Floor Statements

Mr. President, today, I rise to talk about an issue that is very important to me, very important to my constituents in Maryland and very important to the people of the United States of America.

For the fifth Congress in a row, I am joining in a bipartisan effort with my friend and colleague, Senator Olympia Snowe, to end an unfair policy of the Social Security System.

Senator Snowe and I are introducing the Social Security Family Protection Act. This bill addresses retirement security and family security. We want the middle class of this Nation to know that we are going to give help to those who practice self-help.

What is it I am talking about? I was shocked when I found out that Social Security does not pay benefits for the last month of life. If a Social Security retiree dies on the 18th of the month or even on the 30th of the month, the surviving spouse or family members must send back the Social Security check for that month.

I think that is a harsh and heartless rule. That individual worked for Social Security benefits, earned those benefits, and paid into the Social Security trust fund. The system should allow the surviving spouse or the estate of the family to use that Social Security check for the last month of life.

This legislation has an urgency. When a loved one dies, there are expenses that the family must take care of. People have called my office in tears. Very often it is a son or a daughter that is grieving the death of a parent. They are clearing up the paperwork for their mom or dad, and there is the Social Security check. And they say, ``Senator, the check says for the month of May. Mom died on May 28. Why do we have to send the Social Security check back? We have bills to pay. We have utility coverage that we need to wrap up, mom's rent, or her mortgage, or health expenses. Why is Social Security telling me, `Send the check back or we're going to come and get you'?''

With all the problems in our country today, we ought to be going after drug dealers and tax dodgers, not honest people who have paid into Social Security, and not the surviving spouse or the family who have been left with the bills for the last month of their loved one's life. They are absolutely right when they call me and say that Social Security was supposed to be there for them.

I've listened to my constituents and to the stories of their lives. What they say is this: ``Senator Mikulski, we don't want anything for free. But our family does want what our parents worked for. We do want what we feel we deserve and what has been paid for in the trust fund in our loved one's name. Please make sure that our family gets the Social Security check for the last month of our life.''

That is what our bill is going to do. That is why Senator Snowe and I are introducing the Family Social Security Protection Act. When we talk about retirement security, the most important part of that is income security. And the safety net for most Americans is Social Security.

We know that as Senators we have to make sure that Social Security remains solvent, and we are working to do that. We also don't want to create an undue administrative burden at the Social Security Administration--a burden that might affect today's retirees. But it is absolutely crucial that we provide a Social Security check for the last month of life.

How do we propose to do that? We have a very simple, straightforward way of dealing with this problem. Our legislation says that if you die before the 15th of the month, you will get a check for half the month. If you die after the 15th of the month, your surviving spouse or the family estate would get a check for the full month.

We think this bill is fundamentally fair. Senator Snowe and I are old-fashioned in our belief in family values. We believe you honor your father and your mother. We believe that it is not only a good religious and moral principle, but it is good public policy as well.

The way to honor your father and mother is to have a strong Social Security System and to make sure the system is fair in every way. That means fair for the retiree and fair for the

spouse and family. We strongly feel that the current system is an injustice to spouses and families across the Nation. Just because a beneficiary passes away, it does not mean that their bills can go unpaid. Join us to correct this policy and to ensure that families and recipients are protected during this difficult time. That is why we support making sure that the surviving spouse or family can keep the Social Security check for the last month of life.

We urge our colleagues to join us in this effort and support the Social Security Family Protection Act. I ask unanimous consent that the text of my bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to talk about an issue that is very important to me, very important to my constituents in Maryland and very important to government workers and retirees across the Nation. I am reintroducing a bill to modify a cruel rule of government that is unfair and prevents current workers from enjoying the benefits of their hard work during retirement. My bill has bipartisan support and the House companion bill

had nearly 300 cosponsors last year. With this strong bipartisan support, I hope that we can correct this cruel rule of government this year.

Under current law, a Social Security spousal benefit is reduced or entirely eliminated if the surviving spouse is eligible for a pension from a local, State or Federal Government job that was not covered by Social Security. This policy is known as the Government Pension Offset.

This is how the current law works. Consider a surviving spouse who retires from government service and receives a government pension of $600 a month. She also qualifies for a Social Security spousal benefit of $645 a month. Because of the Pension Offset law, which reduces her Social Security benefit by 2/3 of her government pension, her spousal benefit is reduced to $245 a month. So instead of $1245, she will receive only $845 a month. That is $400 a month less to pay the rent, purchase a prescription medication, or buy groceries. I think that is wrong.

My bill does not repeal the government pension offset entirely, but it will allow retirees to keep more of what they deserve. It guarantees that those subject to the offset can keep at least $1200 a month in combined retirement income. With my modification, the 2/3 offset would apply only to the combined benefit that exceeds $1200 a month. So, in the example above, the surviving spouse would face only a $30 offset, allowing her to keep $1215 in monthly income.

Unfortunately, the current law disproportionately affects women. Women are more likely to receive Social Security spousal benefits and to have worked in low-paying or short-term government positions while they were raising families. It is also true that women receive smaller government pensions because of their lower earnings, and rely on Social Security benefits to a greater degree. My modification will allow these women who have contributed years of important government service and family service to rely on a larger amount of retirement income.

The last time Congress passed a bill significantly effecting Social Security benefits was in 1999. At that time, the Senate unanimously voted for and passed H.R. 5, The Senior Citizens' Freedom to Work Act of 1999. This legislation ensured that senior citizens who choose to work or who must work can earn income after retirement without losing a portion of their Social Security benefit. That law helps senior citizens who earn above $17,000 per year. In contrast, my bill specifically targets those with much lower retirement incomes around $13,000 per year and less. I believe that we must work to ensure a safety net for all of our seniors--including those retired federal employees who every day are forced to make difficult choices between rent, food, and prescription drugs due to the drastic effects of the government pension offset.

