[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 124 (Wednesday, September 10, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11306-S11315]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                                 CANCER

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, increasing scientific evidence indicates 
that what a person includes in his or her diet may be as important as 
what a person excludes. Scientists estimate that at least 30 to 40 
percent of all cancers are linked to diet and related lifestyle 
factors.
  Some foods contain substances known to increase the risk of cancer, 
including saturated fat, cholesterol, and oxidants.
  Avoiding these foods may reduce the risk of many of the most common 
forms of cancer, including prostate cancer, breast cancer, and colon 
cancer. I happen to have an extreme interest in that because I am a 
prostate cancer survivor. I am now told other foods

[[Page S11307]]

contain substances that help protect against cancer and heart disease.
  A growing number of compounds in fruits, vegetables, and cereal 
grains have been found to interfere with the process of cancer 
development in laboratory research.
  Epidemiologists have found that populations that consume large 
amounts of plant-derived foods have lower incidence rates of some types 
of cancer.
  According to a study conducted by Stephanie London, a doctor and 
epidemiologist at the National Institutes of Environmental Health 
Sciences and Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, broccoli and other 
members of the cruciferous vegetable family, including cabbage and bok 
choy, appear to protect humans from lung cancer.
  Several other studies have pointed to the cancer-prevention 
properties of phytochemicals found in these vegetables. According to 
Hien T. Le, Ph.D., a molecular biologist with the University of 
California Berkeley, consumption of these cruciferous vegetables has 
been linked with prevention of cancers of the breast, endometrium, 
colon, and prostate cancer.
  One study further found these chemicals are ``novel,'' naturally 
occurring and could have potential in cancer prevention or treatment.
  Broccoli and related vegetables contain the chemical that kills the 
bacteria responsible for most stomach cancers, say researchers, 
confirming the dietary advice that moms have been handing out for 
years. Dr. Paul Talalay, a coresearcher at Johns Hopkins University, 
found the chemical sulforaphane even killed H. pylori, a bacteria that 
causes stomach ulcers and often fatal stomach cancers. Researchers 
stated:

       If clinical studies show that a food can relieve or prevent 
     disease associated with this bacterium in people, it could 
     have a significant public health implication in the United 
     States and around the world.

  The good news is there appears to be enough of this chemical in 
broccoli sprouts and some varieties of broccoli to significantly 
benefit people who eat them. However, researchers cannot now say how 
much broccoli one should eat for there to be such an impact. The actual 
amounts would need to be determined with long-term tests involving 
human trials. ``The levels at which we test it . . . is such that those 
could be achieved by eating broccoli or broccoli sprouts. It's a 
reasonable level that we think would be reached in the stomach,'' said 
Jed W. Fahey, of the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine.
  Researchers have created a synthetic version of the compound found in 
broccoli and other vegetables. ``It may be easier to take a cancer 
prevention pill once a day rather than rely on massive quantities of 
fruits and vegetables,'' says the study author, Jerome Kosmeder, 
another Ph.D. research assistant professor at the University of 
Illinois at Chicago. However, such drug development is several years 
away, I am informed.
  The reason for my statement today is that I recently met with Dean 
Ornish, a great friend, a medical doctor, founder and president of the 
Preventive Medicine Research Institute, and clinical professor of 
medicine at the University of California, San Francisco. According to 
Dr. Ornish, ``We often have had a hard time believing that the simple 
choices we make in our life each day--what we eat, how we respond to 
stress, how much exercise we get, whether or not we smoke, and the 
quality of our relationships--have such a powerful impact on our health 
and well-being.''
  With Dr. Ornish was Dr. S. Ward Casscells, a medical doctor who is 
the John Edward Tyson Distinguished Professor of Medicine and Public 
Health and vice president for biotechnology at the University of Texas 
Health Center in Houston.
  Dr. Casscells was diagnosed with very aggressive metastatic prostate 
cancer in July of 2001. He began utilizing diet and a lifestyle program 
that Dr. Ornish and his colleagues had developed, along with 
conventional drug treatment. Today, Dr. Casscells shows no sign of 
cancer. He shows no sign at all of a cancer that had metastasized.
  Meanwhile, researchers say populations should continue to eat healthy 
amounts of fruits and vegetables, enabling them to take advantage of 
cancer-fighting properties. Several other studies have pointed to the 
cancer prevention properties of the phytochemicals found in vegetables, 
according to several other people.
  Mr. President, I emphasize, because of the nature of some of the 
moneys in this bill--I do believe we have spent a lot of Federal-tax 
payers' money on various approaches to cancer--I think we should 
concentrate more of the money we have available on these methods of 
prevention and methods of retarding the development of cancer once 
discovered.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment. 
Is there a request for the yeas and nays?
  Mr. HATCH. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. 
Edwards), Senator from Florida (Mr. Graham), Senator from Massachusetts 
(Mr. Kerry), and the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman) are 
necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) would vote ``nay.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 7, nays 87, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 344 Leg.]

                                YEAS--7

     Bunning
     Coleman
     Collins
     Ensign
     Gregg
     Murkowski
     Santorum

                                NAYS--87

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Chafee
     Chambliss
     Clinton
     Cochran
     Conrad
     Cornyn
     Corzine
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     Dayton
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Graham (SC)
     Grassley
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Miller
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Nickles
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Allard
     Edwards
     Graham (FL)
     Kerry
     Lieberman
     Smith
  The amendment (No. 1585) was rejected.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Alexander). The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I alert all Senators as to our schedule. 
I have had a number of inquiries as to what we will be doing. There are 
very few amendments remaining to be voted upon. Unless we are going to 
have a series of rollcall votes on amendments which the managers have 
agreed to, the senior Senator from Arizona has notified this manager 
there are objections to amendments.
  At this time I ask unanimous consent to offer an amendment by Senator 
Sessions regarding the Centers for Disease Control on a plan related to 
blood safety and ask for its immediate adoption. The provision of the 
amendment is ``not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of 
this act, the director of the Centers for Disease Control and 
Prevention shall prepare a plan to comprehensively address blood safety 
and injection safety in Africa under the global AIDS program.''
  The area of disagreement, if I may inform my colleagues, is whether 
the word ``shall'' will be in the amendment, which is what Senator 
Sessions insists upon, or whether it will be ``may,'' which would leave 
it up to the discretion of the executive branch as to whether they will 
carry out the study.
  If the yeas and nays are requested, I intend to ask my colleagues to 
deny a sufficient second. I have consulted with the Parliamentarian who 
advises that the rule is, to have a sufficient second, there must be 
one-fifth of those who

[[Page S11308]]

previously voted, which would be 19 out of 95. If this will require a 
rollcall vote, I cannot predict how many rollcall votes we will have 
this evening, but I would not make dinner plans.
  Mr. INHOFE. Regular order.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for the adoption 
of the Sessions amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. McCAIN. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. McCAIN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  Mr. INHOFE. Regular order.
  Mr. HARKIN. Regular order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll to ascertain the 
presence of a quorum.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HARKIN addressed the Chair.
  Mr. BREAUX. Regular order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa has the floor.


