Floor Statements

Mr. President, in a few minutes the Senate will consider the supplemental. I wish to say a few words about the issue around AmeriCorps and other issues within the supplemental. The hour is late, so I will be brief.

The outcome is preordained, but I wish to say the fight will go on. This urgent supplemental does not meet the compelling human needs of the United States of America. The supplemental the Senate is about to pass will replenish the urgent need that FEMA has at only 50 percent of what the Federal Emergency Management Agency needs to be ready for the hurricane season. They need about $1.6 billion, and there is about $900 million included.

The supplemental also will not include money for wildfires ravaging the West. It will not include the funds to complete the NASA investigation of what went wrong on Columbia, so NASA will have to forage for funds within their agency. It will not include additional money for AmeriCorps.

I have been waiting and willing to compromise to get the emergency funding for AmeriCorps. I was willing to compromise to save the school- based programs that start in September. I knew I could not save the AmeriCorps ship because of the penny-pinching attitude of the House towards AmeriCorps.

I want to be clear that although the House left town with a take-it- or-leave-it attitude and we had to swallow it, the needs of our community will not go away. The fight will not go away, and I will continue in September to fight for the full funding for AmeriCorps, both in an emergency supplemental and even in the way of the Budget Act, if I have to, in order to get the help for AmeriCorps.

AmeriCorps, because of the clumsy and inept headquarters, overenrolled 20,000 volunteers, but we should not punish those volunteers because of the people at headquarters.

In my home State, Maryland will lose 400 volunteers. Let me tell you what they are: In rural western Maryland, an AmeriCorps program called Star, in which 34 volunteers participate. They serve 6,000 people, meeting the needs of the mountain counties of: Allegany, Garrett, and Washington.

Do you know what they do? They tutor children, they help children to read, and they help them get ready for school. Without these 34 volunteers, over 6,500 people will lose the help they need.

In Baltimore City there are 50 Jump Start volunteers. These are AmeriCorps volunteers who work in Head Start to make sure the kids get a head start. And they also recruit other volunteers. That means, again, there will be over 400 preschoolers who will not get the help they need.

I could go on in these school-based programs. Nationally, 2,700 volunteers, ready to go to work for Teach America, will not be able to go and start in September because we are leaving town without AmeriCorps funding.

I thank Senator Stevens for trying to help on this program. He understood

the needs we had. He worked very hard with me. I regret we had a take- it-or-leave-it with the House.

Also in Baltimore, we have 40 Notre Dame volunteers.

These 40 Notre Dame volunteers help 1,842 elementary school children. They work in Baltimore schools tutoring children and providing after- school activities to help kids learn and keep them out of trouble.

Notre Dame is a success story of a faith-based organization making a difference for our communities. But without additional AmeriCorps funding, Baltimore will lose 40 Notre Dame volunteers. And 1,842 children in Baltimore will not be tutored or mentored. These are some examples in Maryland. But communities all around the country will be hurt because the House leadership would not approve emergency funding for AmeriCorps.

How did we get here? The leadership of the House of Representatives has blocked adequate emergency funding for FEMA disaster relief, fighting wildfires, the NASA Columbia investigation, and AmeriCorps.

The Senate acted quickly on the President's supplemental request.

The Senate approved $1.55 billion for FEMA, $253 million to fight wildfires, $50 million for the NASA Columbia investigation, and $100 million for AmeriCorps. But the House sent us a supplemental that is totally inadequate. There is only $984 million for FEMA.

At the last minute before recess the House supplemental did not include funding for fighting wildfires, the NASA Columbia investigation, or AmeriCorps. Then, the House left town for the month of August.

In April this year, the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Homeland Security Subcommittee became very concerned about a shortfall of FEMA disaster relief funding. Senators Cochran and Byrd asked President Bush to request emergency funding for FEMA disaster relief. But the President didn't request funding until July 7. When he did, the Senate acted quickly.

We passed it within 4 days. The President asked for $1.55 billion and we approved it, But the House only wants to give FEMA $984 million, only 60 percent of what the President says is needed.

We have never let FEMA's Disaster Relief account fall to such a low level. Right now, FEMA only has $89 million to respond to disasters. It is irresponsible to shortchange FEMA when we are at the height of hurricane season.

The House bill also eliminates funding to help Western states fight wildfires. The President requested $253 million and the Senate approved it.

But the House provided nothing. Right now, there are 42 major fires burning in 12 Western states consuming over 400,000 acres. The Forest Service is $420 million short of what they need to fight these fires, but the House didn't provide any funding.

The House also eliminates funds to complete the investigation into the loss of the Space Shuttle Columbia. The President requested $50 million. The Senate approved it. This funding is to keep our promises to the families of the 7 astronauts killed that we will find out what went wrong and we will fly again. Without the $50 million NASA will have to borrow from other programs in order to finish the investigation.

The House supplemental does not include funding to save 20,000 AmeriCorps volunteers. I offered the amendment to add $100 million for AmeriCorps to this urgent supplemental. With bipartisan support of Senators Bond, Stevens, Byrd and many others, the AmeriCorps funding was voted on by the full Senate and was sustained by an overwhelming 71 to 21 votes. But the House refused to follow the usual and customary process to resolve differences. The House didn't want to face the Senate in conference.

Because a small minority of House members want to scuttle the $100 million for AmeriCorps even though an overwhelming majority of the Senate supports it, a majority of the House supports it, and 43 Governors support it.

I want to give my sincerest thanks to my colleagues in the Senate who supported emergency funding for AmeriCorps. I appreciate it and so do our volunteers and the communities they serve.

How did the AmeriCorps shortfall happen? There was a bureaucratic boondoggle. AmeriCorps overenrolled 20,000 volunteers.

Every year, the VA-HUD subcommittee funds 50,000 AmeriCorps volunteers but AmeriCorps enrolled 70,000.

How did we know about it? Senator Bond chaired the subcommittee leading the fight for reform in fiscal responsibility and uncovered the mismanagement at our April 10 hearing.

We started GAO and IG investigations. Senator Bond called for a new Chief Financial Officer. I called for new leadership. And we wrote a bipartisan bill to fix the accounting and mismanagement problems.

Our bill passed the Congress in 2 days and was signed into law.

So while the House puts out press releases about how they want to punish volunteers and communities they serve, the Senate puts out performance.

This is an emergency today. The law says funding for volunteers and the awards that help pay off their student debt must be in the Federal checkbook when the volunteers begin their service. Without emergency funding AmeriCorps can't sign up volunteers now to start in school- based programs in September.

Teach America, for example, will lose education awards for 2,700 volunteers who are going to start teaching in September.

We cannot wait until October for fiscal year 2004 and I won't wait until October.

I will continue to fight in September for AmeriCorps.

The President has called for a new spirit of voluntarism.

Young people have responded, but the House leadership wants to squander volunteer opportunities to punish volunteers and communities because of a bureaucratic boondoggle.

Mr. President, it is regrettable that the House leadership won't resolve differences in the usual and customary way. But I will continue to fight for our communities that need disaster assistance and depend on help from volunteers.

The needs won't go away and I will continue the fight in September.

I want to reiterate that the need continues. Because the need continues, the fight will go on. I promise every AmeriCorps volunteer, every community that is dependent on those volunteers, and every member of the American family looking to those volunteers, I am going to fight for them and I will stand up for them. I am going to turn to the Senate and say let's not take what the House says when they give it a take-it- or-leave-it stamp.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise as a cosponsor of the Bond-Levin amendment to provide a reasonable compromise on CAFE standards. Our amendment provides a strategy for energy conservation while safeguarding American jobs. I strongly believe in energy conservation, and I support the effort to build more fuel efficient cars. Yet I also believe in job conservation. I believe we can improve the fuel efficiency of our cars without making it even harder for American workers to compete.

