Sarbanes, and make sure our Federal workforce keeps on working.

Madam President, how much time do I have?

Madam President, I wish to notify the Chair that other Senators are on the way. I will speak for 2 minutes and then I hope they are here.

Again, I reiterate, the Thomas amendment has some good points. You can vote for both. My amendment does not stop privatization; it just makes it fair. I say something and they something back. But I am telling you, they don't mandate cost savings in this A-76.

Let me tell you a boondoggle. Defense Finance Accounting Service-- this is finance accounting--contracted out 650 jobs to a private computer company. Guess what. The DOD inspector general found out that it cost the taxpayers $25 million more than it would cost under Federal employees. Take the call center. They won the competition, and they won it by sending it to India. Lower wages, no health care. Let's ship those jobs overseas.

My gosh, what are we doing? This May 29 circular is despicable, it is unfair, it is harsh, it is punitive, and it will cost taxpayer dollars to do studies, and it is costing morale. If we want people to work for the Federal Government and be enthusiastic and put their best energies forth and put America first, we cannot keep Tinkertoying with them. I hope you can vote for their amendment, but, please, in the interest of the vitality and integrity of the Federal workforce, please vote for the Mikulski amendment.

I yield 1 minute to the Senator from Louisiana.

Madam President, how much time remains?

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

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

I am going to wrap up. Remember, there are 15 reasons why the new public-private competition is unfair.

It does not allow Federal employees to submit their best bids.

It fails to end the unfair advantage given to contractors who provide their employees with inferior health benefits.

It allows the use of quotes instead of actually soliciting bids from contractors.

It doesn't consider alternatives to privatization giving Federal employees the right to come up with streamlining.

It is very bad for diversity in the Federal workplace. Many of these jobs are clerical. I have already gotten feedback from constituents who refer to the clerical workers as ``let's get rid of them; they will be low-hanging fruit.'' Is that the way we refer to the clerical people who are willing to work 24/7 in keeping the FBI or keeping the DOD going? And guess what. Once it goes, it does not allow the Federal workers to rebid to get it back.

All I am saying is, stop the implementation of the May 29 circular. Let's have a better process. Let's have a better plan. I am not opposed to privatization, but I am opposed to this May 29 circular.

I yield back such time as we may have remaining, and I am ready to vote.

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

Stand up for America, stand up for the Federal employees, stand up for the Mikulski amendment and vote aye.

Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, I rise today in support of the Roe v. Wade decision that was made by the Supreme Court over 30 years ago, and in opposition to the late term abortion conference report before the Senate.

The Supreme Court's acknowledgement of the fundamental ``right to privacy'' in our Constitution gave every woman the right to decide what to do with her own body. Since that historic day, women all across the country and the world have had improved access to reproductive health care and services. However, Congress is on the brink of turning back the clock.

Last month, my colleague from California, Senator Boxer, led a fight on the Senate floor to keep Senate passed language in support of Roe v. Wade in the late term abortion bill, S. 3. I was disheartened to hear that the conference committee stripped the Senate passed Roe v. Wade language. The Roe v. Wade decision is important to women's rights, women's health, and public health.

I believe that this bill is the first step in a plan by the leadership of this Congress to overturn Roe v. Wade. When President Bush signs this bill, he will become the first President since Roe V. Wade to recriminalize abortion procedures.

As I have stated previously on the Senate floor, the bill before us is unconstitutional. Just 3 years ago the Supreme Court ruled in Stenberg v. Carhart that a Nebraska State law that bans certain abortion procedures is unconstitutional. The Supreme Court ruled it was unconstitutional for two reasons. First, it did not include an exception for a woman's health. Second, it does not clearly define the procedure it aims to prohibit and would ban other procedures, sometimes used early in pregnancy.

S. 3 is nearly identical to the Nebraska law the Supreme Court struck down. The proponents of this legislation say they have made changes to the bill to address the Supreme Court's ruling. They have not. It still does not include an exception to protect the health of the woman. It still does not clearly define the procedure it claims to prohibit. Let me be clear about this. S. 3 is unconstitutional. That is why I supported the Durbin substitute when the Senate considered this legislation.