                           Amendment No. 1614

  Mr. HARKIN. Regular order, Mr. President.
  Mr. McCAIN. Is the amendment debateable?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The regular order is there are 2 minutes 
evenly divided prior to a vote with respect to the Landrieu amendment 
No. 1614.
  Who yields time?
  The Senator from Louisiana.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, I am glad to have a quorum. This is a 
very important amendment. I need my colleagues' help, if they would 
direct their attention to this chart I have in the Chamber.
  This amendment is called the MASH amendment. It is a very serious 
amendment: mosquito abatement, safety, and health.
  We are fighting multiple wars--one in Iraq, which is very serious, 
with far-reaching consequences.
  I know my colleagues are interested in knowing about how many people 
have lost their lives in their own States in this last year. It has 
been quite a few from this new and very deadly disease.
  We have lost 286 men and women in Iraq, which is very serious, and we 
are spending a great deal of time, energy, money, and treasure, but we 
have also lost 246 individuals in the United States. The highest 
instances have been in Louisiana, South Dakota, Michigan, and Ohio.
  This amendment will provide the only Federal funds available to help 
our States combat this deadly disease. I ask for your support. I ask 
unanimous consent to have printed in the Record data on the number of 
confirmed cases of people who have contracted this deadly disease and 
the number of people who have died from it.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                   WEST NILE VIRUS CURRENT CASE COUNT
         [Data currently listed shows case counts for 2002 only]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Laboratory-
                      State                         positive     Deaths
                                                  human cases
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama.........................................           49          3
Arkansas........................................           43          3
California......................................            1
Colorado........................................           14
Connecticut.....................................           17
Delaware........................................            1
District of Columbia............................           34          1
Florida.........................................           28          2
Georgia.........................................           44          7
Illinois........................................          884         64
Indiana.........................................          293         11
Iowa............................................           54          2
Kansas..........................................           22
Kentucky........................................           75          5
Louisiana.......................................          329         25
Maryland........................................           36          7
Massachusetts...................................           23          3
Michigan........................................          614         51
Minnesota.......................................           48
Mississippi.....................................          192         12
Missouri........................................          168          7
Montana.........................................            2
Nebraska........................................          152          7
New Jersey......................................           24
New York........................................           82          5
North Carolina..................................            2
North Dakota....................................           17          2
Ohio............................................          441         31
Oklahoma........................................           21          2
Pennsylvania....................................           62          7
Rhode Island....................................            1
South Carolina..................................            1
South Dakota....................................           37
Tennessee.......................................           56          7
Texas...........................................          202         13
Vermont.........................................            1
Virginia........................................           29          2
West Virginia...................................            3          2
Wisconsin.......................................           52          3
Wyoming.........................................            2
                                                 -----------------------
      Totals....................................        4,156        284
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Data currently listed shows case counts for 2002 only. As of April
  15, 2003 these are the human case totals that have been reported to
  ArboNet. ArboNet is the national, electronic surveillance system
  established by CDC to assist states in tracking West Nile and other
  mosquito-borne viruses.


        WEST NILE VIRUS 2003 HUMAN CASES AS OF SEPTEMBER 9, 2003
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Human cases
                                                      \1\
                      State                       reported to    Deaths
                                                      CDC
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama.........................................           20          2
Arizona.........................................            1
Arkansas........................................            5
Colorado........................................          973         13
Connecticut.....................................            1
Florida.........................................           22
Georgia.........................................            7          1
Illinois........................................            5
Indiana.........................................            6
Iowa............................................           20          2
Kansas..........................................           18          1
Kentucky........................................            4
Louisiana.......................................           42
Maryland........................................            8
Massachusetts...................................            1
Minnesota.......................................           30
Mississippi.....................................           43          1
Missouri........................................            6          1
Montana.........................................          116          1
Nebraska........................................          436         10
New Jersey......................................            3
New Mexico......................................           83          4
New York........................................            6          1
North Carolina..................................            9
North Dakota....................................           91
Ohio............................................           18          1
Oklahoma........................................           20
Pennsylvania....................................           38
South Carolina..................................            1
South Dakota....................................          407          5
Tennessee.......................................            6
Texas...........................................          190          6
Virginia........................................            4
Wisconsin.......................................            5
Wyoming.........................................          229          4
                                                 -----------------------
      Total.....................................        2,874         53
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ These numbers reflect both mild and severe human disease cases that
  have been reported to ArboNet by state and local health departments
  during 2003. ArboNet is the national, electronic surveillance system
  established by CDC to assist states in tracking West Nile virus and
  other mosquito-borne viruses.
 
Note: As of the above date, detailed information is available for 2,752
  cases: 1,595 cases (58%) were reported as West Nile Fever (milder
  disease), 843 (31%) were reported as West Nile meningitis or
  encephalitis (severe disease) and 314 (11%) were clinically
  unspecified.

  Ms. LANDRIEU. I ask for my colleagues' support on this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Who yields time in opposition?
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, there is no doubt about the seriousness 
of the West Nile virus. But we have, at the present time, some $76 
million at the Centers for Disease Control.
  This past Saturday, I visited the Centers for Disease Control. I took 
a look at their maps and saw the incidence of West Nile and have no 
request from the Centers for Disease Control that there ought to be any 
additional funding.
  Mr. President, I raise a point of order under section 504 of the 
concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2004 that the 
amendment is not in order because it exceeds discretionary spending 
limits.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, pursuant to section 504(b)(2) of H. Con. 
Res. 95, I move to waive section 504 of that concurrent resolution for 
purposes of the pending amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I announce that the Senator from Oregon (Mr. Smith) is 
absent because of a death in the family.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. 
Edwards), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Graham), the Senator from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry), and the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. 
Lieberman) are necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) would vote ``yea.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 46, nays 49, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 345 Leg.]