Why do we punish people who have committed a significant portion of their lives to government service? We are talking about workers who provide some of the most important services to our community--teachers, firefighters, and many others. Some have already retired. Others are currently working and looking forward to a deserved retirement. These individuals deserve better than the reduced monthly benefits that the Pension Offset currently requires.

Government employees work hard in service to our nation, and I work hard for them. I do not want to see them penalized simply because they have chosen to work in the public sector, rather than for a private employer, and often at lower salaries and sometimes fewer benefits. If a retired worker in the private sector received a pension, and also received a spousal Social Security benefit, they would not be subject to the Offset. I think we should be looking for ways to reward government service, not the other way around. I believe that people who work hard and play by the rules should not be penalized by arcane, legislative technicalities.

Frankly, I would like to repeal the offset all together. But, I realize that budget considerations make that unlikely. As a compromise, I hope we can agree that retirees who have worked hard all their lives should not have this offset applied until their combined monthly benefit, both government pension and Social Security spousal benefit, exceeds $1,200.

I also strongly believe that we should ensure that retirees buying power keeps up with the cost of living. That's why I have also included a provision in this legislation to index the $1,200 amount to inflation so retirees will see their minimum benefits increase along with the cost of living.

The Social Security Administration recently estimated that enacting the provisions contained in my bill will have a minimal long-term impact on the Social Security Trust Fund--about 0.01 percent of taxable payroll. Additionally, my bill is bipartisan and is strongly supported by CARE, the Coalition to Assure Retirement Equity with 43 member organizations including the National Association of Retired Federal Employees, NARFE, the American Federation of Federal State County and Municipal Employees, AFSCME, the National Education Association, NEA, and the National Treasury Employees Union, NTEU.

I urge my colleagues to join me in this effort and support my legislation to modify the Government Pension Offset. I ask unanimous consent that the text of my bill be printed in the Record.

Mr President, I rise to speak today on the Columbia tragedy. On Saturday, February 1, our Nation suffered a tragic loss. The seven astronauts of the Space Shuttle Columbia gave their lives in service of their country and all mankind. These brave men and women displayed a dedication to duty and scientific exploration that is an inspiration to all of us. India and Israel share in our shock and grief. Israel lost a national hero, their nation's first astronaut, Colonel Ilan Ramon. My thoughts and prayers are with all the families. They should know that the United States Senate shares their sorrow and will remember and honor the lives of their loved ones.

The best way to honor these seven brave men and women is to move forward with the space program. But first, there needs to be a thorough, rigorous and candid investigation of what went wrong. The issues confronting us are immediate and severe. Three American astronauts remain in space. The two investigative committees must gather the evidence, conduct their analysis and report to the Congress and to the American people with candor so the shuttle program can move forward in the safest way possible.

In my years as chair of the Appropriations Subcommittee, and now as its ranking member, shuttle safety has been my top priority. But, shuttle safety and astronaut safety have also been the priority of the committee--on a bipartisan basis. When I first joined the committee, Senator Jake Garn of Utah--himself a former astronaut--was my mentor. We worked together using the findings of the Challenger and Augustine Commissions as blueprints for NASA's future. The Augustine report gave us guiding principles for a balanced space program. The Challenger report told us what we needed to do on safety. Now, with my friend and colleague, Senator Kit Bond, I share the same bipartisan spirit. We have common goals and common values. He believes, as I do, that safety must come first. Over the last few years, no matter which of us was chair and which was ranking, safety was the number one priority.

There has never been any question that we would fully fund the shuttle program and shuttle safety initiatives. Year after year, Senator Bond and I worked together to make sure everything that NASA asked for was put in the Federal checkbook. But, we went even farther than that. For the last two years, while I was chair, I wrote into the report language that NASA must make the safety of the shuttle program and the safety of our astronauts its highest priority. Last year, I said in the committee's report that NASA's budget must reflect its long-term challenges. I asked for a detailed assessment of the agency's needs and an accounting of what funding was needed.

The immediate need facing NASA is the Columbia investigation. This report addresses an immediate problem for which there are immediate and severe consequences. Then the long range issues must be addressed. What does NASA do about its aging infrastructure and aging workforce? How are we going to have a balanced 21st century space program that includes human flight, space science and aeronautics?

To conclude, I salute the men and women of Texas and Louisiana. The local law enforcement, national guard, regular men and women who live in these small towns--everyone is pitching in to find fragments of the Columbia, to guard them, to make sure every piece gets to the NASA investigators. People are opening their homes to volunteers, cooking and delivering meals. Thank you for everything you are doing. You represent the best of the American spirit. Like we have seen after other tragedies--the rescue workers and volunteers at ground zero--in the face of tragedy, America stands united.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Federal Employees Health Benefits Improvement Act of 2003 along with my colleague from Maryland, Senator Sarbanes. This bill would reduce the employee portion of premiums costs under the Federal Employee Health Benefits Plan.

Our Federal employees work hard for the American people and they deserve quality benefits.

Why is this legislation important?

Health insurance premiums for Federal employees and retirees rose an average of 11.2 percent this year. In contrast, Federal worker's wages are expected to rise by 4.1 percent in the Washington-Baltimore area once the fiscal year 2003 Omnibus Appropriations bill is approved. This follows a 13.3 percent increase last year, and an increase of 10.5 percent for 2001. As a result, premiums are nearly 50 percent greater than they were just 5 years ago.

The Federal program provides health insurance coverage to about 9 million government workers, retirees and family members. More than 800,000 of these workers live in the DC metro area.

Health insurance costs are skyrocketing, and Federal employees are paying a greater share of their take home pay for health care each year. Currently, Federal employees pay anywhere between 28 percent to 30 percent of premiums. In the private sector, other large employers pay at least 80 percent of premiums and employees pay 20 percent, according to recent data published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Kaiser Family Foundation.