I supported the Durbin amendment because it was consistent with my four principles. These are my principles: It respects the constitutional underpinnings of Roe v. Wade. It prohibits all post- viability abortions, regardless of the procedure used. It provides an exception for the life and health of a woman, which is both intellectually rigorous and compassionate. And it leaves medical decisions in the hands of physicians--not politicians. The Durbin alternative addressed this difficult issue with the intellectual rigor and seriousness of purpose it deserves.

I strongly support a woman's right to choose and have fought to improve women's health during the more than two decades I have served in Congress. Whether it is establishing offices of women's health, fighting for coverage of contraceptives, or requiring federal quality standards for mammography, I will continue the fight to improve women's health.

Congress must protect a woman's freedom of choice that was handed down by the Supreme Court over 30 years ago. This Congress must not turn back the clock on reproductive choice for women. I urge my colleagues to vote against the conference report for the late term abortion bill.

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

Madam President, along with Senator Bond, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. It provides $1.3 billion for veterans medical care. It is necessary for three reasons: One, it will deal with the growing long lines in which some of our veterans have to wait in order to see a doctor or a specialist. Second, it rejects the concept of having to pay a membership fee to get veterans medical care if they are a category 7 or a category 8. Third, it also rejects the ballooning copayments that were suggested by the administration.

First, in the administration's budget, the request was to charge veterans $250 a year to be able to pay their dues. Well, Senator Bond and I believe the veterans did pay their dues. They paid them at Iwo Jima, Pork Chop Hill, the Mekong Delta, and now the burning sands of the Iraqi desert. We are working on a bipartisan basis to reject these new co-fees and these new toll charges. We need this amendment to ensure that the VA can care for returning service members.

Under the legislation that was passed by this Congress, the law requires the VA to provide 2 years of medical care for returning service members. You bet we ought to do that. But if we are going to pass the legislation, we should not only put it in the Federal law books, we have to put it in the Federal checkbook, and that is what Bond-Mikulski does.

The VA has already treated 2,000 returning soldiers from the war, but this VA system, with its wonderful doctors and nurses, is strained to the limit. There are now many who are waiting for care. There are many who ought to get care. They should not have to pay membership fees. Adopt Bond-Mikulski and keep the promises made to America's veterans.

Mr. President, I have introduced an amendment to provide for recovery of the United States Naval Academy from damage caused by Hurricane Isabel. I appreciate Senators Cochran, Sarbanes, and McCain cosponsoring this amendment. The four of us serve on the U.S. Naval Academy's Board of Visitors. We share a commitment to this outstanding institution to educate and develop America's future military leaders.

On September 18, Hurricane Isabel struck the eastern seaboard. It was one of the worst storms in the last 100 years. Isabel left some Marylanders homeless and most Marylanders without electricity. From Bowley's Quarters to Shadyside, the storm surge caused by Isabel flooded homes and businesses. I appreciate the help that FEMA has provided to so many of my constituents in their time of need.

The U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis, MD was one of the places most devastated by Hurricane Isabel. Over 8 feet of water surged through Bancroft Hall, where the midshipmen live, as well as the kitchens and dining hall where they eat. Classroom and laboratory facilities were flooded, leaving them unusable.

I went to Annapolis to see the damage with the new Naval Academy Superintendent, ADM Rod Rempt. Bancroft Hall still had several feet of standing water. A few midshipmen were boating across the yard. Boats and debris littered the fields. Labs were under water. The chiller and electrical systems were flooded. Mold and rot was beginning to set in, despite great efforts to contain the damage.

The U.S. Naval Academy was not shut down by a storm. Classes are being held on a barge tied up on the Severn River. But we must get the Naval Academy repaired and restored. As the Senior Senator from Virginia has pointed out, the military can't turn to FEMA, they have to turn to Congress.