                                YEAS--46

     Akaka
     Allard
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Cantwell
     Clinton
     Coleman
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Daschle
     Dayton
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lincoln
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Stabenow
     Wyden

                                NAYS--49

     Alexander
     Allen
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning

[[Page S11309]]


     Burns
     Carper
     Chafee
     Chambliss
     Cochran
     Collins
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Graham (SC)
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Voinovich
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Edwards
     Graham (FL)
     Kerry
     Lieberman
     Smith
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 46, the nays are 
49. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted 
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected. The point of order is 
sustained and the amendment falls.
  The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I believe we are ready to go to the 
amendment of the Senator from Nevada, Mr. Ensign. He was in the Chamber 
a moment ago. Let me advise all Senators that it appears at this time 
that we will have four more rollcall votes, plus final passage.
  The leader has authorized me to say that the 15-minute votes will be 
held sharp to 20 minutes, 15 and 5 grace, cut off after 20 minutes. The 
10-minute votes will be 10 plus 5 minutes grace for a total of 15 
minutes. We will try to proceed to conclude this bill. It is too late 
to complete it early, but we will do it as soon as we can.
  Is the Senator from Nevada prepared to offer his amendment.
  Mr. ENSIGN. Very soon.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                Amendment No. 1621 To Amendment No. 1542

  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendments are 
set aside.
  The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Ensign], for himself, Mrs. 
     Murray, and Mr. Gregg, proposes an amendment numbered 1621 to 
     amendment No. 1542.

  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further 
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To provide funding for statewide, longitudinal data systems 
    under section 208 of the Education Sciences Reform Act of 2002)

       At the end of title III, insert the following:
       Sec. 306. There are appropriated, out of any money in the 
     Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to carry out section 208 
     of the Education Sciences Reform Act of 2002, $80,000,000. 
     All amounts in this Act for management and administration at 
     the Department of Education are reduced on a pro rata basis 
     by an amount required to offset the $80,000,000 appropriation 
     made by this section.

  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I will take a very short time on this 
amendment. I am proposing this amendment for myself, Senator Murray, 
and Senator Gregg. This amendment is to address a problem we hear about 
back home on the No Child Left Behind Act. When you go home and talk to 
educators, they talk about not having adequate money to get the 
technology to transfer the data to comply with the No Child Left Behind 
Act for the local school districts. It is the No. 1 complaint we have 
heard from all of the school districts back home.
  This amendment appropriates $80 million to basically fund that 
shortfall, and it takes the money out of administrative costs in the 
Department of Education. We think it is a very reasonable amendment. We 
hope our colleagues will support the amendment. Hearing from educators 
across the country, this will address one of the most pressing concerns 
they have in complying with the No Child Left Behind Act.
  I just spoke to the new teachers in Clark County. They had to break 
it down into 2 days, with 700 one day and 700 the next for new teacher 
orientation. During that time, there were a lot of administrators 
around, and this was by far the biggest question they had--making sure 
they had adequate funds to comply with the No Child Left Behind Act. We 
think this amendment goes a long way toward complying with the No Child 
Left Behind Act.
  I will yield to my friend from New Hampshire to make some remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire is recognized.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I rise in support of this amendment. It is 
paid for, which is a critical element of any amendment. More important 
than that, it does fund the data-tracking capabilities of the States. 
That is part of the No Child Left Behind initiative.
  Last year, we passed the legislation, basically creating this 
opportunity for States to set up these databases. Unfortunately, we 
never funded it. So this would allow us to fund that new piece of 
legislation. I think it was a separate freestanding piece of 
legislation.
  In any event, it funds the effort of the States to set up the data 
tracking within the States that is necessary for them to determine how 
they are doing in obtaining their achievement goals under No Child Left 
Behind. It is reasonable that this money be appropriated, and I am 
hopeful that it will be accepted. If it cannot be accepted, I hope we 
can do it by the offsets presented in this amendment.
  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, if no one else seeks recognition, I just 
add a couple of comments about the amendment. It has the support of the 
Council of Chief State School Officers. The reason, as I mentioned 
before, is because no matter how small or large the school district is, 
they are all facing the same problems this amendment attempts to 
correct.
  They just do not have the infrastructure that is necessary to 
capture, analyze, and disseminate the data required by the No Child 
Left Behind Act.
  Several States have not even done the planning to implement this 
because they don't have the resources. This amendment is going to give 
those resources necessary to comply with the No Child Left Behind Act.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, this amendment provides $80 million for 
data collection for student achievement. While it would be desirable to 
have more funds in this appropriations bill, we don't have them, and 
the offset is a cut in the program out of the Department of Education 
which would be very burdensome, really intolerable for the Department 
of Education.
  For that reason, I reluctantly oppose the amendment by the Senator 
from Nevada.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, the Senator from Washington, Mrs. Murray, 
wishes to speak on the amendment, so I ask that the vote not occur at 
this time. She is on her way over to the Chamber.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment be set aside until Senator Murray arrives.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                Amendment No. 1622 to Amendment No. 1542

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. Specter], for himself, 
     Mr. Harkin, Mrs. Feinstein, and Ms. Collins, proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1622 to amendment No. 1542.

  The amendment is as follows:

  (Purpose: To increase funding for the National Institutes of Health)

       On page 61, between lines 14 and 15, insert the following:
       Sec. __. In addition to any amounts otherwise appropriated 
     under this Act under the heading of National Institutes of 
     Health--office of the director, there are appropriated an 
     additional $1,500,000,000 for programs and activities under 
     the discretion of the Office of the Director of the National 
     Institutes of Health. Such additional amount shall be 
     designated as emergency spending

[[Page S11310]]

     pursuant to section 502(c) of House Concurrent Resolution 95 
     (108th Congress).