How would this bill help solve this problem?

This bill would change the financing formula for Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, FEHBP. Under this approach, the federal agencies would pay 80 percent of the weighted average for premiums. This would help reduce the out-of-pocket health care costs for federal employees and improve the affordability of FEHBP immensely.

What would this mean to Federal employees?

My bill would help improve the affordability of health care insurance for all 9 million. Currently, about 250,000 federal employees do not have health insurance. Many of them cannot afford health care insurance at the current rates. My proposal would improve the affordability of health care insurance so that many of these workers would be able to afford coverage.

For example, under Blue Cross Blue Shield's Standard Option Plan, an individual would save almost $400, and a family would save about $925 this year.

Providing quality benefits for federal employees is also an important tool in helping recruit and retain a high quality workforce and compete with the private sector and other State and local governments.

This bill would have an enormous impact in my State, Maryland, but would also benefit Federal workers nationally. Under this proposal, the percent that a Federal employee pays in health insurance premiums would decline, putting more money into Federal employees pockets each pay period.

This bill improves benefits for our hardworking Federal Employees.

I urge my colleagues to join me in expressing support for this bill.

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

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

Mr. President, I say to the very cooperative Senator from Alaska, we have not been able to work out our amendment because of a disagreement with OMB. Our colleagues have been most collegial, but we have not been able to work it out. We have been able to work out the nurses amendment, but I do not believe we have been able to work out the civil service quota amendment.

I believe there is a unanimous consent.

I didn't hear the Senator.

Yes.

Parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: First, I recognize that the Senator has time. But I didn't know if we were going to alternate speakers. Does the Senator from Wyoming intend to use all of his 15 minutes and then turn it over to me?

I am sorry. I don't want to in any way deny the Senator from Ohio his right to speak. Usually one side makes an argument, and then the other replies, and then go back. Are we not doing that?

This discussion will be on my time. But usually when we have a time allocation we go back and forth. Is the Senator from Wyoming going to take all of his 15 minutes and then give me all of mine? Is that the way we are going to do it?

Mr. President, the Senator from Ohio has the right to speak, but it was not part of the agreement. I was just referring to the usual and customary behavior in the Senate.

No. We didn't.

When do I get my time? There are 15 minutes on each amendment?

Mr. President, I rise with vigor to unabashedly oppose the amendment of the Senator from Wyoming. The reason I do is that he reintroduces the words ``quota'' and ``target.''

The amendment of the Senator from Wyoming essentially says that a ``target'' or a ``goal'' is to be considered--``target, target, quota, quota.'' I thought we didn't like targets and quotas. I am surprised that the Senator from Wyoming is so enthusiastic about them.

Under the Thomas amendment, Federal managers will still be forced to meet arbitrary quotas for privatization without real criteria, rationales, or consideration. Under the Thomas amendment, the goal is to get a quota or a target--not better government.

Let us be very clear. My original amendment never did seek the end to privatization. Privatization must be based on thoughtful criteria as established by the Congress in the FAIR Act.

Let us privatize Federal jobs where appropriate, but let us keep a strong, independent Federal workforce.

I want to deal with the very valid issues raised by the Senator from Maine. I agree. I wanted to modify my amendment. I wanted to modify my amendment by adding what is now in the first paragraph in the Thomas amendment, which I agree to--that nothing in this section would prevent any agency of the executive branch from subjecting work performed by the Federal Government employees to be contracted out to public or private competition.

I wanted to do that this morning. The Senator from Wyoming would not agree to that modification. We went into a dialog. In the dialog, the Senator from Maine, again, offered a very constructive recommendation-- that nothing in this section would limit the use of such funds under the Government Performance Act.

I was willing to go with that. If we had agreed to that, we could have agreed to that modification this morning and Senators could be heading home tonight. But, no, OMB had to get into the act. They insisted that this paragraph say, unless there has to be a target or quota. Sure. They say based on research and sound analysis.

Let me tell you. When the fox is guarding the hen house, I don't care what accounting system they have. They are still going after targets and they are still going after quotas. That is why I object to the amendment of the Senator from Wyoming.

I would love to have agreed to the original two paragraphs that I think would have met the very valid concern of the other side.

I salute those on the other side who are reformers. But, no, we didn't go that route.

I am still opposing it. Anything with the word ``target'' in it and anything with the word ``quota'' in it. I am fighting today. I am fighting all night, if I have to. I will fight tomorrow, and I will fight on until the end of the 108th Congress.

I am not going to destroy the integrity of the civil service system with arbitrary quotas and with arbitrary and capricious targets. We are going to do this right. We are going to do it under the law. We are not going to turn Federal managers into bounty hunters.

How much time do I have?

Mr. President, I hope when we do another process such as this and enter into negotiations and when the negotiation is over we don't come back and offer something that had been rejected as an amendment.

I am disappointed that this amendment is being offered. That is politics. Everyone has a right to offer their amendments. I accept the offer of the Senator from Maine and the Senator from Ohio for the long haul and for discussion.

This is very serious. We do know we need a modernized civil service. We do know we need to reform. But we do not need targets and quotas where OMB has said itself, get rid of 127,000, 500,000 jobs this year. So 127,000 people? Who are we going to get rid of? Let's start with the Nobel prize winners at NIH. Who needs them? They can go off to the private sector. Good-bye. Who needs a Nobel prize winner for finding the cure for Alzheimer's? Maybe we could contract out Customs officers. Maybe we could go to rent-a-cop agencies.

Or what about those secretaries who keep the agencies going--like the one who went to my high school who has worked for the FBI for nearly 50 years in Baltimore, who has helped keep the FBI going, such as when the FBI was out trying to find the sniper who killed several Marylanders and people from Northern Virginia.