In considering any fuel efficiency standard proposal, I apply four criteria. Any proposal must achieve real savings in oil consumption. Secondly, it must preserve U.S. jobs. The goals for increased CAFE standards must be realizable and achievable by giving companies a reasonable lead time to adjust their production. And finally, it must create incentives to enable companies to achieve these goals. The Bond- Levin amendment meets this criteria.

I strongly agree with the underlying goals of greater fuel efficiency and energy conservation associated with increases in CAFE standards. We desperately need to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. We use about 20 million barrels of oil a day. About 40 percent of that goes to fuel cars and light trucks. Half of our oil is imported, a quarter of which from the Persian Gulf. It is imported from countries like Saudi Arabia, which sits on roughly two-thirds of all the oil reserves in the world. A reduction in our dependency on foreign oil would also greatly increase our flexibility in the war against terrorism. That's why I supported the Landrieu amendment. This amendment requires the President to submit to Congress a yearly report on the progress made toward reducing our dependency on foreign petroleum imports by 2013. This amendment also requires the Administration to develop and implement strategies to reduce our dependency by 1 million barrels of oil per day by 2015.

I support the key provisions in the energy bill that will help us conserve fuel. We need to build on these innovative provisions that encourage better fuel economy. And we must do it in a way that doesn't cost American jobs. That's why I oppose legislating arbitrary increases on CAFE.

Arbitrary Increases in CAFE would be counterproductive. Any increase should be a question of science, not the result of legislative compromise. The NAS study said the most efficient small car could achieve 35.1 mpg within 15 years and the most efficient small truck could achieve 30 mpg within 15 years. One standard for small cars, one for small trucks. The study said nothing about a combined calculation for cars and trucks. There was no recommendation for an entire vehicle fleet.

Other proposals which call for an arbitrary increase in CAFE would have a devastating effect on our Nation's biggest industry--the automobile industry. It is unfair to the American auto worker. In my State of Maryland, 1,500 people work at the GM plant at Broening Highway in Baltimore building mini-vans. The workforce at the Broening Highway plant is down from 2,700 workers in the mid 1980's. Arbitrary increases would give an unfair advantage to foreign car manufactures and penalize U.S. automakers and auto workers, like the hard-working men and women at the Broening Highway plant, for selling vehicles that Americans are actually buying.

Large vehicles represent a small portion of the total fleet of European and Japanese auto companies. These companies produce so many smaller cars because that's what their customers buy. Most of their markets are in Europe and Asia where the landscape is much different. Consumers pay as much as $4 or $5 per gallon of gas. They have narrower roads and a limited highway infrastructure. Bringing a small fleet into the U.S. allows them to easily comply with our fuel economy standards. Even when you include their SUV's and light trucks, the average fuel efficiency standard for their fleet is still low.

When a foreign auto maker exceeds our fuel efficiency standards they also earn CAFE ``credits'' to buffer them in future years. These credits can be shifted to offset shortfalls for up to three model years. This means that if companies have a banner year selling smaller, more efficient vehicles, they can buffer future sales of larger trucks and SUVs. But this does not mean that foreign manufacturers sell more fuel efficient trucks and SUVs. In fact, the difference is usually 3-4 mpg. Their dependence on a smaller fleet allows them to enter the truck and SUV market without worrying about the CAFE standards of the larger vehicles.

Over the past decade, U.S. manufacturers struggled to meet CAFE requirements across a full-line of vehicles--both cars and trucks. Because a higher proportion of the U.S. automakers' fleets are trucks, raising CAFE standards will have more severe adverse effects on GM, Ford, and DaimlerChrysler than on other manufacturers.

Proposals to increase CAFE standards are also unattainable. They set aggressive standards on too short a timeline. This is in direct contrast to the NAS panel, which states ``Technology changes require very long times to be introduced into the manufacturers' product lines.''

Within any argument on CAFE, we must not forget to take into account the demands of consumers. A drastic increase in fuel efficiency standards causes a drastic change in the types of cars, which causes a limited choice of available cars and trucks for consumers. Alternate proposals set a default level for light trucks that is not achieved by ANY light truck on the road today. This would effectively cap the sales of light trucks--it would curb consumer choice.

I believe we can find other ways to achieve fuel conservation that won't cost American jobs. Our domestic automakers have already been weakened by the current recession, and we can't rely on foreign manufacturers to provide American jobs.

The numbers don't lie. The NAS reports that the United Auto Workers has seen its membership drop from 1.4 million members to 670,000 from 1980 through 2000. This loss was countered by the creation of only 35,000 jobs in assembly plants built in the U.S. by foreign automakers although imports have risen by 9 percent over the past 8 years. Our domestic auto share is falling. Only 64 percent of cars bought in

America today are built in America compared to 73.9 percent in 1994. 1,000 workers were recently laid off at the GM plant in Baltimore, and the plant went through another shutdown after slow sales. In fact, GM shut down 14 of its 29 North American assembly plants for at least a week last year.

Today, all manufacturers have advanced technology programs to improve vehicle fuel efficiency, lower emissions and increase occupant protection. A return to a flawed regulatory program of higher CAFE standards would divert resources from these efforts. Raising CAFE standards to levels that effectively squash the American auto industry is not the only solution. Senators Bond and Levin have an alternative that is reasonable and fair. It brings together two common goals of Increasing fuel efficiency and protecting jobs and the American economy.

The Bond-Levin amendment directs the Department of Transportation to increase CAFE standards for cars and light duty trucks based on several factors. These include the desirability of reducing our dependence on foreign oil; the effect on U.S. employment; impacts on motor vehicle safety; cost and lead time required for introduction of new technologies; and the effects of increased fuel economy on air quality.

It also directs the Department of Transportation to complete two rulemakings. First, they must complete a rulemaking within 30 months to increase standards for passenger cars. Second, they must complete a rulemaking to increase standards for light trucks no later than April 2006. This will go into effect for model year 2008. Each rulemaking is to be given on a muliti-year basis, but cannot exceed 15 model years. This amendment also directs Congress to take action on CAFE should the DOT not take action in the required timeframe.

This bi-partisan amendment also includes expanded research and development into the production of hybrid electric vehicles and to improve diesel combustion. It authorizes $50 million per year over the next three years to conduct the hybrid electric technology research, and $75 million per year over the next three years for advanced combustion engine research and development.

Finally, the Bond-Levin amendment requires the Federal Government to purchase advanced technology vehicles, beginning in 2005. Hybrid vehicles must be purchased or leased for light duty truck fleets and alternative fuel vehicles must be purchased or leased for passenger car fleets.

We can have both energy conservation and job conservation. But it cannot be done by changing a number. It will take innovative solutions, improved technology, and the setting of realistic, achievable goals. The Bond-Levin amendment accomplishes these goals.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Bond-Levin amendment.

Thank you.

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

Mr. President, I join with my colleague, Senator Stevens, and other colleagues from the West to protest what the House is about to do in the urgent supplemental bill.

Mr. President and colleagues, and all Americans who are listening, you have to understand what is happening. The Senate passed an urgent supplemental bill to deal with shortfalls in funding where America is facing disasters.

No. 1, our Federal Emergency Management account, which responds to disasters such as hurricanes, earthquakes, and other natural disasters, and even a terrorist attack, is in danger of running out of funds within a matter of days. As of July, they were down to $89 million, and we acted swiftly to send a bill to the House that would include $1.6 billion to replenish the account.