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, the amendment provides for an additional 
$1.5 billion for the National Institutes of Health. This is one of the 
most important functions of the Federal Government. I don't think we 
have anything in our budget on the domestic side which is more 
important, perhaps not as important, as funding for the National 
Institutes of Health. That is the crown jewel of the Federal 
Government.
  We are asking that this be classified as an emergency because the 
budget resolution provides for an emergency classification if it meets 
the following criteria: No. 1, vital; No. 2, urgent and compelling; No. 
3, unpredictable; and No. 4, temporary.
  It is vital because the lives and health of Americans are at stake. 
It is a life-and-death matter in the way NIH funding has saved lives, 
moving forward the cures of so many dreadful maladies.
  It is urgent and compelling because Americans who have family members 
with muscular dystrophy, Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, or a host of other 
ailments will tell you that with each passing day, the hope that their 
loved one will be saved grows dimmer.
  It is unpredictable and unanticipated because the nature of the 
scientific enterprise is unpredictable. The potential cures for disease 
have grown through research at NIH.
  It is temporary because a disease such as cancer or Alzheimer's costs 
our economy billions of dollars a year.
  As the diseases that afflict Americans are cured, they are able to 
return to productive lives, and these investments in the health of 
Americans will more than pay for themselves.
  I offer this amendment on behalf of Senator Harkin, Senator 
Feinstein, Senator Collins, and myself. I know there are objections to 
the classification as an emergency. So I invite whoever seeks to object 
to come to the floor.
  Mr. HARKIN. Does the Senator yield the floor?
  Mr. SPECTER. I do.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, again I commend Senator Specter for his 
many years of hard work, his efforts, and his success in increasing the 
funding for the crown jewel of the Federal Government, and that is the 
National Institutes of Health. Certainly, no one has fought harder and 
longer to ensure that our National Institutes of Health get the funding 
they need for the cutting-edge research that is saving so many lives.
  It was under Senator Specter's leadership that we embarked upon a 
program to double the NIH funding over 5 years. People said it could 
not be done, but we did it.
  Now we are up there and there seems to be some idea that somehow 
since we did that--the reason we did that was that NIH had fallen so 
far behind in the number of peer-reviewed grants that were being 
approved and funded. So we got them back up to where they were at least 
20 years ago. Some think now we have them up there, we do not have to 
fund them anymore and we can start falling back again. The purpose of 
the Specter amendment is to bring the NIH up and keep them on a track 
that will not allow them to fall back again.
  The Senate bill will increase funding for NIH by $1 billion; that is 
3.7 percent. It will be the smallest percentage increase for NIH since 
1995. This is the wrong time to put the squeeze on NIH funding. Doing 
so will severely impact NIH's ability to award new research grants at 
the very time when scientists should be taking full advantage of 
everything they have learned over the past 5 years to translate that 
research into treatments and cures.
  Under the Senate bill, the number of new and competing nonbiodefense 
research grants would actually drop from 9,902 in fiscal year 2003 to 
9,827 in fiscal year 2004. That is why Senator Specter, Senator 
Feinstein, Senator Collins, and I are offering an amendment to add $1.5 
billion more for NIH.
  This additional funding is critical to ensuring that researchers can 
continue the remarkable pace of medical advances during the past 5 
years, as I said, when we doubled the funding for NIH. Perhaps most 
importantly, the doubling of the funding helped result in the 
completion of the final DNA sequence of the human genome. That was done 
during that period of time.
  In the past 5 years, NIH research has led directly to new knowledge 
about the dangers of hormone replacement therapy for millions of 
American women, contradicting commonly accepted medical practice.
  NIH research supported the development of new techniques for bone 
marrow transplantation.
  NIH research demonstrated that intense therapy of type 1 diabetes can 
reduce long-term diabetes complications by at least 75 percent.
  NIH research has now enabled scientists to identify several genes 
that increase vulnerability to schizophrenia.
  I guess what I am saying is we are truly on the brink of a golden age 
in medical research with the mapping and sequencing of the human genes 
and other measures funded by NIH. But those opportunities are 
threatened if we don't maintain NIH funding at a reasonable level.
  The impact of the bill's dramatic slowing in the growth of the NIH 
budget will be particularly devastating in the areas of clinical 
research where, again, the fruits of our investment in medical research 
are applied to improving the health of the American people.
  A crash landing in NIH funding sends a chilling message to young 
scientists in training and those just entering the research field. 
Scientific competition will always be fierce, but young scientists must 
be sure that sufficient funding will be available or exceptionally 
talented young people will begin to pursue other careers.
  So again I rise in strong support of Senator Specter's amendment, 
along with Senator Feinstein, and I hope the Senate will adopt this 
very modest but very meaningful increase in funding for the National 
Institutes of Health.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise as a cosponsor of the Specter-
Harkin-Feinstein amendment to increase funding for the National 
Institutes of Health, NIH. I fought hard to make sure that Congress 
kept the commitment it made 5 years ago to double Federal spending for 
the NIH. I am proud that Congress kept its promise. I strongly support 
the NIH. I believe that it is an investment that saves lives and that 
Congress must continue this valuable investment.
  The underlying Senate bill that funds health programs would increase 
funding for NIH by $1 billion, or just 3.7 percent in 2004. This would 
be the smallest percentage increase for NIH since 1995. The Specter-
Harkins-Feinstein amendment would increase funding by $1.5 billion, for 
a total of $29.5 billion. this is the wrong time to cut the Federal 
investment in NIH. Congress and the American people have invested in 
the NIH. We must allow scientists to continue the great work they are 
doing and translate the research they have been working on over the 
past 5 years into treatments and cures.
  If this amendment fails there would be in increase of only 26 new and 
competing research grants in fiscal year 2004. That is approximately 
one grant for each NIH Institute and Center. Also, nonbiodefense grants 
would actually drop, from 9,902 in fiscal year 2003 to 9,607 in fiscal 
year 2004. This means that more promising research on cancer, diabetes, 
or other devastating diseases may go unfunded.
  The research conducted at NIH today can help lead to longer, more 
productive lives for people struck with countless conditions and 
diseases. Whether it is Alzheimer's, cancer, cardiovascular disease, 
autoimmune diseases, or diabetes, this research can help lead to a 
higher quality of life for Americans.
  I am proud to have NIH in Maryland. NIH's impact in Maryland is quite 
profound. We have excellent research centers and private companies that 
exist and grow because of the unique synergy between the Federal labs 
in Maryland, like NIH, and the ingenuity of the private sector. Yet the 
benefits of investing in NIH are not limited to Maryland. NIH funds 
research at universities across the country. Patients across the 
country, their loved ones, and those who someday may be diagnosed with 
diseases all benefit from these critical investments.
  We cannot afford to lessen our commitment to medical research. I 
thank Senator Specter, Senator Harkin and

[[Page S11311]]