I joined with Senator Warner and others in offering an amendment which provides $500 million to address storm damage to military and NASA facilities. I believe that amendment covers what I intended with my amendment. The Warner amendment was accepted last night. The funds should be sufficient to provide the Navy Operations and Maintenance and Military Construction funding needed to make the Naval Academy whole. I would appreciate the distinguished chairman of the Armed Services Committee, and the former Secretary of the Navy, confirming that that was his intent in offering his amendment. But first I would yield to one of the Naval Academy's distinguished alumni, the Senator from Arizona.

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

Mr. President, 1 year ago, America was on the brink of war. One year ago, Congress debated whether America should go it alone to confront Saddam Hussein or get international support to bring the world with us. Now we are finishing work on the President's request for $87 billion for Iraq. Again we have debated whether we go it alone or find a way to share the burden and the cost of war.

Today, I will vote in favor of the supplemental bill for Iraq and Afghanistan because I will not fail in my commitment to support our troops and because the Senate voted to provide loans and not just giveaways.

Through this debate, I fought for five principles I continue to believe are critical for the Iraq supplemental:

First, we need to support for our troops. The men and women putting their lives at risk to serve our country deserve our support.

Second, we need international burden sharing. If the stability of Iraq is in the world's interest, then the world should help pay for the reconstruction.

Third, we need to give Iraq loans, not giveaways. Iraq has the world's second-largest oil reserves and is capable of pumping out millions of barrels a day. This oil revenue should help with the reconstruction.

Fourth, we need accountability and responsibility with the money we provide. We need to stop waste, cronyism contracting and profiteering.

Fifth, we need for a plan to end the occupation of Iraq. There was a plan for war. Now we need a plan for peace.

I have used my voice and my vote in the Senate to stand up for these principles as we considered the supplemental bill.

America's Armed Forces are made up of ordinary men and women that are called upon to do extraordinary, difficult and dangerous things. Last year, when we debated whether to send our troops to Iraq, I asked whether they would be met with flowers or with land mines. Now we know. Our troops are at risk and they need our help. Our troops need equipment and gear, like modern body armor and replacement vehicles to help them complete their missions as safely as possible. Military families need financial support to make ends meet.

The men and women putting their lives at risk to serve our country deserve our support not just with words but with deeds. That Is why I voted for amendments to increase combat pay, to end the practice of charging wounded soldiers for hospital meals, and to improve veterans health care.

I believe we need international burden sharing to share the risks and share the costs of occupying and rebuilding Iraq. We need more troops, but not more American troops. We need more money, but not just American money. Last year, when we debated the war, I voted to go to the United Nations, to have international legitimacy and international burden- sharing. If the stability of Iraq is in the world's interest, then the world should help pay for the reconstruction. That is why I voted 12 times for amendments to promote greater burden sharing.

Wherever possible, American aid should be loans, not give-aways. Iraq has the world's second-largest oil reserves. Iraqi oilfields are already producing close to 2 million barrels a day. That means billions of dollars a year in oil revenue. According to Ambassador Bremer, by 2005 Iraq will produce enough oil to take care of its basic needs and have additional funds.

Congress already provided $75 billion for Iraq last April. It also included $2.5 billion for Iraq relief and reconstruction. That was grant aid. Now the President wants to give Iraq another $20 billion. A better solution would have been to loan Iraq the money and have it repaid from Iraq's oil.

The facts are simple: There is a loan. $87 billion is added to our national debt. The question is whether the American taxpayer must pay it back or whether the Iraqi people will pay some of it back with their oil.

That is why I cosponsored amendments to provide loans rather than grants. I am so glad the Senate voted to make $10 billion of the aid loans. These loans would only be forgiven if the rest of the world forgives its loans to Iraq.

We need to safeguard our troops and safeguard our money. We need responsibility and accountability to stop waste, cronyism contracting and profiteering. We need to use American taxpayer dollars to invest in America. That is why I supported an amendment to require full and open competition for contracts in Iraq. That is why I voted for an amendment to end cronyism contracting by preventing these funds from going to a company in which the President or Vice President or a cabinet member has a financial interest.