Also, the West is enduring wildfires of unbelievable magnitude because of a combination of fire and drought. Again, as fellow Americans, we joined with our western Senators to put money in the Federal checkbook to deal with these wildfires.

We also included funds to deal with the shortfall in the committee that is investigating what went wrong in the Columbia disaster.

Guess what. We also added $100 million to deal with the shortfall in AmeriCorps that occurred because of bureaucratic mismanagement, so that volunteers would not be penalized and they could come into our school- based programs.

Well, guess what is happening now in the House. This very minute they are debating a rule that, No. 1, limits debate and prohibits amendments. If the rule passes, the House will take up a bill that will essentially strip-mine the urgent supplemental the Senate passed. The House only wants to pass almost half of what the President says he needs for FEMA, and take out all of the other programs.

My message to the House is: Don't do it. Don't pass that rule. It is an embarrassment to you and to the people in desperate need. If you pass the rule, for gosh sakes, don't pass the bill.

I cannot believe the House of Representatives will pass us a take-it- or-leave-it supplemental that takes out help for FEMA, takes out help for wildfires, will not let the NASA commission go on, and essentially pokes AmeriCorps volunteers in the eye, when we are ready to harvest their idealism and put them to work in Teach America and other education programs.

House of Representatives: Don't go out for a 5-week break without helping these desperate situations.

What is an urgent supplemental? An urgent supplemental says when the Federal Government runs out of funds in key programs, because of unintended consequences, we, somewhere in the spring, pass legislation to deal with that. That is what we are supposed to be dealing with now. It is urgent, it is supplemental, and it is desperately needed.

I express my disappointment that the House of Representatives has blocked emergency funding for disaster assistance for wildfire assistance, for AmeriCorps volunteers.

We saw this coming. Who spotted it? Our very able chairman of the Homeland Security Subcommittee on Appropriations, Senator Cochran, and Senator Byrd saw this emergency disaster coming. In April of this year, Senator Cochran and Senator Byrd asked President Bush to help with emergency funding for FEMA disaster relief. They rightly calculated FEMA would be down to $89 million at the end of July, just when we are heading into high hurricane season, and there would be the possibility of other natural disasters. And God forbid we have to have the money if there is another attack on the United States of America.

They asked for the money in April. Silence from the White House. Silence from the White House. Silence from OMB. Silence--where the clock was ticking, as the money dwindled down.

The President did send Congress a request on July 7. He did say FEMA would run out of money. So the Senate acted very quickly with the President's request, led by Senator Stevens and Senator Byrd, the chairman and ranking member of the Appropriations

Committee. Expeditiously, within 48 hours of the President's request, the Appropriations Committee in the Senate acted. We approved money for disaster assistance. We approved $1.6 billion for disaster relief. We approved money to help with the Space Station Columbia. We approved money to help with the wildfires facing our Western States and possibly even Alaska itself, and much-needed help in mountain counties of West Virginia.

We helped with AmeriCorps. We did it. And I was a proud sponsor of adding $100 million for AmeriCorps. There were Senators who had disputes on this, so we had a separate vote on AmeriCorps, kind of the American way. I thought: majority ruled. I would have been disappointed if the Senate had defeated my amendment, but we followed usual and customary procedures, and the Senate sustained the AmeriCorps funding by a vote of 71-21.

Then we passed the urgent supplemental as part of the legislative branch appropriations 85 to 7. Again, majority ruled.

The Senate quickly appointed conferees. Remember, the Senate moved very quickly. The President made a request on the 7th. We went to committee on the 9th; to the Senate floor on the 11th. Isn't that just terrific. We knew we had to move fast because it is an urgent supplemental. Then we went to conference. Well, guess what. There was no conference. The House has delayed, delayed, delayed, delayed. And so now at the very last minute they want to leave town for a recess. They want to leave 1 week before we are. Well, they don't have to go this week. There is nothing that says the House has to evacuate Washington. They could stay another couple of days.

But all of last week, ever since we passed this bill on July 11--and it is now the July 25--for 14 days I have been waiting to go to conference to work on this supplemental. I was ready to go during the day. I was ready to go during the night. I was ready to go on weekends. I would have come here on my birthday. I was ready to stand up for America and to stand up for this supplemental assistance. But, no, now they are going to wait for the last minute, pull kind of a parliamentary shenanigan, take it or leave it.

What are they sending over? What an embarrassment. They are sending over $984 million for FEMA assistance, and that is it.

Not only are they taking out AmeriCorps, wildfire money, and NASA money to complete the investigation of what went wrong, they are reducing the FEMA account requested by the Senate by $700 million. We have never let FEMA fall to such a low level. I am sorry that the House is falling to such a low level as well.

We don't need low levels at FEMA. We don't need low levels from the House of Representatives.

I am concerned that the FEMA account is nearly bankrupt. It is unconscionable and irresponsible for we on the Atlantic and gulf coasts who are at the height of the hurricane season, and they know it.

When it comes to looking at the whole issue of wildfires, they know what the West is facing. It is not a TV item. It is brave people willing to put themselves on the line. States are at a financial crisis, and now they are facing the fire crisis. As an east coast Senator, my heart goes out to those in the West.

Then when we look at NASA--we went to the memorial. We said: A grateful nation will never forget. We are going to get to the bottom of this. We are going to fly again.

I hope we do. Hats off and salutes to the commission being led by Admiral Gayman. It is thorough, it is rigorous, it is leaving no stone unturned. We are going to get great results. But they need the money to finish the commission. And where will they get the money? Go back to NASA, take it out of the shuttle? Take it out of space science? It is a slap in the face for the families of those astronauts we promised we would get to the bottom of this. We have a great commission with an outstanding leader, and we should put the money in the Federal checkbook.

Then when we talk about AmeriCorps, 20,000 volunteers will lose their slots within a matter of days. Why? Because the mismanagement at headquarters overenrolled by 20,000 volunteers. We have discussed this. Why punish the volunteers and the community for headquarters? Headquarters is not going to lose their jobs, though I did call for new leadership, and the President has responded. Senator Bond is the one who has been a champion of fiscal reform. He has stood sentry over the issues related to AmeriCorps. The House was silent on it. And the uncovering of the debacle occurred in the Senate under Senator Bond's leadership with my assistance. The reform effort was led by Senator Bond for fiscal accountability and greater transparency, again with our assistance, on a bipartisan basis.

When we put $100 million in the committee, there was a vote on the Senate floor to take it out. Seventy-one Senators voted to keep it in. We have been working in such a bipartisan way. I am so agitated about what is going on in the House. We have had bipartisan cooperation to deal with the urgent supplemental. We have had bipartisan support to deal with the issues. We have conducted ourselves in a way that I thought was civilized and constructive.

I recall the evening where the junior Senator from Alabama rose and said he was going to oppose the $100 million. He had a markup on asbestos. We accommodated each other so the Senator could offer his debate; I could offer my rebuttal. The Senator wanted to return to the asbestos markup. We were crisp. We were cogent. We were civilized. We were collegial. We each had our day. Then the Senate, the next day, had a vote.

How unlike the House. They can't even offer an amendment. Then they didn't even have the backbone to face us in conference.

I don't know how they are going to go back and face their constituents with the fact that they have short-funded FEMA. They have taken out the wildfire money, which I cannot understand. Why punish the West that has been hit by drought, hit by wildfires, and hit by a budget crisis? I don't think Americans should do this to other Americans.