I don't know what is so hostile about Federal employees. If we want to save money in pensions, and if we want to save money in health care, that is another issue. But bounty hunters? No. Maybe bounty hunters are OK when you go after predators, but I don't think the Federal employees should be subjected to bounty hunters.

Guess who else is opposed to this amendment. Federal managers, because they say all they are going to be doing is paperwork to be able to justify this.

I could elaborate. Everybody knows I am opposed to the Thomas amendment because it is just a dressed-up version of going after quotas, which I tried to stop in the first place.

Mr. President, I know that it is getting late. I think we ought to have a vote on this. If I prevail, by defeating the Thomas amendment, we are done. If not, I am going to come back and have another say.

Mr. President, I yield all of my time back.

Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk, which is provided for under the unanimous consent agreement.

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

Mr. President, I believe we can move expeditiously along on this debate. Might I inquire from the Presiding Officer the amount of time we have to debate this amendment?

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, my amendment is the original amendment that I had pending this morning. It seeks to maintain the integrity of the civil service system by making sure that civil service is never subjected to bounty hunters looking to get rid of their jobs through arbitrary and capricious targets and quotas. It makes sure that the civil service never lapses into cronyism or political patronage.

My amendment prevents Federal agencies from establishing or applying arbitrary targets or quotas for the contracting out of Federal jobs.

I want to be clear that my amendment does not prohibit privatization. Privatization can continue to go forth as established by Congress in the FAIR Act of 1998. It allows contracting out. I don't object to that. What I object to is targets, quotas, and bounty hunters. Firstly, this is the smallest Federal workforce since the 1960s. Next, we are at war. We are fighting a war against terrorism. We also created a new agency called Homeland Security. Lastly, we are facing the largest number of potential retirees from civil service in over 30 years.

Don't we want a civil service? I am proud of the civil service. Members of my family have been part of the Federal civil service. My brother-in-law was a librarian, I have a sister who was a secretary, and I am a Senator. I believe if we are going to recruit and retain the people we need, we need to make sure we do not embark upon this arbitrary, capricious, hostile, and predatory behavior. That is not the way to govern. That is not the way to inspire. That is not the way to recruit, and it is certainly not the way to retain.

It is not that Barbara Mikulski is opposed to this; Federal managers are opposed to this amendment. They are concerned that they are going to be writing lots of justifications on how to retain jobs. They want to fight for America. They want to fight for or perform the missions of their agencies. We went from an era of patronage politics. Now we are embroiled in an atmosphere of partisan politics. I wish we could get back to performance-based politics, sound civil service, good reform, some of the ideas being proposed by the other side of the aisle, looking at what should be contracted out, which would maintain the mission of the agency, give value to the taxpayer but dignity to the Federal employee.

So what is wrong with that? I will tell you why the amendment is being opposed. What we want to be able to do is allow the privatization to occur under the laws that now exist.

The FAIR Act of 1998 and the 76-OMB circular that was established in the 1960s in the Kennedy-Johnson era is what I want.

My amendment simply prohibits the arbitrary and capricious contracting out by saying:

None of the funds made available in this act may be used by

an executive agency to establish, apply, or enforce numerical

targets or quotas.

That is all it says.

If you are for quotas, vote for this. If you are for targets, vote for this. If you are for arbitrary and capricious decisionmaking, go ahead and do it. Who is going to hire these people? Are we going to create new corporations?

What about all those guys who worked for Enron? Maybe they could get into ``let's hire a public employee and privatize.'' And all the guys from WorldCom, maybe when they get out on parole they could start a new agency to pick up these Federal employees.

I do not know for the life of me why we are so hostile to Federal employees. We have less of a workforce now, and we are asking them to fight for America; we are asking them to work for missions, the agencies. We took away their privileges in homeland security, and now we are going to take away their jobs.

I thank the Senator from Nevada for asking to be a cosponsor. I reserve such time as I may have.

Is the Senator yielding back all his time?

Excuse me?

Mr. President, I want to make a few quick points. First, my amendment, word for word, was voted for in the House of Representatives. I say to my friends on the other side of the aisle and to my very good friend, the Senator from Virginia, that this amendment was offered by two Congressmen from Virginia, Moran and Wolf. This amendment passed the House 261 to 166. Tom Davis, Jo Ann Davis, and Frank Wolf voted for this. I might also note that the Presiding Officer voted for it when he was in the House. So it had bipartisan support.

I wish we had that bipartisan support. I wish the people who voted for it in the House would vote for it now that they are in the Senate. That is No. 1.

No. 2, who would be contracted out? OMB has told the agencies, 127,500 people by the end of 2003. They are going to go for the largest numbers in the quickest way. It is going to be clerical. It is going to be support. It is going to be the mail. It is going to have a tremendous impact on people of color who have worked their way into Federal civil service.

If one reads the Federal Managers Magazine, they have said the VA has said it is going to have a tremendous impact, they fear, on their diversity. The same has also been said by other agencies.

Again, I am not looking for quotas in diversity anymore than I am looking for quotas in contracting out, but I want us to know who is going to be affected. It is not going to be that high-tech software engineer.

I believe that just as the Northern Virginia High Tech Council has offered great ideas and ingenuity through their members, so has Maryland. We understand that.

Let's look at NIH. Let's look at FDA. Who is going to be contracted out there? Is it really going to be the Nobel prize winner? No. It is going to be a lot of folks who do the thankless day to day work who are going to be contracted out.

Now, my colleagues also need to know, I fear for national security. In many of these agencies, it is going to be the blue-collar jobs, such as the electricians, the people who are the facility managers, and others.

Vote yes on Mikulski.