The administration must lay out a plan to end the occupation of Iraq. There was a plan for war. Now we need a plan for peace. The American people deserve full disclosure and a real assessment of where we are going and how long we will be there. We must not let Iraq turn into a quagmire. We cannot just send more money and more troops with no end in sight. The President needs to present a clear exit strategy. That is why I voted for an amendment to require a comprehensive plan for Iraqi reconstruction to include goals and timelines.

I worked to fulfill my principles on this bill: to support our troops. International burden sharing; loans, not giveaways; accountability; and the need for a plan to end the occupation of Iraq.

Marylanders are patriotic people, willing to do what's necessary to defend our country and help other people when we can. But they have children to educate, parents to support, houses to buy and retirements to fund. It is not fair to ask them to pay for the rebuilding of Iraq just because this administration made critical mistakes in foreign policy.

I am going to vote for this bill because I will fulfill my commitment to America's men and women in uniform, who are risking their lives for the American people in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I will continue to press for an exit strategy to bring our troops home. I will continue to fight for greater accountability. I will continue to demand that President Bush bring in other nations to share the burden, to share the risks by sending troops to Iraq and to share the costs by contributing to Iraq's reconstruction.

Mr. President, I rise as an enthusiastic supporter of this wonderful bipartisan agreement, the

Bayh-Ensign amendment. I do it because it meets four of my principles on supplemental spending.

No. 1, there must be international burden sharing.

With international burden sharing, if the stability of Iraq is in the world's interest, then the world should help pay for the reconstruction. If we say we are going to go it alone, they are going to let us go it alone. If we say we are going to go grants, they will say fine with us.

We need a coalition of the willing. We need a coalition of the wallet.

No. 2, in helping Iraq, we should have loans, not giveaways.

Iraq has the world's largest oil reserves, capable of pumping out millions of barrels a day. These profits should help pay for reconstruction.

There are those who say Iraq has debt. Well, so does America. America has a lot of debt and we think that this debt, the very balanced approach of the Bayh-Ensign amendment, will provide 50 percent as a grant for $10 billion, including $5 billion for police and military, but the other will be converted to a grant only if 90 percent of Iraq's preliberation bilateral debts are absolved.

That is what I call burden sharing. We need the world's help. Iraq needs the world's help. I am glad we have a legislative framework to do it.

No. 3, is accountability to stop waste, cronyism contracting, and profiteering.

No. 4, the administration must lay out a plan to end the occupation of Iraq. There was a plan for the war. Now we need a plan for the peace.

What will this amendment do? Half the requested aid to Iraq will be provided as a grant, a total of $10 billion, including $5 billion to rebuild Iraq's police and military forces. The other half of the requested aid will be a loan.

So the President can lend up to $10 billion to Iraq. The loan would be converted to a grant and only if 90 percent of Iraq's pre-liberation bilateral debts are absolved.

The amendment also expresses the sense of the Senate that all countries should forgive the bilateral debts owed by Saddam Hussein's regime and provide robust levels of reconstruction aid at the Madrid Donors Conference.

Why is this amendment important? I support this amendment because it is consistent with my principles for aid to Iraq: No. 1, international burden-sharing; No. 2, loans, not give-aways.

The amendment clearly supports international burden-sharing, not just with words of encouragement but by providing an incentive for other countries to forgive Iraq's debts. Ambassador Bremer says Iraq can't afford to borrow more because it is already shackled with $200 billion in debt. I say America can't afford more debt, not when we're facing a $2 trillion deficit. The Iraqi debts were racked up by Saddam Hussein to pay for his wars against Iran. Most is owed to Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and other Gulf states, and to Russia and France. Saudi Arabia and Kuwait and Russia and France should forgive Iraq's debt as their share of rebuilding costs. If these countries let Iraq start with a clean slate then Iraq's oil income can be used to pay for Iraq's reconstruction.