I have spoken about the NASA commission. When it comes to the AmeriCorps volunteers, let me tell you what is going to happen if we don't do this. On August 1, Wendy Kopp, one of the true leaders of America, is going to tell several thousand volunteers ready to go into classrooms: The U.S. Congress didn't think you were important enough or valued enough to put in the grant funds for you to go into those classrooms, authorize the working in PAL programs, literacy programs, all of the education stuff that needs to start in September. We didn't think it was urgent enough. We wanted to have a temper tantrum over a bureaucratic snafu, so we are not going to punish the bureaucrats. We are going to punish the volunteers. We are going to punish the programs that help on education, and we are going to punish our children.

I know one volunteer in education who came to Baltimore. And he went into a very tough school under Teach America. When he came in, the reading levels were 23 percent. When he walked out, after he had finished his AmeriCorps commitment, those kids were reading in the 71st percentile, a 50-percent improvement. That young man changed those kids' lives, but those kids changed that young man's life. He is now a regular teacher in the Baltimore City school system. This is what this is all about. This isn't rich kids singing ``Kumbaya.'' These are kids trying to earn a voucher to pay for the high cost of tuition, give practical experience to America. They help our communities, and then in turn the communities have a great impact on them. It is a modest public investment.

There was a bureaucratic snafu. It has been corrected thanks to the leadership of Senator Bond, with the cooperation of this side of the aisle. Why should we punish 20,000 volunteers who are already to go in September and won't be able to go because of what the House is going to do this afternoon? Shame on you, House leadership, for not at least giving them the vote. Shame on you for not voting sooner and bringing this to conference.

I am very disappointed. I thought in America the majority ruled. There is a very small minority that is blocking this urgent supplemental, blocking following the rules of procedure of the Senate. This isn't about rules. This is

about people. It is about people who could be hit by a hurricane, people who are already hit by a wildfire, volunteers who are ready to roll into our classrooms. ``Ready to roll,'' I use those words deliberately.

A promise made should be a promise kept for the families who lost their loved ones in the Columbia disaster. I really object to their sending back a conference report without these items in it. When this is raised, if this comes back under this draconian circumstance, I will object to it being brought up. I think we ought to send back to the House the Senate bill, which we agreed upon with an overwhelming majority of 80 to 20.

I thank the Chair for his very kind attention. I thank Senator Stevens very much for his leadership on this issue, and the leadership provided by Senator Byrd, and for the collegiality in which we participated in our debate. My heart goes out to the Western Senators who are about to be nailed by this, and to the AmeriCorps volunteers. I think we need to stand up for America, and we ought to stand up for this urgent supplemental.

I yield the floor, but I will not yield my perspective on this supplemental.

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

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

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

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

I would like to give a copy to the chairman, just as a courtesy.

Mr. President, I rise to offer this amendment that is in support of our first responders. This amendment would provide an additional $150 million to the fire grant program for firefighter equipment and firefighting training.

What would the Mikulski-Dodd amendment do? Well, first, it would provide protective gear for 150,000 firefighters. It would buy 500 new fire trucks, 300 new rescue vehicles, and 25,000 new breathing masks. But this is not about protective gear and fire trucks. It is about saving lives.

When we talk about homeland security and when we talk about protecting our firefighters so they can protect us, this money is about protecting them. It is so our firefighters are prepared for any attack. It offers double value for the taxpayer, whether it is a terrorist attack or whether we are hit by a tornado.

When these events occur in our community, firefighters are always the first on the scene. We all remember that horrific and melancholy day of September 11 with planes crashing into the World Trade Center and a plane crashing into the Pentagon. It was the Chevy Chase Fire and Rescue Squad, Rescue One, that rushed to the Pentagon from Maryland as part of a doctrine of mutual aid. It was the LaPlata Fire Department that was the first to respond to a deadly tornado last year. It was the Baltimore Fire Department that rushed into a smoldering tunnel fire that cut off train traffic on the east coast. When they went down into that hell hole fuming with toxic chemicals, they did not know if a terrorist had caused it or it was an accident. All they knew was they had to respond in the name of duty.

Well, it is our duty to make sure they have the right equipment and the right gear to protect us. We know they have the right stuff, but they need the right stuff to protect themselves.

This is not something Barbara Mikulski has just concluded. The Council on Foreign Relations recently issued a bipartisan, independent report. It was led by Senator Rudman. Actually, it was not bipartisan. The Council on Foreign Relations does not have parties.

What were their findings? They were absolutely chilling. The report found that the United States remains dangerously ill-prepared to handle a catastrophic attack on American soil. Specifically, it means this, and this is what they found: Fire departments across the country only have radios to equip 50 percent of the firefighters on a shift.

Imagine this: People running up to the World Trade Center responding to a towering inferno. The firefighters will only have 50 percent of the radios they need.

When they go into these situations where there are toxic chemicals like in the Baltimore Tunnel, or whether they are running into a building where they do not even know what is in it--asbestos burning, PCBs burning, the building burning--there is only breathing apparatus for one-third, and only 10 percent of the fire departments in America have the personnel and equipment to respond to a building collapse.

What do terrorists do? They blow up buildings and they blow up people. We have to make sure that when our first responders are there, they have what they need.

We did a survey in Maryland, working with our State fire agency. We need $52 million to provide protective equipment for firefighters in my State. Yet my State is facing a budget deficit of over $1 billion. Services are being cut, tuitions are being increased, and we ask our State and local governments to take on more.

Every time our Nation goes to code orange, our communities go to code red. Since September 11, my city of Baltimore has spent over $16 million on homeland security, including $1.3 million for extra personnel and equipment for our fire departments. In Baltimore, the recent heightened alerts have cost Baltimore City $750,000 in overtime. Maryland cannot bear this burden alone. Because it is a national threat, we have to make sure there are national resources to secure the homeland to provide not only homeland security but hometown security.

There are over 1 million firefighters in the United States of America; 750,000 are volunteers. They are true heroes. They save lives. They save homes. They save communities. We need to make sure we save them. That is what protective gear is all about.

Every day when they are on duty, they do not know what they will face. They might enter a house to save a child trapped on the second floor. They might put out the flames of a building consumed by toxic chemicals. Many of our volunteers work three shifts: Their regular jobs, their families, and at the fire station.

For the help they need, we cannot do this on tip jars, bingo, or charity. They need to be able to have their Government on their side.

It costs over $6,000 to staff a firefighter in something they call bunker gear. Bunker gear means what they need in terms of the protective suits they wear, the breathing apparatus, the special gloves that will snatch a person out, the boots they wear that are fire retardant and fire resistant. That is an awful lot in resources for local communities to bear, and they have to be ready, particularly in high-risk areas, to be able to do this.

Last year, there were close to 20,000 applications for fire grants, and I compliment the Senator from Mississippi, the chairman of the subcommittee, as well as Senator Byrd, for keeping the fire grant program as a freestanding program. My $150 million amendment that I am offering with Senator Dodd really goes to the fire grant program. Last year, there were close to 20,000 applicants with over $2 billion worth of requests. The fire grant program, on a merit based, peer review, no pork, no partisan basis could have spent $2.5 billion. What our money does is restore to the $900 million authorizing level.

After September 11 we did a lot. We said we will express our gratitude; a grateful nation will never forget our first responders. In the first place, we should not forget it is in the Federal checkbook. I know the chairman and the ranking member did everything they could to fully fund this program. I compliment them on their efforts. But it would take another $150 million to reach the authorized level.