Mr. President, I wish to speak about an amendment that I have offered to get behind the nurses and patients in this country. My amendment would provide $20 million in this bill to fund programs created by last year's bipartisan Nurse Reinvestment Act to recruit and retain nurses. I'm pleased that my amendment has been accepted by the managers of this appropriations bill. I thank Senators Stevens, Byrd, Specter, and Harkin for working with me to include my amendment in the Senate fiscal year 2003 appropriations bill.

My amendment is a down payment. It has the support of 17 bipartisan cosponsors. The Nurse Reinvestment Act is an important bipartisan accomplishment from the last Congress. Republicans and Democrats came together to make this down payment to address the nursing shortage, a crisis that impacts patient care across the country. Now Congress must provide the funds to make these nurse recruitment and retention efforts a reality.

America is facing a nursing shortage and it will only get worse. Today, there are about 126,000 nurse vacancies in hospitals alone nationwide. This number does not even include the nurses needed in nursing homes, home health agencies, schools and other sites. In my home state of Maryland, about 15.6 percent of the nursing jobs are vacant in hospitals. More than 2,000 full-time nurses are desperately needed.

In 2000, there was a shortage of 110,000 registered nurses in this country. According to the Department of Health and Human Services, this number will: more than double by 2010 to 275,000; more than quadruple in 2015 to 507,000; and reach 808,000 in 2020.

The demand for nurses will increase as the 78 million baby boomers get older and start to need more health care. The nursing shortage comes at a time when nurses are being asked to do more: hospitals caring for more critically ill patients; nurses receiving small pox vaccinations and giving small pox vaccinations to patients; and the nurses in military reserves called into active duty.

Most importantly, this nursing shortage affects patient care. Nurses are on the front lines of health care everyday in hospitals, nursing homes, and home health agencies. A study published last year in the New England Journal of Medicine found that nursing shortages in hospitals are associated with a higher risk of complications and even death for patients.

Last year, Congress passed the bipartisan Nurse Reinvestment Act as a down payment to help recruit and retain nurses, a first step to help address the nursing shortage. This bill alone will not solve the nursing shortage. It does not address the fact that nurses are underpaid, overworked, and undervalued.

The Nurse Reinvestment Act does three things. First, it helps bring men and women into the nursing profession

by making nursing education more affordable. It provides scholarships and loan repayments in exchange for two years of service in areas that need nurses the most.

Second, the Nurse Reinvestment Act helps keep nurses in the profession by providing additional education and training opportunities and programs to empower nurses. It provides financial assistance to pursue advanced degrees and training such as fostering mentoring programs, internships and residencies, as well as specialized geriatric care training. It also supports programs to encourage collaboration with other health care professionals and promote nurse involvement in decision-making. Finally, it increases the number of faculty in nursing education programs by forgiving loans in exchange for a commitment to teach in a nursing school.

Last year, Congress put nursing recruitment and retention as a priority in our federal lawbooks. But this will be a hollow opportunity if Congress does not fund the Nurse Reinvestment Act this year. Congress must now put the Nurse Reinvestment Act as a priority in the federal checkbook. Funding the Nurse Reinvestment Act in 2003 has bipartisan support from 37 Senators. I also want to thank Senators Kennedy, Kerry, Jeffords, Clinton, Murray, Rockefeller, Corzine, Lieberman, Collins, Sarbanes, Lautenberg, Johnson, Biden, Cantwell, Smith, Roberts, and Landrieu for cosponsoring my amendment.

My amendment is endorsed by the American Nurses Association, American Association of Colleges of Nursing, National League for Nursing, Emergency Nurses Association, American Association of Community Colleges, American College of Nurse Practitioners, National Association of Pediatric Nurse Practitioners, Oncology Nursing Society, and the Maryland Nurses Association. Numerous other groups support funding the Nurse Reinvestment Act in 2003 including the American Hospital Association, American Health Care Association, and the Federation of American Hospitals. But most importantly, this amendment has the support of patients who want to have nurses when they need them. Patients across the country are depending on the Congress to help them.

This is my third nursing shortage as a United States Senator. I want to help find solutions so that it is the last nursing shortage. I thank my colleagues for their support. I strongly urge the House and Senate conferees on this bill to keep this $20 million to fund the Nurse Reinvestment Act in the conference report. Patients, nurses, and health care facilities across the country are depending on your support.

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

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

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

Mr. President, my amendment will prevent the arbitrary privatization of almost a million Federal workers. It prevents agencies from

establishing or applying or enforcing any numerical goal, target, or quota for the contracting out of Federal jobs either by public-private competitions or by directly converting jobs to the private sector.

I want to be very clear, I am not against privatization, but I believe the privatization should be based on thoughtful criteria, not arbitrary numerical quotas.

This administration has stated, in another arena, they are absolutely against quotas. So am I. But they seem to use quotas when it is convenient. I do not understand why OMB wants to use quotas to get rid of Federal employees. Let's not use quotas at all, whether it is to get into college or to get rid of Federal workers.

Right now, many people are thinking about how to reform the Federal workforce. Excellent thinking. Former Federal Reserve Chairman Volcker and Senator Voinovich--leaders in this area--have put a lot of work into this issue. What they are saying, loud and clear, is, we need to be able to recruit the best, we need to be able to retain the best, we need to be able to maintain the integrity of the civil service system and make sure it never lapses into cronyism or political patronage. I am for their approach.

Why am I offering this amendment? And why would that go against the thinking I have just talked about? Because the Office of Management and Budget has issued a directive calling for bounty hunters in Federal agencies to get rid of 850,000 jobs over the next 3 years. That is nearly half of the Federal workforce. No agency would be immune from these cuts. And, more importantly, there is no criteria for the cuts. Managers will be forced to meet arbitrary targets, sometimes against their will or even their better judgment--without careful criteria, without rationale, without guidelines; and without considering: Would privatization of these jobs affect national security? Is it cost- effective for the taxpayer? What is its impact on the mission of each agency? And what would arbitrary, cavalier, swashbuckling privatization mean?