The amendment also promotes my principle that U.S. aid to Iraq should be loans, not giveaways. Until and unless 90 percent of Iraq's debts are forgiven, half of U.S. aid will be in the form of loans.

I supported Senator Dorgan's effort to make all of America's new aid to Iraq loans rather than grants--the full $20 billion.

Here's why. Iraq can afford to pay. Iraq oil sales can finance building Iraq's infrastructure so we can use American tax dollars to build America's infrastructure. Iraq already has a very developed infrastructure and suffered relatively little damage during the war.

It's certainly the complete opposite of the situation in

Afghanistan, where that's a country that has no prospect of

being self-sufficient for quite some time to come . . . We're

dealing with a country that can really finance its own

reconstruction and relatively soon.

That's not just me talking. That's the testimony of Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz back in March.

Iraq has the world's second-largest proven oil reserves and could have even more oil and natural gas. Iraqi oilfields are already producing close to 2 million barrels a day. That means billions of dollars a year in oil revenue. According to Ambassador Bremer, by 2005, Iraq will produce enough oil to take care of its basic needs and have additional funds.

I understand that Ambassador Bremer doesn't want to delay reconstruction in Iraq until after Iraq has a constitution and an elected government. I remind the Senate that we have already provided aid to meet Iraq's immediate needs. Just this April Congress provided $75 billion requested by the President. That supplemental bill covered ongoing military operations in Iraq. It also included $2.5 billion for Iraq Relief and Reconstruction. That was grant aid.

I believe the aid we provide now should be all loans, but half is better than none. America's taxpayers stand to get $10 billion back from Iraq's oil revenues under this amendment.

I appreciate the efforts of the cosponsors, my Republican colleagues, Senators Ensign, Snowe, Collins, Graham, and Chambliss, and my Democratic colleagues, Senators Bayh and Nelson. They worked together on a bipartisan basis to improve this bill.

I urge my colleagues to join in support of this bipartisan amendment to promote burden-sharing and to provide loans, not giveaways.

Mr. President, I will state some of my principles as we debate the supplemental appropriations on Iraq.

One year ago, America was on the brink of war. Congress debated then whether America should go it alone to confront Saddam Hussein or get international support to bring the world with us. This week, Congress takes up a nearly similar debate: Do we go it alone or do we find a way to share the burden and the cost of the war?

Who should pay for the occupation and reconstruction of Iraq? According to the Bush administration, the answer is the American taxpayer, to the tune of $87 billion.

I agree that as we consider this debate, we should have four principles to guide our thinking. First, there must be international burden sharing. If the stability of Iraq is in the world's interest, then the world should help pay for the reconstruction. The administration must be more aggressive in the pursuit of reconstruction funds from other countries and other international institutions.

Second, wherever possible, American aid should be loans, not giveaways. Iraq has the world's second largest oil reserves. These oil fields are capable of pumping out millions of barrels a day. That should translate into billions of dollars. Those profits should help with the reconstruction.

Third, we must always be clear that we support our troops. These are ordinary men and women called to do extraordinary and dangerous and difficult missions. They put their lives at risk to serve our country. Our troops need the equipment, the gear, the backup. And their families need financial support. Military families, with loved ones are in Iraq, need financial support to make ends meet and the health care they should get.

Third, the administration must lay out its plan to end the occupation of Iraq. There was a plan for the war. Now we need a plan for the peace. The American people deserve full disclosure: a real assessment of where we are going, how long we will be there. Iraq must not turn into a quagmire. We cannot pour in our funds and send more troops with no end in sight.

Last year, when we debated about the war, I said if it is important enough to the world to go, the world should go with us. I voted to go to the U.N. to have international legitimacy and international burden sharing, to share the dangers along with our troops as well as to share the cost of rebuilding Iraq.

During the debate I said: What is going to happen to our troops? And I asked it in classified situations and other briefings we received. I wanted to know if our troops were going to be greeted with a landmine or with a parade. Well, now we know the answer to that.

Our troops need all the support they can get. I believe we need more troops, but I do not think we need more American troops; they should come from other countries.