The fire grant program needs to be expanded. When we look at what we could do in our State, we have a fire department in Anne Arundel County. This county includes the National Security Agency, the capital of the State

of Maryland, the U.S. Naval Academy, and the Baltimore-Washington Airport. Don't they need help for their first responders?

Then there is the Chevy Chase Fire Department. We think of Chevy Chase as an affluent community but they cannot raise these funds from property taxes, fish fries, and bingo. We need help. Maryland needs help because we are in a high-risk area.

I rise not only for my State. I rise for the Nation. We are not prepared. The facts speak for themselves. Our esteemed colleague, Senator Rudman, said 50 percent of the fire departments do not have radios; only one-third have breathing apparatus equipment. They need their bunker gear. That is what it is called. The cost is $6,000 each. Imagine what a public investment means. We give them the right gear. They have the right stuff. They should be able to count on us to do this. We need this amendment.

I welcome the fact that my colleague, Senator Dodd, is also a cosponsor. He authorized the fire grant program as the appropriator. We have worked to keep it going. Now it is in Homeland Security.

This is not about process, about who did what. It is about what our first responders do. We count on them to save our lives. They should count on us to make sure they have the right equipment to save their own while they are saving ours.

I yield the floor for my colleague.

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

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

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

Mr. President, I want everyone to understand what this amendment is. It is $150 million. That is what it is.

We want to acknowledge, first, our appreciation to the chairman of the Subcommittee on Homeland Security and the ranking member for keeping the fire grant program separate so that whatever funds come forth don't get meshed into one group called homeland security.

The second thing we appreciate, given the frugal allocation of the subcommittee, is they did fund it at $750 million. That was very much appreciated. At the same time, we note that the authorization is for $900 million. The Mikulski-Dodd-Byrd amendment says $150 million more over what the committee has allocated.

What is $150 million worth? What would we have said on September 12? Would we have hung our heads in shame because we didn't add $150 million?

I think about the Baltimore tunnel fire when we didn't know what caused it. We knew firefighters had to go down in the dark 6 feet through a manhole cover, then over a 4-foot platform, then down another 8 or 10 feet in the total darkness with toxicity and fire.

Was that worth $150 million, not for them alone, but that they would have the breathing apparatus, the telecommunications if they got into trouble while they were figuring out the situation? We didn't know if Baltimore was going to explode. We didn't know if a toxic cloud was going to go over my city. But I know a group of very gallant, very brave, very selfless people were willing to go down into that dark inferno. I don't want to ever say to somebody: We couldn't come up with another $150 million to help you out.

Then let's go to the Rudman report. Now, we remember our dear colleague from New Hampshire. He is a very frugal guy. I remember Gramm-Rudman, Mr. Balanced Budget. So if he says we need money, we really must need it because he is a tight-fisted, somewhat penny- pinching, very conservative on the fiscal spending kind of person. So if Warren Rudman says America needs more resources for homeland security, and he particularly places emphasis on the emergency responders, then I think we ought to listen. What he is saying is, it is an emergency to provide emergency help to the emergency responders.

He starts his report by saying: If we knew that there was going to be another terrorist attack sometime in the next 5 years but didn't know what type it would be, who would carry it out, or where it would occur, what actions would we take to prepare, and how would we allocate our human and financial resources?

This is not philosophy. This is a practical approach for the United States of America.

So I appreciate everything the chairman has done, and the ranking member, who himself is now supporting this amendment. We are now shackled by our own allocation. But we do not have to be shackled. We have the parliamentary authority to waive that Budget Act that has us so constrained. And here is Warren Rudman, Mr. Balanced Budget, saying we need more resources.

So I think the Congress and this Senate can vote to waive the Budget Act for $150 million to protect the protectors. The emergency responders are drastically underfunded. They are dangerously unprepared not because they want to be unprepared but because there needs to be the resources. I think we need to put the resources in the Federal checkbook.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I am proud to cosponsor this amendment to make sure that competitions between civilian Defense Department employees and private companies are fair. The Department of Defense has stacked the deck against Federal employees. The administration is seeking to privatize much of the Federal workforce--to replace dedicated Federal workers with cronyism and patronage.

The Kennedy amendment does not stop privatization. Yet it ensures that competitions between civilian Defense Department employees and private companies are fair. It puts Federal employees on an equal footing with private contractors. It says that you cannot win competitions for Federal jobs by denying health care benefits to your employees. It makes sure privatization does not come at the expense of health benefits for employees. Government contracts should not be won by denying health benefits to hard-working Americans.

The Office of Management and Budget has issued a directive calling for bounty hunters in Federal agencies to privatize 850,000 jobs over the next 3 years. That is nearly half of the Federal workforce. To speed up the process, the Bush administration changed the rules for public/private competitions. The new rules stacked the deck against employees, and made it harder for them to compete for their own jobs. It created streamlined competitions that are not even based on cost savings. The employees cannot even submit their own lowest bid. These new rules are unfair and inefficient. They will likely end up costing more to American taxpayers.

I stand up for an independent Federal workforce. We should not replace good Government jobs with bad private sector jobs. A company should not be able to win a bid because it saves money by denying health care benefits for their employees. Privatization should not come on the backs of the employees. Our economy is in trouble. Health care costs are rising--and millions of Americans lack any health insurance. Why does this administration want to make this problem even worse?

Our democracy depends on a strong civil service. We need a civil service in this country that is independent, reliable, and free of cronyism and political patronage. We are trying to spread democracy to Iraq and to nurture new democracies around the world. Yet right here at home, there are some who want to get rid of a pillar of democracy--our independent Federal workforce.

As a Senator from Maryland, I am so proud to serve over 100,000 Federal employees. I wish you could meet them the way I do--on the job and at the supermarket. I represent people who are Nobel Prize winners at the National Institutes of Health and the National Institute of Standards and Technology. I represent FBI agents. I represent the National Security Agency, and the faculty of the U.S. Naval Academy.

I know what Federal employees do. They work hard every day. They did not get their jobs because they volunteered on someone's campaign. The civilian employees at the Defense Department work hard to support our troops and to protect our Nation. They are committed to securing the homeland, and to making sure our soldiers are ready to protect us.

If we are going to contract out Defense Department work, we need to be very careful. It is a matter of national security. It is a matter of homeland security. America's military bases and facilities are all potential terrorist targets. Those who work there must be trusted and carefully screened. Yet the Department of Defense wants to get rid of trusted employees who have served our Nation for years--and replace with who knows what. What would happen if the private company changed ownership, or is bought by a foreign company? What safeguards are there to protect our military and our military infrastructure?

That is why I am cosponsoring the Kennedy amendment. This amendment simply calls for civilian Defense Department employees to be treated fairly when they are competing for their own jobs. Federal employees' jobs are on the line. The independence of our Federal workforce is on the line. At the very least, the competition should be fair. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

I thank the Chair.

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

Mr. President, how much time is remaining?

I claim such time for myself.

Mr. President, I rise today to address the situation in Iraq. Right now, America is bearing the primary burden in Iraq. Almost every day another soldier dies--not in combat but in postwar occupation. Our American soldiers must not bear this burden alone. Quite frankly, the American taxpayer must not bear responsibility for the cost of nation building alone.

I urge our President, President Bush, to build an international effort to participate in sharing the burden and the responsibility of bringing order out of chaos in Iraq.

The occupation of Iraq is something we all have to face up to. Last year, when the Senate debated the Iraq war resolution, I said this: We do not know whether our troops will be welcomed with flags or with land mines.