I think it is a dangerous trend with our Federal employees. Look at the Customs Service. Recently, they were made part of the Homeland Security Department. Their top priority should be protecting our borders and our ports, like stopping the millennium bomber. They should be searching for terrorists instead of wasting their time searching for private companies to do part of their job.

Next let's look at DOD. We may be going to war. Yet the Army would have to contract out as many as 200,000 jobs. Transferring these jobs to the private sector could seriously erode morale and readiness. While the military is fighting a war against terrorism, and maybe even a war in Iraq, let's not have a war within the Pentagon over who gets to keep their job.

Who are the kinds of people I am talking about? I am thinking about a secretary at the FBI in the Baltimore field office who has worked there for close to 50 years. During the terrible sniper case that gripped our whole Capital region, the FBI was on the job with our local law enforcement, along with the BATF, and it was the people in the back office keeping the agency support.

What are we going to say to that secretary who has worked with field officers, who has helped keep the FBI going for over 48 years and went to the same high school I went to and, by the way, Congresswoman Pelosi? Hello. Thank you very much. You are part of a quota. You are going to be replaced by a Kelly Girl. There is nothing wrong with Kelly Girls, but there is nothing wrong with a dedicated secretary who stuck with the FBI for 50 years so they could be effective and out there on the job protecting us.

So I am not seeking an end to privatization, but I think we should follow the FAIR Act. I think we should follow OMB's A-76 circular on these kinds of things.

Privatization is a code word to go after Federal employees. I do not know why OMB wants to do this. There is even a question of whether it will save money.

First of all, we have now the smallest Federal workforce since the 1960s. Also, at the same time, we know, from Federal managers themselves, that they are really nervous about this OMB directive because they think it will, first, undermine morale; and, second, there is no clear criteria. And instead of doing the job, they now have to justify the job.

I do not know why we are so prickly, hostile to our Federal employees. Who are the Federal employees? They are the Customs inspectors, they are the nurses at our VA hospitals, and they are the people at Social Security who make sure the seniors get their checks on time.

I am a Senator from Maryland, and I am really proud of it. I represent over 100,000 Federal employees. I wish you could meet them the way I do: on the job, at supermarkets. I represent people who are Nobel Prize winners at the National Institutes of Health and the National Institute of Standards and Technology. I represent people who work for the Coast Guard who are out there protecting our coast. I represent FBI agents. I represent the National Security Agency, the faculty at the United States Naval Academy that is getting our next generation of leaders ready.

They work hard every day to guard our borders, protect our homes, get America ready for the future. Workers in the FDA are protecting our food supply and making sure our pharmaceuticals are safe. They are also the Federal employees in other parts of America, the ones who died at the World Trade Center. How about the ones who died at the Pentagon? How about the ones who lost their lives in Oklahoma City? They were protecting our Nation. They were protecting our communities.

We said a grateful Nation will never forget. Well, let's not forget them when it comes to pushing out their colleagues from the Federal workforce. I know what Federal employees do. They work hard. They think for themselves first as citizens of the United States and second as workers at missions-driven agencies.

Let me just close by saying this. We need to have a civil service in this country. And we need to have a civil service that is reliable and has integrity and is independent.

We have gone from an age of patronage politics to an age of partisan politics. I believe the American people want us to be in an age of performance politics. That means keeping a civil service. Do not fool around with the civil service. Don't just contract it out and reward your pals through cronyism or a new form of patronage.

I fought a political machine to get into politics, and I will fight a political machine that will try to destroy the civil service of the United States.

Let's keep a strong nonpolitical Federal workforce. Let's get rid of the quotas for the OMB circular, and let's take a rational approach maintaining the civil service but privatizing those jobs that are appropriate.

I yield the floor and reserve time that I might need for rebuttal.

Mr. President, if the other side yields back its time, I therefore yield back my time and know that there will be an agreement to vote on my amendment that will be concluded at the end of the evening.

I thank my colleague from Alabama. I hope all my debates are that easy.

I thank the Senator from Connecticut.

Mr. President, I rise as a proud cosponsor of the Dodd amendment which I believe is a first step to full funding for IDEA in 6 years. The President has requested a billion dollar increase for IDEA. That might sound like a lot, but at that rate, it will take 32 years to get full funding for IDEA.

The administration is proposing tax breaks for zillionaires, and I believe that is a misplaced priority. We don't need tax breaks for those who do not need help while we are delaying help for those who need it the most--the children with special needs, their parents, and the teachers of the school system that wants to support them and make sure they have the right educational program.

It is so disappointing that the Federal Government is not looking out for the day-to-day needs of the American people. The Dodd amendment increases IDEA by $1.5 billion. That is a total of

$10 billion, $2.5 billion more than last year. Under the Dodd program, if we followed that approach, we could fully fund IDEA in 6 years. What a great way to get to the first decade of this new century.

The Federal Government is supposed to pay 40 percent of the cost of educating children with disabilities, yet it has never paid more than 16 percent. That means local school districts have to make up the difference, often by cutting educational programs or raising taxes. Either one of those are unacceptable options. Full funding for special education will give local governments the resources they need to improve education for all children.

Everywhere I go in my home State, I hear about IDEA. I hear about it regardless of the community, from the rural communities, whether it is the mountain counties or the Eastern Shore, whether it is the suburban counties which at first blush seem very prosperous and certainly my own Baltimore city, from Democrats and Republicans, from fiscal conservatives to social activists, they all talk about how the Federal Government is not living up to its promise about special education. In Maryland, on average, we get only 10 percent. Schools are suffering and parents are worried.