Senator Feinstein for their leadership on this critical issue. I urge 
my colleagues to join me in supporting this important bipartisan 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, we have two more amendments to be offered 
by the Senator from Pennsylvania, Senator Santorum, and the Senator 
from Ohio, Senator DeWine. We ask they come to the floor now. If there 
are objections to the amendment which has just been offered on the 
National Institutes of Health, we ask Senators to come to the floor so 
we can wrap up the debate, move on these votes, and move to final 
passage.
  We are within the very short distance of the goal line, but we need 
those other Senators to come to the floor. Last Wednesday we were 
talking about going to third reading. That might be a subject to 
revisit.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coleman). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. ENSIGN. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Collins be added as 
a cosponsor to amendment No. 1621.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ENSIGN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, we have decided to accept the amendment 
of the Senator from Nevada, Mr. Ensign. Does the ranking member concur 
in that?
  Mr. HARKIN. We have no objections on this side.
  Mr. SPECTER. I urge the adoption of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  Mr. ENSIGN. I ask unanimous consent that the yeas and nays be 
vitiated.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 1621.
  The amendment (No. 1621) was agreed to.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. SPECTER. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. While we are waiting momentarily, I want to take this 
opportunity to recognize the staff of the Labor, Health and Human 
Services, and Education Subcommittee for all their efforts, hard work, 
and dedication on this very difficult bill.
  First let me thank Senator Harkin's staff: Ellen Murray, Erik Fatemi, 
and Adrienne Hallet. They have worked shoulder to shoulder in a 
bipartisan fashion with our staff to put together this fine bill. It is 
a testament to their hard work, skill, dedication, and partnership.
  I also commend and thank our subcommittee staff: Jim Sourwine, Mark 
Laisch, Sudip Parikh, Candice Rogers, and Carol Geagley. The staff 
deserves our gratitude for working diligently for many months, late 
nights, and weekends to put together this very important bill. I know 
every year both of these staffs reach across the aisle to work together 
to forge compromises on many contentious issues. I think we should all 
thank them and salute them.
  Lastly, I will take a moment to give special praise to our 
subcommittee staff director Bettilou Taylor. Senator Specter and I 
often refer to Bettilou as ``Senator Taylor.'' She has one of the 
toughest jobs in the Senate. This is the largest bill this year. It 
probably is the largest domestic appropriations bill in the history of 
the United States to appropriate taxpayer money for Federal purposes. 
This is a very complex bill with difficult issues. Bettilou does it 
with a great deal of skill and grace. She is, in every sense of the 
word, a consummate professional. I thank her and I hope all Members 
will thank her for her outstanding work for the Senate and for the 
American people.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished President pro 
tempore and chairman of the full committee for those comments. I 
associate myself with them. It has been an outstanding and 
extraordinary staff. Ellen Murray for Senator Harkin and Bettilou 
Taylor on the majority side are--exemplary is not a high enough 
characterization.
  While I am at it, I thank my distinguished ranking member, Senator 
Harkin, for his extraordinary contribution to the public good. He and I 
have worked as the chairman and ranking and reversed the roles, and we 
call it a seamless transfer of the gavel. I take this occasion to thank 
him for his work.
  I note Senator Nickles is in Chamber now, so I yield for a moment to 
my colleague, Senator Harkin.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. I thank the chairman for yielding and I, too, thank 
Senator Stevens for his kind and generous remarks regarding the 
subcommittee and especially applaud him for all the glowing terms he 
used about our staff on both sides of the aisle. They are just 
outstanding staff. They work very hard on this bill every year. But 
they have not worked any harder in any year than this year because, as 
Chairman Stevens said, this is a very large bill and a very complicated 
bill. It covers just about everything from soup to nuts in our society.
  They have done a great job. I, too, compliment our respective staffs 
and thank them for all their hard work. I want to repay in kind the 
kind words Senator Specter just said. We have had a back and forth 
chairmanship/ranking member now going back 13 years. It has been a 
seamless transfer of the gavel. We worked very closely together all 
these years to increase funding for NIH, to meet our commitments in 
education, to meet our commitments in health care.
  This bill, I have often said, is the bill that really defines 
America. I have often said that we always have a Defense Appropriations 
Committee bill. The Defense Appropriations Committee bill is the bill 
that defends America. This bill that funds the Department of Education 
that our colleague from Tennessee headed--I remember when he was 
Secretary of Education--and the Department of Health and Human 
Services, the Department of Labor, NIH, libraries--everything, I always 
said this is the bill that defines America. It defines who we are as a 
people and how much we are going to invest in our human resources in 
this country.
  So I thank Senator Specter for his dynamic leadership of this 
subcommittee, for his vision, for his hard work in making sure we have 
a bill that is--not perfect. Obviously, I don't think anyone here has 
gotten everything they want out of this bill; that is true. But it is a 
true compromise, and that is what should define what we do here in the 
Senate, is compromise between the various interests we represent and 
the various States. I think that is truly what this bill does this 
year, and I thank Senator Specter for his great leadership getting this 
bill together.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I regret I am going to make a budget 
point of order because the amendment that is pending busts the budget, 
and it busts the budget by $1.5 billion.
  First, I congratulate Senator Specter for the work he has done up to 
this point. He saved the taxpayers a lot of money. There have been a 
lot of amendments. I will just mention those. We have totaled those, 
the total for 2004. Senator Specter has made points of order, all of 
which were sustained, that saved $24.481 billion in 2004--over a 10-
year period, $352 billion--by basically staying with the budget.
  This amendment breaks the budget. This amendment breaks the budget 
deal that the chairman of the Appropriations Committee negotiated with 
the President of the United States. It

[[Page S11312]]

breaks the budget that we passed overwhelmingly--that we passed after a 
lot of hard work.
  Are we going to have a budget or not have a budget? This amendment 
says we are going to add $1.5 billion for NIH and declare it an 
emergency; i.e., we don't expect it to count on the budget. In other 
words, we don't want the budget to apply.
  If we follow that analogy, it is like some of the other amendments 
that were offered. Several people offered amendments that just said 
let's take money from 2004 and put it in 2003 and therefore we will 
have money for 2004. It was a sham. We defeated all those. If we do not 
defeat this amendment, the budget is a sham. We will just say something 
is an emergency that is not an emergency.
  We appropriate money to NIH. We have done so. I happen to be a 
supporter of NIH. I have supported increasing money substantially to 
NIH over the years.
  Looking back, in 1990 we spent actually $7.5 billion on NIH. In 2004, 
under the budget that we have, without this amendment we are spending 
right at $28 billion. That is three and a half times what we spent in 
1990.
  In 1998, when we said we were going to double it, we did. In 1998, we 
were spending $13.6 billion for NIH, and the budget we have before us 
is almost $28 billion--more than double since 1998. Those are enormous 
growth rates, maybe exceeding almost any other Government program.
  Maybe we need to slow that rate of growth down just a little bit 
because now we don't have big surpluses. When we were doubling the 
program, we had some surpluses. Now we have a big deficit. Maybe we 
should do a little bit better job of oversight.
  I noticed there was a report. I remember, on ``CBS News'' the 
headline was ``NIH Microbiologist Gets Paid $100,000 By Taxpayers To Do 
Nothing.''
  It was reported in the Washington Post. I ask unanimous consent to 
have that printed in the Record, an article that was in the Post on 
July 4.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                [From the Washington Post, July 4, 2003]

       NIH Scientist Says He's Paid To Do Nothing; Agency Denies 
Administrator's ``Surreal Situation'' of Collecting $100,000 Salary for 
                                No Work