Now we know. Our troops are facing great and grave danger. They are facing snipers, ambush. One soldier was shot in the back as he waited to buy a soda. Another was standing in line to buy DVDs, and he was shot in the back. This is not combat with an opposing army. These are murders, these are assassinations, and we need to stand up for our troops and give them the help and the backing they need.

We need to stand up for these troops who are so dedicated, so duty driven, so wanting to do the job that America sends them to do, but they should not bear this all by themselves, with a few treasured allies.

Since the President declared the end of hostilities, 82 soldiers have died. Our troops in Iraq are not peacekeepers or nation builders. There is no peace to keep and there is no nation to build. We have to start from scratch. America's troops now are an occupying force, and they continue to face very fierce resistance in parts of Iraq. In some areas, it is guerilla war with house to house fighting with members of the Saddam Fedayeen or other groups still loyal to Saddam Hussein trying to kill them. They are trying to ambush our military convoys.

Our forces are seeking to establish order and security. Yet they are very highly visible, whether they are guarding facilities such as power stations or delivering supplies or training the Iraqi police force. This puts them at grave risk. American soldiers must not face this danger all alone.

About 148,000 American soldiers are still serving in Iraq, and we salute them. There are over 13,000 troops from the United Kingdom, Australia, Poland, and other countries, and we thank them for being there. Many Marylanders are serving there, including members of our National Guard and Reserves, and I stand up for them to make sure they get the backup they need and they can return home from their deployment.

America should not stand with just a coalition of the few. We need to have the international force of the many. This is why we need to go to the U.N. and ask for help. We need to go to NATO and get them involved, and we need to go to the world to help pay for the cost of doing this.

Occupying Iraq is not easy and it is not cheap. Rumsfeld has now doubled his estimates of the cost of occupying Iraq, from $2 billion a month to $4 billion a month. The Pentagon estimates that the total cost will be over $100 billion. The American taxpayers are bearing that responsibility, and they will bear that responsibility for some time to come. When we talk about responsibility, it should be the responsibility of the world to help rebuild the power stations while we are trying to work to create a new power structure.

Last week I supported a burden sharing amendment to the State Department authorization bill. Ninety-seven Senators agreed to that. Not one disputed it. What did it recommend? That the President ask NATO to raise a military force for deployment in postwar Iraq, and to urge NATO allies and other nations to provide troops and police to the coalition efforts in Iraq, and that the President should call on the United Nations to urge its member states to provide military forces and civilian police to promote stability and security in Iraq.

It also said go to the U.N. to ask for resources to rebuild and administer Iraq. Iraqi oil alone will not pay for this. We have to get these oil wells ready.

When the President asked for authorization to go to war, I said that if it is important enough to go to war, if it is important enough to the world to go to war, then the world should come with us.

We must bring the entire international community with us to

share responsibilities and the burden of stopping these

threats.

I saw the situation we are in coming. That is what I worried about, that American troops would be there by themselves, with a few steadfast allies, and the American taxpayer would be the one facing this nation building. That was my position then and it is still my position.

During the debate in the Senate, I urged the Senate to support the Levin amendment, which called for international legitimacy, for international cooperation, international support, including military and international resources, meaning real money. I spoke on the Senate floor about the threat of Saddam Hussein, and I spoke about the threats to our troops. I said then that I firmly believed Saddam Hussein was duplicitous, deceptive, and dangerous and that they had grim and goulish means to carry out their weapons plans. I did believe that they could develop, produce, and stockpile chemical and biological weapons, and I did believe that they had the means for delivering them in the region. Whether the information I was given in all my briefings was valid or not is something to probe in another forum. We are committed to doing that.

Right now, we need to acknowledge Saddam threatened not only the United States, he threatened the region and he threatened the world. Now the region and the world have to get into this. It is not too late. President Bush should mount a new diplomatic effort, recruiting allies to share these burdens of occupying Iraq and to root out the remaining resistance. We have to go to the U.N. and NATO to get formal authorization, get international help for this rebuilding. This is an opportunity to reach out, even to countries that opposed the war, such as France and Germany, and get them involved.

I hope we can answer this call before the Iraqi resistance fight grows, before more American soldiers die, without sending more troops into Iraq by getting our allies to join. If our allies join, they can help provide the troops, they can help provide the police, and they can help provide the money.

To our troops--regular, reserve, and their families--I say thanks. Thanks for helping get rid of Saddam Hussein and his regime. They were international thugs. They have made tremendous sacrifices. Each and every member of our military is part of this American family. We thank them for their bravery, their fortitude, and their gallantry. They answered the call to duty. I salute every single member of our Armed Forces.

I express my condolences to all Marylanders who lost their lives and paid the ultimate sacrifice. Captain Rippitoe, CPL Mark Evnin, SGT Kendall Waters Bey, PFC Juan Guadalupe, SP George Mitchell, and CPL Jason Mileo. I honor these men and their families, all the Marylanders wounded, and every American soldier right now either in Baghdad or in a hospital recovering.

Our troops know we count on them. They have to count on us to get them the help they need, not only with the right resources for our military but to get more military from other nations to support them. The international community was divided over whether to go to war in Iraq. Now the world should unite in support of winning the peace our American men and women have fought so hard to win and for which they have given so many sacrifices.

I yield the floor.

I thank the Senator.

I rise in vigorous opposition to the Sessions amendment and urge my colleagues to vote against it.

I offered the amendment in the Appropriations Committee to add $100 million for AmeriCorps in this urgent supplemental. It has strong bipartisan support. Senators Stevens, Byrd, Bond, and many others support my amendment. But it is not about supporting my amendment. It is about supporting AmeriCorps at this very troubled time.

If we do not do this $100 million, there will be a cut of over 15,000 AmeriCorps volunteers right this minute. These cuts are being announced today.

How did this happen? There was a bureaucratic boondoggle. There was a bureaucratic snafu. They overenrolled 20,000 volunteers. Every year, the VA-HUD subcommittee funds 50,000 volunteers. But they overenrolled with 70,000. How did we know about it? Senator Bond chaired the subcommittee leading the fight for reform in fiscal responsibility, and uncovered it at the April 15 hearing. The House put out a press release. We put out performance. We found the mistake.

We worked on a bipartisan basis to correct the accounting. I called for new leadership. But that is not a substitute for the need for new funds.

This is an emergency today. Who are we going to punish, if we don't do the money? Not the bureaucracy, not the boondogglers, but the volunteers in our communities.

There is a question about why now. The law says funding for volunteers and the awards that help them pay off their student debt must be in the Federal checkbook when the volunteers begin their service. For many of them, they are going to begin their service now because they are going to be in school-based programs. Teach America, for example--which we all love--if this is not in there, 1,000 Teach America kids will not be in classrooms; and Jump Start, which works with Head Start and organizes and leverages other volunteers. When we look at what we are doing here, we need to know that if AmeriCorps does not get this funding now they will not be able to sign up volunteers right this minute for these programs.

This is to get AmeriCorps over the troubled waters. The President has announced a new CEO. Senator Bond has led the effort for a new chief financial officer. He has been the leader of the reform effort, and has had my utmost support.

We can't wait until next year. If we do, we are going to squander volunteer opportunities. The President has called for a new spirit of voluntarism. Young people have responded. We need to respond to the call to meet our responsibility and not punish these communities.

I yield the floor.

First to the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, will I have time tomorrow morning?

Of course, I first of all thank our colleague from Alabama for offering this amendment earlier this evening. I would like about 3 minutes.

But I want to make sure my reform-minded colleague, Senator Bond, can speak.