I believe there is money that needs to be spent in Iraq but not only our money. I think there needs to be international money. We had a coalition of the willing. Now we need a coalition of the wallet. Let them step to the plate to share the financial responsibility to create stability and a democracy in Iraq.

You bet I am behind our troops. And we want to vote to make sure they have the help and the assistance they need, not only the right gear. We understand they do not even have the proper body armor they need.

We also want to support their families here at home. They come back for 2 weeks for a breather, but their families' hearts are broken as the men and women go back to the war. We need to support those families financially, and we need to support those things in terms of health care.

When it comes to burden sharing, we now know the other countries are not stepping up. They are tepid. They were timid about the war, and they are tepid about reconstruction. Only 61 countries have committed to helping. They have committed $1.5 billion to the reconstruction of Iraq, according to Ambassador Bremer's testimony. That is not enough.

But we were also assured by Secretary Rumsfeld that we could get the money for reconstruction from Iraqi oil. Well, let's get it. I support the kind of thinking that Senator Dorgan has presented, which is to replace the $20 billion in grants for Iraqi reconstruction with loans, and to also create a framework for other nations to participate in those loans.

On a bipartisan basis, Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison is working on an amendment to make $10 billion in American aid work via a loan through the World Bank, a $10 billion loan through the World Bank, with other nations contributing to the World Bank's Iraq reconstruction trust fund. That is the kind of thinking we need, and we need to work on a bipartisan basis. America needs to know we are trying to work on a bipartisan basis. But I repeat: We need loans, not giveaways.

Now, there are others who say: Oh, my gosh, Iraq is shackled with debt.

That debt was created by an illegitimate government in Iraq. And who is the money owed to? Well, the money is owed to Russia, to Saudi Arabia, to France. Why can't they forgive the debt? Make that their share. Just forgive the debt. Rather than giving more money, let France forgive the debt. Let Russia forgive the debt. Let Saudi Arabia forgive the debt. Let Iraq start with a clean slate and pay back America for what it is doing.

My constituents in Maryland are very patriotic, and they will do whatever is necessary to defend this Nation. But they have families and children to educate, mothers and fathers who are grappling with the health care costs of being older, retirement plans to do, and homes to buy. It is not fair to ask the American taxpayer to share the full burden of fighting this war.

While we are worried about Russia's debt, what about our debt? If we are worried about Iraq being too burdened with debt, what about our debt?

Now we need a debt of gratitude for what we are doing around the world. I think the way it can be repaid is to forgive the Iraqi debt. Let them start with a clean slate just as they are starting with a clean government, and move on.

When you look at the way they are spending money on reconstruction, they have money for schools, they have money for tech centers, they have money for job training and job centers, water and sewer grants-- all of what we need in our own communities.

We know the people in Iraq have suffered. They have suffered under Saddam Hussein. They are now suffering under what looks like an internal civil war going on now among the different tribes.

I know the children need health care, the communities need electricity, and they need to have an economy to get back on their feet. But, my gosh, I sure wish some of this money was also being spent here at home.

The request for Iraq includes 250 tech centers with 20 laptop computers each, and computer training. They are going to build seven communities, with 3,500 units of affordable housing. And--guess what-- we are going to build a primary school, two secondary schools, a health clinic, a place of worship, and a market in each community.

Yet at the same time, HOPE VI and other programs to revitalize American cities have been zeroed out. Technical centers to get our kids ready for the new century is sharply reduced. Infrastructure that we desperately need to protect public health and the environment, such as water and sewer grants, is so spartan and skimpy in my own VA-HUD bill.

So we have to look at where we are spending our money, and we have to look at where we are creating debt. If we are creating debt to improve our economy, to get our jobs going, I think we know that a little borrowing today might create jobs tomorrow. But now we are doing massive borrowing to rebuild Iraq, while others tell us they cannot afford to send troops and they cannot afford to spend money. I am saying we are beginning to not be able to afford this war in Iraq.