If you talk to parents, they are under a lot of stress, sometimes working two jobs just to make ends meet, trying to find daycare for their kids or elder care for their parents. The Federal Government should not add to their worries by not living up to its obligations. If you have a special needs child with a chronic condition, whether it is asthma or autism or Down's syndrome or juvenile diabetes, you have significant stress in your family.

One of the ways to alleviate that stress is to make sure they have an educational program they can count on and a local school system that will be able to work to meet those needs. Parents have real questions in their minds. Will they have adequate teachers? Will they have up-to- date textbooks or technology? Will they be learning what they really need to know? Parents of disabled children face a tough burden already. Caring for a disabled child at any age can be exhausting. Just think about what they have to do to pay for their prescription drugs, if you are a juvenile diabetic. The federal government should not make it any harder, particularly when the laws are already on the book to guarantee their child an adequate education.

The bottom line is, the Federal Government is shortchanging parents, children, and local school districts. By providing $1.5 billion more than what is already in the legislation, we can fully fund this by 2009, freeing up money in local budgets for hiring more teachers, textbooks, technology that would help schools improve education for all children.

This will help children with disabilities and their families by providing enough money. More money means parents have to worry less. Full funding of IDEA is essential. We don't like being the Federal nanny. We don't like being the Federal schoolmarm. This is not about a new program with a new bureaucracy and new regs and new mandates. This is about living up to our promise, the promise to the children, the promise to their parents, and the promise to the local community that we will meet our responsibility if we give an obligation to a school district.

I think the Dodd amendment is a terrific idea, and I want to support it.

The Senator from New Hampshire also says we need to take a look at special education--no two ways about it. In my home State, there is a disproportionate number of African-American young men and Latino young men being placed into special education. Is it the right place or is it the wrong assessment? I don't know. But what I do know is there are challenges to the legislation that we need to address, new thinking for a new century, particularly with new technology breakthroughs.

If you are a mom or a dad, you are exhausted from meeting your family needs, and the least we can do is help bear the financial cost while they are coming out with what is the best plan and sharing the emotional responsibility, the family responsibility. It is time we have some Federal responsibility.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I want to say a few words to commemorate the life and legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King. Yesterday was Dr. King's birthday, and on Monday we celebrate the National Holiday of Dr. King.

He had a dream: Equal opportunity for all Americans. That dream is unfulfilled today. In the 1960s, Dr. King spoke out against segregation and dehumanization. He stood up for workers' rights and voting rights. He won a Nobel Prize.

I often think what Dr. King would call for today. He would say there is still injustice in America; there is still more work to be done. As we look at what we need to do, we need to know that we need an independent judiciary. In order to protect our civil rights, we need to make sure we have judges who respect the 14th amendment and the civil rights laws. When someone walks in the courthouse door, they must be able to count on everyone being treated fairly. They must be able to trust that the law on the books will be enforced and that their constitutional rights will be respected. Let's make sure we have an independent judiciary. America needs judges on the bench who will enforce the laws on the books, the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act. Courtrooms across the country need to protect against redlining and discrimination. The courts must not undo, rewrite, or reinvent the spirit of our laws protecting America's civil rights.

Dr. King fought not only for equality under law but for economic justice. When he came for his famous Walk on Washington, it was about jobs and freedom. In 1968, Dr. King marched with 1,300 sanitation workers in Memphis. Let me tell you what he said that day on that march. He said he was fighting for decent wages, fair working conditions, livable housing. He said that old-age Social Security, health and welfare measures should be at the top of our national agenda and that education for the children and respect for the community should be No. 1.

I say to my colleagues, if we choose to honor Dr. King, let's fight for economic justice. I am so pleased we passed the unemployment insurance. Now we need to raise the minimum wage. The minimum wage is $10,700 a year. That means a full-time job still leaves you in full- time poverty. Let's keep the dream alive and raise the minimum wage.

The first civil rights battles were over education. At that time, education was separate and unequal. Today, we are still fighting to make sure our children go to good schools with properly trained teachers and up-to-date books and technology. We need to make sure we back our educational system. This can mean technology training at a community college, Ph.D.s or MBAs, but at the same time, while we look at higher education, make sure we focus on that elementary and secondary level. Let's leave no child behind but make sure no child is left out of the budget.

Dr. King's legacy for America must be a living legacy. We in the Senate must continue to fight for the values Dr. King stood for and make sure the American dream is a reality for others.

Mr. President, there is nothing more important than America's homeland security. I support Senator Byrd's amendment because it provides essential funds for hometown security.

It will improve our ability to prevent terrorism, through stronger port security, border security, and transportation security. And it will improve our ability to respond to acts of terrorism by giving first-responders the tools they need.

Local communities are on the front lines in our war against terrorism. They must not bear the full cost of this war. This means Congress must do its share by providing funds for: local law enforcement, first responders and public health professionals; extra security for critical infrastructure like public water supplies; and improved communications systems.

This amendment accomplishes six important things. First, it improves port security, airplane cockpit security, and airport security by giving the Transportation Security Administration $1.64 billion. It permits INS to better monitor who is coming into our country by giving them $363 million to develop an entry/exit system. It enables community law enforcement agencies to upgrade communications equipment by providing $100 million through the COPS program. It ensures that the Children's National Medical Center here in DC can expand their quarantine and decontamination facilities for children and families by giving the Center $8 million. Senator Byrd's amendment allows states to enhance

their chemical response capabilities by giving them $9.5 million. Finally, the amendment assures that 10 million doctors, nurses, and first-responders will receive the smallpox vaccination this year by giving $850 million to state and local health departments.