I understand my colleague from Alabama, who offered this amendment, is in an armed services conference. I say to the Senator I appreciate the demands on his time. I will say some things and have a more elaborate statement, but I thank the Senator for leaving the conference and I thank the Senator for offering this amendment earlier in the evening.

I state to the Senator from Alabama some facts. First of all, the reason this is being declared an emergency is that if this $100 million is not in this appropriation, 20,000 volunteers will lose their slots. I want to speak about the debacle and the bureaucratic boondoggle at the national corporation.

I say to my colleague from Alabama, he is absolutely right, but what he should know is that the VA-HUD subcommittee chaired by Senator Bond has been in the forefront of reform. I say to our colleague that our April 15 hearing was when we found out that AmeriCorps, National Corporation, had enrolled 70,000 volunteers when we had given them money for 50,000 volunteers. I want the Senator to know that we went ballistic. Also, the Senator should know we called the board the Enron corporation of nonprofits. I later wrote to the President asking for more money, a better board and the resignation of Mr. Lenkowsky.

The criticisms are there, but when you talk about the need for accounting reform and transparency and all of the excellent things, the Senator should know that our colleague, Senator Bond from Missouri, chairman of the committee, has been a leader in shaking up the agency and I have been his very able partner. We have insisted on a new CFO. We have insisted on better procedures. We have been doing this, and I might add, we were doing it, sir, when the House wasn't paying one bit of attention.

It was our oversight hearing that found under this rock were a lot of other rocks, and under those rocks were worms.

We know that. We agree with that. What we do not want to do, though, is punish these volunteers and the communities they serve because of the overenrollment. In all honesty, what you should know is that if this supplemental does not occur, 20,000 volunteers will lose their slots, like in Teach America. There will be 395 in my State. I am sure my colleague will see them in his State.

So while we want to really throttle the bureaucracy--throttle the bureaucracy--we do not want to punish the volunteers and the communities we serve.

We are at a pivotal point--actually a crisis point. So that is why this is in the supplemental. The Senator is well within his rights to raise some of the questions he does. But from the standpoint of the communities and these 20,000 volunteers, this is a pivotal point.

I could go on and tell you about the merits of AmeriCorps. I will not keep you. I will have more things printed in the Record. I am very mindful of your time.

But I wanted to say to my colleague from Alabama, his call for reform? We issued it even years ago. We have really been pressing. Actually, I think with this new CFO, you would like him very much.

But I really have to defend Senator Bond's efforts in moving for administrative reform. I want to say these administrative problems also predate President Bush's time. I do not know if the Senator would like to comment on that. My next set of remarks will be about AmeriCorps and the consequences of this. But I wanted to share those facts with the Senator.

Mr. President, I would say on a bipartisan basis we were working for very strong administrative management and fiscal reform. We have worked. It was our committee that uncovered this fiasco in April. We have been, since, working with OMB on management improvement as well as accounting flexibility to get them over the hump. Remember, it is volunteers who will be penalized. It will be volunteers and communities that will be penalized, not the bureaucracy. The bureaucracy gets to keep their jobs. They get to move papers around. It is the volunteers who are going to be punished.

So we have a difference of opinion about how you can get reform. But we did move in accounting flexibility, when this Senate passed it 100 to nothing. We did it in 1 day, the House the next day. The President was able to sign it. But flexibility without funds was a hollow victory. So we need the $100 million to cover the rest of the quarter so these 20,000 volunteers do not lose their slots.

That is why this is in this supplemental. It was our original intent, Senator Kennedy and I were going to offer this amendment on the floor. But we understood there was sympathy for our position at the White House no commitments, no guarantees, but sympathy. I must say, the President, in his State of the Union, called for a spirit of voluntarism. The outpouring has been tremendous. What happened was they ended up overenrolling. But we are now going to snuff out the spirit of America, snuff out the call to service the President himself requested. We are going to trample on the very ideals these young people want to bring to their communities.

We cannot trample on their idealism. We should not snuff out this opportunity because there is a bureaucratic boondoggle. The ``boon'' ought to go to the ``dogglers,'' not to the volunteers.

So we believe this modest amount of money, in the overall trillion dollar budget, would be a bridge to get AmeriCorps over troubled waters and would ensure these volunteers would have their jobs.

In Maryland, 395 volunteers would be cut from civic work which remodels and rehabilitates homes, tutors kids, works in a variety of ways in these very poor neighborhoods. I personally know what they have done to rehabilitate boarded-up houses.

The Baltimore Reads program, the Teach America program--I could list them. But it is not about programs; it is about people helping.

I am going to tell you the story of a young man named Mark who was an AmeriCorps volunteer who came to Baltimore and went into one of our poor schools where kids were performing at the 25th percentile. When he left after his 3-year stint, they were performing at the 70th percentile. And, because of the voucher he had earned, he was able to pay down his student debt and therefore be free to get a master's in teaching, and he is now a full-time teacher in Baltimore schools because he so loved what he had come to, the sense of accomplishment that had come from being a volunteer in Teach America.

We believe this is $100 million in an emergency supplemental that will help these volunteers do what they want. They will answer the call for service of our own President. The communities and the volunteers will not be punished for bureaucratic mismanagement. We have worked on reform. The reform efforts have been a bipartisan effort. The leadership for greater accountability has been led by our colleague from Missouri and we think we have real momentum now. The White House is

watching over this program. The board is now engaged. I believe a new CEO is on the way. We have the right CFO to help us with the financing accountability. There needs to be this bridge to get these 20,000 volunteers over the troubled waters. This is why I believe it should stay in the supplemental and I hope the majority of the Senate would concur with that.

To the Senator? Of course.

I see what the Senator is saying: ``To remain available until.'' That means if for some reason they don't use this, it would expire. That doesn't mean it begins in 2004. It means that it will be available through 2004.

Let me doublecheck this. We have a little disagreement. I will be right here.

Madam President, I rise to state for the record my strong support of Senator Harkin's amendment to the Medicare prescription drug bill (S. 1) to increase Medicare reimbursement for mammorgrams. I am a proud cosponsor of this amendment. I am pleased that Senator Grassley and Senator Baucus agreed to include it in the Medicare prescription drug legislation that passed the Senate earlier today. Americans must have access to mammography because it is an important tool to screen and detect breast cancer.

It is vital for Medicare beneficiaries to have access to mammography. A woman's risk of having breast cancer increases with age. A woman's chance of getting breast cancer is 1 out of 2,212 by age 30. This increases to 1 out of 23 by age 60 and 1 out of 10 by age 80. More than 85 percent of breast cancers occur in women over the age of 50. There will be 70 million Americans aged 65 and over in 2030. At the same time about 700 mammography facilities have closed nationwide over the last 2 years. Adequate reimbursement is essential to help ensure that women have access to this important screening tool. This amendment will increase Medicare reimbursement for mammograms. This amendment is also an important step to help radiologists enter and remain in the field of mammography by providing more adequate reimbursement. Mammography is not perfect, but it is the best tool we have now.

I have long fought to ensure that Medicare beneficiaries have access to mammography. I cosponsored the Assure Access to Mammography Act, S. 869, that would increase Medicare reimbursement for mammograms. It would also increase the number of radiologists by increasing Medicare graduate medical education, GME, to provide three additional radiologists in each teaching hospital. In 1990, I introduced the Medicare Screening Mammography Amendments of 1990 to provide Medicare coverage of annual screening mammography. My legislation was included in the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990. Before that, Medicare did not cover routine annual screening mammograms. Additional legislation since then has expanded access to mammography for Medicare beneficiaries. I will continue to fight to ensure that women have access to quality mammography, and I urge that the final version of the Medicare prescription drug bill include provisions to increase Medicare reimbursement for mammograms.