                          (By Tania Branigan)

       Every weekday at 6:30 a.m., Edward McSweegan climbs into 
     his Volkswagen Passat for the hour-long commute to the 
     National Institutes of Health. He has an office in Bethesda, 
     a job title--health scientist administrator--and an annual 
     salary of about $100,000.
       What McSweegan says he does not have--and has not had for 
     the last seven years--is any real work. He was hired by the 
     National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases in 
     1988, but says his bosses transferred the research grants he 
     administered to other workers eight years later, leaving him 
     with occasional tasks more suitable for a typist or 
     ``gofer.''
       NIH officials denied the allegations earlier this week, but 
     said they would reexamine the issue after Sen. Charles E. 
     Grassley (R-Iowa) raised the issue in a letter to Health and 
     Human Services Secretary Tommy G. Thompson.
       Grassley, who as chairman of the Senate Finance Committee 
     has supported budget increases for the NIH, learned of 
     McSweegan's case when CBS News contacted him for a story on 
     the scientist. In the report that aired on ``CBS Evening 
     News'' on June 26, McSweegan said he had been paid to do 
     nothing for the past seven years.
       McSweegan used to be NIH's program officer for Lyme disease 
     but was removed from the post in June 1995 after a dispute 
     over his repeated criticism of a politically influential 
     support group for sufferers and his allegations that NIH had 
     been too accommodating of the group. He had publicly 
     described the Lyme Disease Foundation as ``wacko'' because he 
     disagreed with its theories about the disease. The dispute 
     led to his suspension without pay for two weeks for 
     insubordination and conduct unbecoming of a federal employee.
       In spring 1996, his responsibilities for an unrelated 
     program were also removed. He maintains they have never been 
     replaced.
       In an interview Monday, Grassley accused NIH of ``an 
     absolute management vacuum'' and said it is ``ludicrous'' 
     that the administrator is being paid to do nothing.
       ``We want to make sure we get the most bang for our buck, 
     the most research for our dollars,'' the senator added.
       John Burklow, a spokesman for NIH, said McSweegan has 
     always been assigned duties appropriate to his position and 
     pay level.
       ``The claim that he is being compensated for doing nothing 
     is completely inaccurate,'' Burklow said.
       According to NIH, McSweegan is director of the U.S.-Indo 
     Vaccine Action Program, and has traveled to countries such as 
     Russia representing the agency. He has also ``produced 
     reports and other work products.''
       But McSweegan said he has never been told he was director 
     of the program and knew of no such title. Three other people 
     ran the project, and his work for it--such as arranging 
     coffee for lunches and forwarding messages--was ``the kind of 
     work you would get an . . . to do.''
       He added that the Office of Global Health Affairs had 
     organized and paid for his trip to Russia, and that his only 
     reports had been brief accounts of meetings.
       McSweegan said he struggles to fill his eight-hour workdays 
     by reading, exercising and writing fiction. He has self-
     published a bioterrorism thriller and a science fiction oval, 
     and is working on a third book.
       But he says his six-page job description is the ultimate 
     work of creating writing and describes his position as ``a 
     bizarre, surreal situation--part Orwell, part Kafka and part 
     Dilbert.''
       ``It's not my idea, said McSweegan, 47. ``I have pointed it 
     out repeatedly over the years. I suppose they are just 
     waiting for me to get bored and frustrated and quit. But I 
     haven't been inclined to do that, because my wife has a real 
     job and we have compelling family reasons for staying in the 
     area.
       ``I just expect to do this for maybe four more years until 
     my wife retires,'' he said. ``It would be nice to get a real 
     job doing real work.''

  Mr. NICKLES. Basically, the headline is ``NIH Scientist Says He's 
Paid To Do Nothing; Agency Denies Administrator's `Surreal Situation' 
Of Collecting $100,000 Salary For No Work.'' The story goes on. I 
remember reading it, and I thought, whoa, somebody is not paying 
attention.
  Please don't get me wrong. I know NIH does a lot of great work and I 
am supportive of that. But right now we have to live within a budget. 
If the committee wanted to--the committee has $127 billion in 
discretionary spending--they could have given NIH more money. They had 
control over that $127 billion. They could have shifted it around to 
where NIH would get more.
  What the committee elected to do was: We will short fund NIH and we 
will give a lot more money for a lot of other things, and then we will 
try to run the gamut because we know NIH has a lot of support.
  I think the committee needs to go back and say: Wait a minute, the 
budget is $127 billion. It happens to be the largest budget of any that 
we have before any committee, with the exception of Defense. If you 
added all the mandatories to it, it is bigger than Defense. It is a 
total of $460-some billion.
  I urge my colleagues, if they want to get more money for NIH, let's 
have the committee go back and reallocate out of the $127 billion they 
have under the budget. But let's live with the budget. Let's not 
declare something that is funded every year by appropriations an 
emergency; i.e., when we declare an emergency, it doesn't count on the 
budget. If we are going to use the emergency game as a way of violating 
the budget, let's just not have a budget.
  We passed the budget through both Houses. We said you had to have 60 
votes in the Senate to declare an emergency. Our colleagues who are 
supporting this amendment I have great belief sincerely support NIH, 
but they underfunded it in their committee in relationship to other 
things and now they want to say let's just declare an emergency and get 
around it so we will have more money.
  I don't think they should get away with that. That is violating the 
agreement, the budget we passed. It violates the agreement we made with 
the President of the United States. So I urge my colleagues to support 
me in my effort to sustain the budget.
  Mr. President, I will be making a budget point of order.
  Mr. CONRAD. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. NICKLES. I will be happy to yield to my colleague, but I am not 
quite finished.
  Pursuant to section 502(c)(5) of House Concurrent Resolution 95, the 
fiscal year 2004 budget resolution, I raise a point of order against 
the emergency designation provision contained in the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Part of what the Senator said I agree with. We should 
have been able to assign more money under our allocation process to 
this subcommittee. We are not able to do so. However, the Senator from 
Oklahoma was incorrect when he said we did not give them more money. 
Through the agreement with the administration, we did bring back money 
from the allocation process for education. We increased that amount, by 
virtue of what