Without this additional funding, States will be forced to cut back on other critical public services, such as putting more police officers on the streets to fight ``everyday'' crime, or tracking West Nile virus cases. I have received dozens of letters pleading for promised Federal assistance for first-responders. For example, Laurel, MD continues its efforts to organize and prepare their regional emergency services to respond not only to terrorism but to all local emergencies. Since September 11, Laurel has had to use their limited resources to respond to several critical events, a tornado on September 24, 2001, and the sniper shootings that required them to be on extended heightened alert. Despite this, Laurel continues to prepare its emergency service providers to respond to the various alerts and incidents that continue to occur. Baltimore, MD also has the additional task of securing large public arenas such as Camden Yards and Ravens Stadium against terrorist attacks.

This is why it is so important that we pass this amendment. Cities are on the front lines in preparing for, and responding to, acts of terror. Who are the people on the front lines? They're police, firefighters, EMS and public health responders. Firefighters in Maryland alone need $40 million for equipment, training and personnel protective gear. Our law enforcement officers play a critical role in detection and prevention, and must also have equipment, training, and better information from federal agencies to do their jobs. By investing this money today, we get double value, more money to prepare for terrorism means more money to fight crime and fires.

My own State of Maryland has made great strides in preparing our Nation against a terrorist attack, but communities need this additional funding to make sure they are combat ready and fit-for-duty. Let's protect the protectors and keep our promises to the warriors on the front lines of this new war against terrorism.

That is why I support homeland, and hometown, security, and I encourage my colleagues to vote for this amendment.

Mr. President, I rise in support of the Kennedy amendment to increase funding for vital education programs. There is a lot of talk about leaving no child behind. Yet the No Child Left Behind Act, which we passed just last year, will be a hollow promise if we don't match our rhetoric with resources. We must make sure no child is left out of the budget. This amendment increases funding for two of the most vital educational programs--title I and Pell grants.

The No Child Left Behind Act placed the burden on schools to improve. It is a worthy goal, but it will be a difficult task for our schools. We knew this when we passed the No Child Left Behind Act, and so we promised to give schools adequate resources. I am outraged that only 1 year later, we are already falling behind in our commitment to providing the resources needed to make the reforms work. By increasing funding for title I, our Nation's poorest schools will be able to hire more teachers, buy more computers, and implement the kind of reforms they need to improve student achievement.

Increasing funding for Pell Grants is equally vital. In the 21st century, a college education is the key to moving up the opportunity ladder. Yet the average Pell grant doesn't come close to covering tuition at a State college, and the gap between the cost of college and the amount of financial aid available to the neediest students is only getting bigger. In my own State of Maryland, colleges have had to raise tuition by 5 percent this year because of the State budget shortfall. This amendment raises the maximum Pell grant from $4,000 to $4,500. That is a big step on the way to making college more affordable for students of all backgrounds.

Education and the opportunity to go on to higher education are what give parents hope for their children. Yet today we are still fighting to make sure our children go to good schools with good teachers and up- to-date books and facilities. That is why this amendment is so important. It will help the neediest students of all ages, elementary school, middle school, high school, and college.

Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to the life and legacy of Mayor Clarence Henry Burns.

Mayor ``Du'' Burns was born to an economically poor family--but he was rich in hope and spirit. No one gave Du Burns anything on a silver platter. What he had and what he became--he did on his own--using his God-given skills. He used his grit and gifts to make life better for the people of Baltimore. He went from being a locker-room attendant to become the first African American Mayor of Baltimore, and he took his whole community with him.

I had the pleasure of serving with Du Burns on the Baltimore City Council. I had such great respect and affection for him. We worked together to strengthen neighborhoods and built communities. He believed, as I do, that the best ideas come from the people. His mission was to meet the day to day needs of the people of Baltimore.

Mayor Burns was a coalition builder, forging an alliance for East Baltimore that included the different communities that give our city its strength. He started Baltimore's first homeless program. He strengthened schools and libraries and public housing. He made our city work.

Mayor Du Burns left an indelible mark on the city of Baltimore. He also left a strong and loving family--and so many friends, including me. His wife Edith and his family are in my thoughts and prayers.

Mr. President, I rise in support of the Emergency Unemployment Compensation Act. On December 28, 2002, the Federal Government played Scrooge to nearly 800,000 Americans. We left town, and we left a lot of people holding no money for the new year. Because the House of Representatives failed to pass an extension of unemployment benefits, 780,000 unemployed Americans--including 10,000 unemployed Marylanders--had their benefits abruptly cut off just a few days after Christmas.

Yet the story gets even worse. One million Americans have already exhausted both Federal and state aid without finding a new job, and 2 million are expected to run out of state benefits in the next five months. We must act now to help these working Americans who have been hardest hit by the economic downturn.

That is why I am proud to cosponsor the Emergency Unemployment Compensation Act. This bill will give immediate assistance to those who need it most and it will put money back into the economy to keep it going. The Emergency Unemployment Compensation Act will help nearly 2.85 million Americans who are facing the highest unemployment rate since the recession during the first Bush Administration. It will restore benefits for those who were unfairly cut off in December and it will help those who will lose their benefits in the next five months. It will provide relief for approximately 30,000 people in my own state of Maryland who still have not been able to find a job.

Extending UI not only helps those who are hardest hit by bad economic times, it also helps turn the economy around. A good economic stimulus puts money in the hands of the people who will spend it. That is precisely what the Emergency Unemployment Compensation Act does. Workers who have lost their jobs because of September 11th or the economic downturn will spend this money. They will spend it on necessities, like rent and food, to keep the economy going. This bill will inject $7.25 billion into the economy as an immediate stimulus. I believe this will do more to help the people and stimulate the economy than the across the board tax cuts for the wealthy.

I am so pleased that the Senate is ready to pass this bill. But this measure doesn't go far enough. As long term unemployment balloons due to the weak economy, we can't forget about the 1 million Americans who have already exhausted both Federal and state unemployment benefits and have still not found a job. These people have no income, and now they have no safety net. I urge my colleagues to provide an additional 13 weeks of extended unemployment benefits for these Americans.