So I hope we can work on some solutions to have Iraq emerge as a democracy and bring our troops back home. We have to concentrate on how we can have our national honor abroad but restore our national Treasury.

I look forward to working on a bipartisan basis with my colleagues. We have to get down to business and get strategy on how we are getting out of Iraq, and also how we are getting out of debt.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I am proud to have voted for Senator McConnell's resolution commending America's Armed Forces. It is right for us to thank our troops for their service. It is right to thank military families for their sacrifice. It is right to thank great organizations like the USO for their support to our men and women in uniform.

However, I am puzzled by some of the findings in the McConnell amendment.

We were all told last year that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and was ready to use them. Well, the jury is still out on that. But press reports suggest that Dr. Kay's team has not yet found any actual weapons. So I am not sure it is accurate to say the war ended Iraq's WMD programs.

The Bush administration now acknowledges that there is no evidence of ties between Saddam Hussein's regime and al-Qaida and the September 11 attacks. Yet the amendment seems to combine Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan and Operation Iraqi Freedom as ``two campaigns in the Global War on Terrorism.'' I am not sure what ``terrorist infrastructure'' was destroyed in Iraq. Some reports indicate the terrorist presence in Iraq has actually increased since the collapse of Saddam Hussein's brutal regime.

I just don't want anyone to think my vote means I agree with every word of this amendment. I voted for the McConnell amendment because I absolutely stand behind our troops and their families.

Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Harkin/ Boxer motion and the Roe v. Wade decision that was made by the Supreme Court over 30 years ago.

The Supreme Court's acknowledgment of the fundamental ``right to privacy'' in our Constitution gave every woman the right to decide what to do with her own body. Since that historic day, women all across the country and the world have had improved access to reproductive health care and services.

In March, the Senate passed a resolution supporting Roe v. Wade during the debate of the partial birth abortion bill. The resolution should be retained in the bill during conference. The Roe v. Wade decision is important to women's rights, women's health and public health.

Because efforts have been made over the years to educate and inform women about their choices, unwanted pregnancies are at their lowest levels since 1974. Teenage pregnancies have declined almost 50 percent since 1987.

While Roe v. Wade is still the law of the land today, it has been systematically challenged and weakened. What stands today is a hollowed version of one of our Nation's most important accomplishments for women. What keeps Roe from vanishing altogether is our unwavering commitment to protect a women's right to choice.

I strongly support a woman's right to choose and have fought to improve women's health during the more than two decades I have served in Congress. Whether it is establishing offices of women's health, fighting for coverage of contraceptives, or requiring Federal quality standards for mammography, I will continue the fight to improve women's health.

I believe that this bill is the first step in a plan by the leadership of this Congress to overturn Roe v. Wade. Congress must protect a woman's freedom of choice that was handed down by the Supreme Court over 30 years ago.

This Congress must not turn back the clock on reproductive choice for women. I urge my colleagues to retain the resolution in support of Roe v. Wade in the final bill.

I oppose President Bush's plan to deny overtime pay to millions of workers. I am proud to cosponsor Senator Harkin's amendment to protect overtime pay for 8 million American workers. Millions of Americans depend on overtime pay to make ends meet and pay their housing, food, and health care bills. Yet the Bush administration wants to strip overtime protections for these hard-working men and women. I thought in this country, the best social program was a job. I thought in this country, we reward those who practice self-help.

Eight million workers would lose overtime protection under the new Bush proposal. Who are these workers? They are nurses, firefighters, policemen, secretaries, and social workers. These men and women work hard to serve our communities. They protect us, and they help us when we are in need. They deserve extra pay for their extra efforts.

If we do not stop the Bush proposal, workers will have to work long hours for less money because they will no longer be eligible for overtime pay. They might have to find a second job, because they will not be able to count on overtime pay to make ends meet. They will spend less time with their families but they will not get compensated. I think that is outrageous.