[[Page S11313]]

we did, by $2.2 billion. We took $3 billion out of Defense and 
allocated it to several subcommittees, including $800 million to this 
subcommittee. But very clearly, this subcommittee is short of money.
  There are a great many problems that we face. This bill is going to 
conference, and we don't know how we are going to work out some of the 
items in this bill. There are several allocations we have made under 
our process that the House has not made. I take the position that this 
emergency is necessary to get this item to conference to see how we can 
allocate it. Obviously, we are not going to bring a bill out of 
conference that the President will veto. If the President tells us he 
is going to veto it because of these emergency designations, assuming 
the House would agree to it--we don't know if the House will agree to 
it--but I do know this bill is very short of money.
  The demands on our society are now so great that all of the things 
from SARS, to the things the CDC is doing, and all the things NIH is 
doing--this is a bill that just absolutely demands funding.
  I take the position that it is not inconsistent with the comments I 
made to the President--that I would not support emergencies unless 
there was a true emergency. I think this is a true emergency.
  But in any event, if the Senate will vote as the managers of this 
bill have requested, we will take the bill to conference at $1.5 
billion more than the maximum amount I could possibly allocate and meet 
the other demands of our other 12 subcommittees.
  I say to the Senator from Oklahoma that I don't think I am breaking 
my word at all. I hope the Senate will support us in taking this bill 
to conference with the most money we can possibly find to put in it and 
go to conference with the House.
  There are a series of items in here to which we know the House will 
object. I believe by the time we come out, this emergency will not be 
needed. If it is needed, I will personally visit with the President of 
the United States about it, and we will see what he decides. If the 
President still takes the position that we should not include the money 
on an emergency basis, I will at that time oppose it.
  But right now, I urge the Senate to waive this point of order. If it 
is the first one waived this year, this is the one to waive. This is 
the one necessary to do so.
  I don't think it is inconsistent with my position.
  I will tell Senator Nickles, the chairman of the Budget Committee, 
that I think with the constraints we are operating under this year in 
view of the problems we have, being at war, and at the same time 
conducting all of these enormous projects that we are facing in terms 
of the health and welfare of our country, including education--this, as 
I said before, is the largest bill we have--this bill is underfunded. 
But it is not underfunded because of what we did; it is underfunded 
because of what the Budget Committee did.
  This is the one chance to overrule the Budget Committee. I intend to 
support Senator Specter, and I intend to support this emergency 
declaration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I remind my friend and colleague from 
Alaska--he is my friend--we had an agreement on $784 billion. The 
Senator from Alaska has an initial $5 billion on top of that. The 
agreement was $784 billion. The Senator from Alaska got $3 billion from 
defense for other items; then an additional $2.2 billion on top of 
that. A deal is a deal. If people do not want to waive the Budget Act, 
we don't have to have a budget.
  I tell my colleagues that if the VA-HUD bill wants to bust the budget 
by declaring an emergency, we can bust the budget all day long. Why 
have a budget? They want to bust the budget by another $1.5 billion. I 
am sure every other committee would love to. Why have a budget if you 
are just going to say: Wait a minute; for an appropriated item we don't 
have enough money. We want more, and we will declare an emergency. It 
doesn't count. Now this year you will go to conference with the House 
with different figures.
  We are going to have the same figures so we can finish the bills on 
time.
  I am just disappointed in the statement of my colleague from Alaska. 
I believe a deal is a deal and a budget is a budget. It takes 60 votes 
to waive the budget. If our colleagues elect to waive it, I guess that 
will be their choice.
  This Senator hopes that we will not do it. The NIH gets an additional 
$1 billion this year. Maybe that is not enough, as some would like, but 
the committee had $127 billion to allocate. They could have allocated 
that in any way they wanted. They had great discretion. We give great 
discretion to the chairman of the subcommittee and the ranking member 
of the subcommittee to allocate the $127 billion. Yet it looks as if, 
well, the NIH didn't do as well as many other accounts. Maybe that was 
on purpose. I don't know. I do know the total exceeds the budget that 
we passed. It exceeds the agreement we made with the President of the 
United States. It would say that $1.5 billion is an emergency for NIH. 
This is normally an appropriated item. There is nothing emergency 
whatsoever.
  I urge my colleagues to sustain the budget point of order and not to 
waive the budget.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I appreciate the comments of the Senator 
from Oklahoma. Up my way, we say, ``Wait until the last dog is hung.''
  The agreement we made with the President will be kept. In the final 
analysis, it was not based on the allocations we made under our 
allocation process. It was based on the total.
  We have 13 bills to consider. We will see to it that we keep our 
agreement with the President. As a matter of fact, he has the veto pen. 
He will see to it that we keep it.
  But there is a problem of getting bills done and taking to the 
conference the things that the Senate wants considered in conference.
  I join with the Senator from Pennsylvania and the Senator from Iowa 
in wanting this money considered in conference. If it is not approved 
in conference, then we will not have approval.
  I think there will be other items that the Senate will want to take 
out, and part of this money will come back in the final bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from North Dakota.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise to support the position of the 
chairman of the Budget Committee.
  The deficit for next year is now calculated to be over $530 billion. 
That does not count the $160 billion that is going to be taken--every 
penny--from the Social Security trust fund surplus. Now we are talking 
about an operating deficit of $697 billion. And we are acting as though 
nothing has changed. Something has changed. This country is digging a 
deep hole.
  I agree that NIH is underfunded. I would love to support additional 
money for NIH. But it is not there. It is not in this budget. It wasn't 
in the budget which I offered my colleagues and which the vast majority 
of Members on our side voted for. If we are going to be declaring 
emergencies on appropriated accounts where there is nothing that wasn't 
intended, there was nothing unanticipated, then we could just take the 
whole budget process and throw it out the window and abandon all 
discipline.
  This is a mistake, I say to my colleagues. It is a mistake tonight to 
declare an emergency where no emergency exists.
  I urge my colleagues to support the chairman of the Budget Committee.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. A point of order has been made.
  The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, this is the most spirited debate of the 
entire bill, and we have had some spirited debates.
  I thank the Senator from Oklahoma for his compliments.
  I haven't gotten around to totaling the savings. But I was pleased to 
hear that we saved some $24-plus billion. Over a 10-year period, it is 
in the high of $300 billion.
  I am pleased to note that I believe there is a very big difference 
between the National Institutes of Health and anybody else who wants to 
declare an emergency. Simply stated, NIH deals with life and death.