Mr. President, senior citizens are facing a crisis--a crisis in affording health care and a crisis in affording prescription drugs.

I have been in communities all over Maryland. Listening to seniors who are desperate. Listening to their families in the diners--who want to help their parents, yet face stresses of their own. Listening to the employers in the boardrooms--who want to help their retirees, but can no longer afford to.

Here is what they tell me. They say: We need a prescription drug benefit in Medicare. We need a safety net for seniors and families. Congress must enact a Medicare prescription drug benefit, and must do it now.

I absolutely agree. It is time Congress made Medicare prescription drug coverage a national priority.

For so many years, Congress has talked about prescription drugs and Medicare. Talk, talk, talk. You can't talk yourself out of high cholesterol; you need Lipitor. You can't talk your way out of diabetes; you need insulin.

The problem with the Senate is--when all gets said and done--more gets said than gets done. Finally--the Congress is acting.

Here are my principles. These principles are the yardstick by which I measure any proposal.

The benefit must be for seniors, not for insurance companies. That means the cornerstone must be Medicare. This bill does that. It does not force seniors to give up the Medicare they love to get the drugs they need.

It must help the majority of Marylanders. I work for Marylanders. So I did the numbers--570,000 Marylanders are on Medicare. According to Johns Hopkins, 68 percent of these seniors would benefit from this legislation. That means 394,000 would benefit from this bill.

It must be voluntary. And the answer is, yes, this bill is voluntary. No one should be coerced or forced into a private program or forced to give up coverage they currently have.

It must be affordable. I am not so sure. I am concerned about the significant deductible--$275 a year and the hefty premiums--almost $400 a year. It also has a coverage gap. Once you spend $4,500 a year--you get no help until you spend $5,800. This will cost too much. That is why I supported the Durbin amendment, which would have provided a better benefit at less cost to seniors.

It must be accessible. It must be available to all seniors, regardless of where they live. This bill does that.

It must be meaningful. It must cover the kind of drugs your doctor says you need, not what an insurance executive thinks you should get. This bill does that by creating a medical necessity override. This means your doctor has the final say on which drugs you get, not an insurance company. I feel pretty good about that.

I tried to improve the bill. I voted for amendments to improve the bill. For example: For the Durbin substitute which would have created a stronger, more comprehensive benefit at a lower cost to seniors.

For an amendment to get rid of the coverage gap. This would guarantee that seniors would have continuous coverage for their prescription drug costs.

For an amendment to provide seniors with a guaranteed prescription plan that is under Medicare. This would allow seniors to stay in a prescription drug plan that is operated by Medicare and not have to move in and out of private plans and a Medicare fallback plan that is only available when the private plans leave the market.

For amendments to protect the benefits of retirees who already have drug coverage. These amendments would help employers to continue to be able to offer quality health care to their retirees.

For an amendment to implement the drug benefit next year--instead of waiting until 2006 to start these benefits.

I am sorry all these amendments failed on party line votes.

This legislation is a beginning. It is something we can build on. What it comes down to for me is--will it help the majority of seniors in Maryland? The answer is, yes; it will help over 394,000 people. For people who spend at least $1,110 a year on prescription drugs--it will help. For someone who is facing a catastrophic disease like cancer and has very high drug costs--it will help. So I will vote for this bill. It is not the bill I want. Yet we can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. We can't do nothing--as seniors struggle to pay for the drugs they need.

But let me be very clear, this is as far as I will go. If this bill comes back from conference and it is a benefit for insurance companies--say goodbye to my vote. If it increases costs for seniors, say goodbye to my vote. If it cuts benefits, say goodbye to my vote.

So I will vote for this legislation tonight because I don't want to say goodbye to this opportunity to provide a Medicare prescription drug benefit for seniors.

Mr. President, I rise in strong support of amendment No. 994 from my colleague from Illinois, Senator Durbin. The MediSAVE amendment would provide a vastly superior Medicare prescription drug benefit to our seniors. But I am also disheartened. This is not the bill we are debating. I wish it were.

The MediSAVE amendment meets all of the principles I laid out for a Medicare prescription drug plan. In an earlier statement, I outlined the principles that I would use to grade any Medicare prescription drug plan. I think the MediSAVE plan gets an A. I commend Senator Durbin for his hard work on this plan.

I have five principles for a prescription drug benefit.

1. The cornerstone must be Medicare. I am opposed to the privatization of Medicare. Any prescription drug benefit that relies on the private sector must be in addition to, not in lieu of, traditional Medicare. Seniors must not be forced to leave the Medicare system they trust to get the prescription drugs they need.

2. Voluntary. No one should be coerced or forced into a private program or forced to give up coverage they currently have.

3. Affordable. The benefit must be affordable. That means a reasonable premium and copayment.

4. Universal and portable. The benefits must be available to all seniors, regardless of where they live. And all seniors must have the same benefit, and be able to take it anywhere they go.

5. Meaningful. The benefit must cover the drugs your doctor says you need--not what an insurance executive thinks you should get.

How would the MediSAVE plan benefit seniors?

MediSAVE would create a more meaningful benefit. It would have no deductible for drug coverage. It would have a guaranteed premium of $35 per month. Rather than having to pay 50 percent of their drug costs covered, under this plan seniors would have to pay 30 percent of those costs. That adds up to a big savings for seniors, many of whom live on a fixed income. MediSAVE would also take into account the amounts that employers contribute toward retirees' drug costs which will help millions of seniors keep the employer-sponsored health care they earned. But most importantly, MediSAVE would deliver the prescription drug benefit through the Medicare that seniors trust.

I believe the Durbin amendment is a great improvement over the bill we are debating. I urge all my colleagues in supporting this amendment.

Mr. President, I rise to join Senator Kyl in submitting a resolution calling for the immediate release of Dr. Yang Jianli. Dr. Yang Jianli. Dr. Yang is a democracy activist who has since been held incommunicado in China for more than a year. Dr. Yang is being held in violation of his human rights and international law. He should be freed now.

Dr. Yang Jianli is a scholar and important democracy activist in his home State of Massachusetts where he is founder and president of the Foundation for China in the 21st Century. Jianli is a permanent United States resident who continues to work for democracy in his native China.

Dr. Yang was taken into custody when he returned to China on April 26, 2002. He has been held incommunicado since then. His family in Massachusetts and Maryland are understandably concerned about his welfare.

The U.S. Department of State has called for China to release Dr. Yang. So has the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention. The Chinese government refuses to admit to detaining this man illegally. However, the U.N. Working Group on Arbitrary Detention says, ``The non-observance of Dr. Yang's right to a fair trial is of such gravity as to give his deprivation of liberty an arbitrary character. Therefore, his arrest and detention is arbitrary being in contravention of Article 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human rights and Article 9 of the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights.'' In other words, the Chinese government never bothered to charge Yang Jianli with a crime--they just locked him up and threw away the key.

We can assist by increasing the pressure of the Chinese government and support the U.N. petition on Dr. Yang's behalf. Being deprived of his basic human rights of access to legal counsel and contact with his wife and children is wrong. When China wanted most-favored-nation trade status, we heard a lot of lip service to human rights and democracy. Dr. Yang Jianli's case shows the true face of China's government. They locked him up because he wanted to speak out about democracy and human rights.

I strongly urge the Chinese government to respond to the continual requests for Yang's freedom by the United States government and human rights groups around the world. The House is taking up a similar resolution today. I hope that the Senate will act quickly to add our voices in calling for freedom for Yang Jianli.