America is facing a crisis in nursing. In Maryland hospitals, 12.6 percent of nursing jobs are vacant. They desperately need over 2,000 nurses. Nationwide, we will need about 2.8 million registered nurses by the year 2020, but only about 2 million will be available. Nurses work an average of 8.5 weeks of overtime each year, and 87 percent of Maryland nurses work overtime just to make up for the shortage. If the Bush proposal becomes law, nurses will have to work these same hours for no extra pay. Hospitals will have to get by without enough nurses to take care of patients. Lack of overtime pay will discourage young nurses from entering the profession and experienced nurses from staying. I worked hard to pass legislation to help eliminate the nursing shortage. Changing the overtime rules would be a huge step backwards.

The Bush plan would also deny overtime pay for our first responders: our firefighters, policemen, and EMTs. Maryland has about 2,000 professional firefighters and 7,500 police. These men and women put their lives on the line to keep us safe no matter what time it is or how many hours they have worked already. When the Pentagon was on fire, the firefighters in my own State of Maryland dashed across the Potomac to help. They were there night and day. We say a grateful Nation never forgets. We give our heros parades, but now some want to take away overtime and make them work for free to protect the homeland. What a thing to say to first responders and their families.

Every time a firefighter or police officer leaves their home, they do not know when they will be home. They do not even know if they will be home, and now the Bush administration is asking them to donate their overtime. That is no way to show our appreciation. We need to protect the protectors so that they can protect us. That means protecting their overtime pay.

Nurses and first responders are just a few examples. The Bush proposal would deny overtime pay for workers in many industries. It would take money out of the pockets of hard working Americans and their families unless we do something to stop it. I urge my colleagues to vote to uphold overtime pay by voting for the Harkin amendment.

Mr. President, I rise in support of the Dodd-Jeffords amendment. I am proud to support this amendment--the first step to fully funding the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, IDEA, in 8 years. This bill adds about $1 billion over last year's funding level for IDEA. That may sound like a lot. But at that rate it will take at least 30 years to get to full funding.

I think it is shocking that Congress passed tax breaks for zillionaires while delaying help for those who need it most--the children with special needs and their parents and teachers. This amendment increases IDEA funding by another $1.2 billion, for a total of $2.2 billion, on pace to full funding in 8 years. We must fully fund IDEA to ensure that children with disabilities are receiving the services they need to succeed with their classmates in public schools.

In 1975, Congress promised to pay 40 percent of the cost of special education when it passed the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Yet it has never paid more than 17.5 percent. That means local districts must make up the difference, either by cutting from other education programs or by raising taxes. I do not want to force States and local school districts to forage for funds, cut back on teacher training, or delay school repairs because the Federal Government has failed to live up to its commitment to special education. That's why fully funding IDEA is one of my top priorities.

Everywhere I go in Maryland, I hear about IDEA. I hear about it in urban, rural, and suburban communities, from Democrats and Republicans, and from parents and teachers. They tell me that the Federal Government is not living up to its promise, that special education costs about 18 percent of the average school budget, that schools are suffering, and the parents are worried.

Parents today are under a lot of stress, sometimes working two jobs just to make ends meet, trying to find day care for their kids, and elder care for their own parents. The Federal Government should not add to their worries by not living up to its obligations. With the Federal Government not paying its share of special education, these parents have real questions in their minds: Will my child have a good teacher? Will the classes have up-to-date textbooks? Will they be learning what they need to know?

Parents of disabled children face such a tough burden already. School should not be one of the many things they have to worry about, particularly when the laws are already on the books to guarantee their child a public school education. The bottom line is that the Federal Government is shortchanging these parents by not paying its share of special ed costs.

This bill will give local governments the resources they need to improve education for all children. It will free up money in local budgets for hiring more teachers, buying new textbooks and technology, and repairing old school buildings. It will help the teachers who struggle with teaching the toughest students. It will help students with disabilities and their families by providing enough funding for special education programs so parents can have one less thing to worry about, and students get the opportunities they deserve.

Full funding of IDEA is essential. It will give disabled children a chance to succeed in school and in life without shortchanging other vital education programs. It will give parents peace of mind about their children's education. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.