[[Page S11314]]

  At any rate, we have saved more than $24 billion this year--a vast 
sum over 10 years.
  I ask my colleagues to support this amendment, and I move to waive 
the Budget Act.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Senator from 
Oklahoma. And this is a spirited debate.
  I guess I rise in large part because of the agreement, as I 
understand it, that has gotten us to the point we are today; that is, 
to be able to progress on the appropriations bills with an overall sum 
that was set with a budget that was specifically designed and agreed 
to, which this amendment, as I interpret it, blows away.
  Although I, as a physician and as someone who values what the NIH 
does tremendously--indeed, it is my life, or has been my life--the idea 
that we add $1 billion as an emergency at this point in time is 
inconsistent with the agreements we made up to this date.
  Again, I would like to see that money invested and the NIH properly 
use that money well. If $1 billion is not put in, the NIH will be able 
to continue to do its responsible role, and fulfill that role, in a way 
that, to me, means this is not emergency money.
  Thus, I will support the chairman of the Budget Committee, the 
Senator from Oklahoma, in the vote which we are about to take.
  Mr. STEVENS. Will the Senator yield?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second to the request 
for the yeas and nays?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Leader, I state categorically I did not make an 
agreement on any particular bill. We made an agreement that the bottom 
line would not exceed the amount that the Senator from Oklahoma stated. 
We have a series of bills going to conference and we will keep that 
commitment.
  But with due respect, I made no commitment on any particular bill, to 
the President or to anyone else.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, to reach this total sum, we established a 
budget that we have been able to adhere to today, to which we have all 
agreed. My interpretation of this amendment, describing it as an 
emergency, blows away that budget which leads to the total.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, emergency, like beauty, sometimes is in 
the eye of the beholder. Quite frankly, to this Senator, every single 
penny we put into NIH is an emergency. If you do not believe me, go out 
and talk to a family with a child that just came down with juvenile 
diabetes and see if you do not think what we spend at NIH is an 
emergency.
  Talk to a woman who has just discovered she has breast cancer and is 
facing an uncertain future. Tell her that funding of NIH is not an 
emergency. Talk to someone who has suffered an injury who is now 
quadriplegic. They are looking for help to once again be whole again 
through some of the great research being done through NIH. Tell them 
this is not an emergency. Go out and talk to a family who has a loved 
one who has just come down with Alzheimer's disease not knowing what 
the future is going to be. A mother, father, grandparents, looking 
forward to the debilitating effects of Alzheimer's disease. Tell them 
that funding for NIH is not an emergency.
  Whether or not this is an emergency is in the eye of the beholder. 
Think of the millions of Americans who have been afflicted with 
illness, disease, and injury who look to NIH for the treatments and 
cures; think about whether or not every single penny we spend on NIH is 
an emergency.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I wanted an opportunity as a cosponsor 
of the amendment to say a few words and to add my support to that of 
the chairman of the Appropriations Committee and the chairman and 
ranking member of the subcommittee.
  We stand at a very unusual time. Because of the human genome and the 
advances in molecular biology, it is now possible to develop and target 
drugs to specific ailments and therefore to break frontiers, to cross 
barriers and make uncharted progress. What we began exactly 5 years ago 
under the leadership of the Senator from Pennsylvania and the Senator 
from Iowa was essentially to double the funding of NIH over 5 years, to 
be able to take advantage of the new horizon in front of us.
  I serve with President and Mrs. Bush, senior, as vice chairman of the 
National Dialogue on Cancer. Senator Sam Brownback has just come 
aboard. And in the Senate Cancer Coalition which Senator Brownback and 
I co-chair, we have heard miraculous testimony, for example, from Dr. 
Brian Drucker, the inventor of the drug Gleevec which is used to treat 
patients with chronic myeloid leukemia. Gleevec is one of a new 
generation of targeted cancer drugs that just kill bad cancer cells, 
leaving good cells unaffected. There is much less toxicity with this 
drug. Individuals do not lose their hair, they are not nauseated, and 
it has been shown to produce a 90-percent remission rate. That is where 
we are at this point in time. The sponsors of this amendment want to 
continue that advance.
  I say to my colleagues on this side, we all voted for a host of 
amendments. They all cost money. This is the big one. This is the one 
that will really make a difference for the health of Americans. If this 
amount is not added to the budget, the number of new and competing non-
biodefense research grants will drop, from 9,902 in fiscal year 2003 to 
9,827 in fiscal year 2004.
  NIH says the optimum number percent of approval for these research 
grants is about 40 percent. Through the increases we have made over the 
last 5 years, the grant approval rate is now about 30 percent. All this 
amendment does is allow us to keep even with that rate. Unfortunately, 
it takes $1.5 billion to do that.
  The suffering out there is enormous. Because of advances, we can find 
new cures and new drugs with better prevention and better 
rehabilitation. That is what I believe the American people want to 
spend these dollars on.
  I have faith in what the chairman of the Appropriations Committee 
said. Actually, I have never in the 10 years I have been here on a 
dollar matter heard him make a misstatement. I have no reason not to 
believe what he is saying. It may be true in absolute terms that this 
is not an emergency and the original plans were to take this money in a 
different way. For some reason that changed. The need is there. And the 
results will be there. I am absolutely convinced of it.
  Senator Brownback and I, as cochairs of the Senate Cancer Coalition, 
hold hearings. We hear from people. We hear from scientists. We hear 
from advocates. Yet more than 575 health, research, and disease 
advocacy organizations support this amendment. That is no coincidence. 
It is because people know now that because of the advances in molecular 
biology, because of the human genome, we are on the brink of new 
discoveries. We want those discoveries to continue.
  This is not pie in the sky. This is real. Every dollar spent will 
yield health dividends for people. I hope we will pass this amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion. The 
yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I announce that the Senator from Oregon (Mr. Smith) is 
absent because of a death in the family.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. 
Edwards), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Graham), the Senator from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry), and the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. 
Lieberman) are necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) would vote ``yea.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 52, nays 43, as follows:

[[Page S11315]]

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 346 Leg.]

                                YEAS--52

     Akaka
     Bennett
     Biden
     Boxer
     Brownback
     Campbell
     Cantwell
     Clinton
     Coleman
     Collins
     Corzine
     Daschle
     Dayton
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lincoln
     Mikulski
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Wyden

                                NAYS--43

     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Breaux
     Bunning
     Burns
     Byrd
     Carper
     Chafee
     Chambliss
     Cochran
     Conrad
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     Dodd
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Graham (SC)
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Inhofe
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Nickles
     Pryor
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Voinovich
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Edwards
     Graham (FL)
     Kerry
     Lieberman
     Smith
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 52, the nays are 
43. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted 
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected. The emergency designation 
is stricken.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. Amendment No. 1522 by the Senator from Pennsylvania 
increases spending by $1.5 billion. This additional spending would 
cause the underlying bill to exceed the subcommittee's section 302(b) 
allocation. Therefore, I raise a point of order against the amendment 
pursuant to section 302 of the Budget Act.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has raised a point of order.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I now send a series--
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If the Senator will suspend, a point of order 
was raised against the amendment. The point of order is sustained. The 
amendment falls.



                          ____________________